I tried posting this on /g/ in the programming general but nobody

/g/ knows shit ask at /diy/

>>336164
Well I'll try lol
I've been trying to figure this shit out for like months now but I have no idea wtf I'm doing

>>336162
So step one, obviously, is to identify the portions of the packet that are exactly the same, and ignore them.

Instead of deleting them, you might want to colour them a different colour, for ease of visualisation.

Snooping two different brand-new tubes of an identical model would be an easy way to see if they have a serial number, and/or the packets have a per-unit encryption.

Fucking with one of the bytes that doesn't change and seeing if it still works is an easy way to see if the packet is checksummed.

No-one can really talk you through this: you're the one with the hardware, you're the one that's going to have to do the science.

>>336174
Well everything I have looked up for reverse engineering hex has been for converting it to C code from compiled EXE's. This is just straight up data shoved onto a chip but it's all jumbled up of course.

I've tried resetting the bytes at the beginning there, the ones that are 0x00 0x01 0x02 etc on the dead cartridge to being similar to the working cartridge but it didn't work because other bytes are changing.

What did work however was saving the 0 flash data and when the cartridge died I simply copy pasted the old data back on and voila it worked like new. It had trouble flashing properly just like the patent said could happen. But after hitting the flash button about 4 times it started working again perfectly.
It seems to follow a pattern for the first 10 flashes and then gets all wonkey after that.

>>336177
"Hex" isn't a language, it's just a compact way of writing numbers that works particularly well for the kind of numbers computers use, because each digit has 2^4 values.

What you're looking at is not code, so it's not going to convert into C. It's basically the device's "savegame". Your best bet is to approach it the same way you would hacking a savegame: change the things you can change and see what happens to the data and/or corrupt the data methodically and see what happens to the device.

>>336180
The device tends to just not do anything lol
If you change something it gives the same error it gives when the flash count is done.
I can change it back and it works just fine so it's definitely not storing any data internally on the machine

>>336177
>What did work however was saving the 0 flash data and when the cartridge died I simply copy pasted the old data back on and voila it worked like new.
i was about to suggest doing just that as a workaround
>It seems to follow a pattern for the first 10 flashes and then gets all wonkey after that.
maybe its checksum based or they use various pages of the eprom to fuzzy store the data.
if i had to guess, the eprom only stores the amount of stats of stuff already done, and the 1500 hard limit is hardcoded/stored right into the machine micro-controller itself instead of the cartridge. chances are that limit was not chosen at random, it will probably fail to function or severely hinder its performance at 2k or so.
i couldnt find any knockoffs on ebay so i guess you are out of luck on that

>>336192
Actually it's not hardcoded in because hilariously enough the versions they sell that are like twice the cost of the one I bought have the same model numbers on the base as the one I have. They simply changed the plastic colour and obviously use different cartridges. Remington had to send a notice out to people that paid for the more expensive one that even though it had the cheaper model numbers plastered all over it that it was it the correct version.
So I'm like 90% sure nearly everything is in that chip. There's only one patent for the base model as well.

I had my last cartridge hit like 6000ish flashes before it cracked. But I want better flash tubes is why I want to hack the chip. It's not like good flash tubes are expensive and I can get way way more power than the 9J they set the machine to. I want like 40J or more. This thing can only seem to burn hair on the surface and it at best removes like 1 in 20 hairs from under the surface.

>>336196
>6000ish flashes

What are you, an orangutan? There shouldn't be a hair follicle left alive on your body...

>>336208
This thing doesn't just destroy hair on the first go. You have to go over your body like a bajillion fucking times for it to do anything cause it's not very strong. Plus the flash head is only 2x1 cm.
I have pili multigemini on my legs and arms as well so yes, I am an orangutang basically lol

I usually epilate all my hair which I think I'm just gonna start doing again if I can't get this machine to have better bulbs cause it's doing absolutely nothing to my legs.
It surprisingly works on my face though. That's the only spot it seems to do anything. Did absolutely nothing to my pubes though so I started epilating my pubes again