[R-sig-ME] How to include autocorrelation in GLMM and what to do with false convergence warning message appearing after including an interaction term

[Lucia]

I will try to explain my data as good as possible.
> So we taged 13 different whales with a tag that records time, depth, 
> speed, angle of descent and ascent 25 samples every second.
> The normal diving behaviour of these animals is one deep dive of one 
> hour to 1200 meters followed by a series of 3-7 shallow dives of 20 
> minutes up to 300 m. Because the tag not always stays the same time in 
> each animal, my data is unbalanced and some tag records have one deep 
> dive and 6 shallow dives while other records have 7 deep dives and 26 
> shallow dives.
> I divided each dive in units of 30 seconds. for each unit I have the 
> next data:
> whale number, dive number, total number of fluke strokes in the 30 
> seconds unit of analysis, mean of the sin of the angle during the 30 
> seconds unit, swim speed, dive type(ascent or descent), dive 
> direction( if it is a descent or an ascent) and time since the start 
> of the dive and finally my variable response which is presence or 
> absence of one type of fluke stroke called stroke type B.
>
> I think there has to be some autocorrelation between each 30 seconds 
> unit of analyis and need to include it in my model but do not know how!
>
> I am interested to know what affects the presence or absence of the 
> type B stroke (which is a binomial variable with 0 and 1)
> so I decide to use a  binomial glmm with whale number as a random 
> effect. I included as well dive number within whale as a random effect.
>
> here is the model.
>
>
> glmm114<-lmer (StrokeB~ Time * 
> Depth+SINP+flukes*Depth+speed+(1|whale_number)+(0+dive_number|whale_number),data=Luciadeepas, 
> family = binomial)
>
> this is my final model after taking out the non significative 
> variables, the problem is that due to the interaction a problem 
> appears saying
>
> The false convergence warning message (8)
>
> I looked on internet and it says is a common problem, and some people 
> says that it doesnt make any change in the output while others says 
> that each variable has to be
> divided by 100. but when I do this then the variables that become 
> significant doesnt make any sense.
>
>
> Thanks so much in advanced
> Lucia