Z-Wave
Dave Houston
have licensed the technology. Do they have FCC certified & UL approved
products?
The specs sound good, using MD-5 encrypted, 2-way RF with each device
including an RF repeater to address range problems but I question the
projected prices. And ACT isn't known for low cost.
There's a press release from Zensys (starting on page 2) here...
http://www.zen-sys.com/Press%20Releases/HNN%2014.08_zensys.pdf
Jason
21st century, and X-10 is still the most practical solution. ACT and Zensys
are sitting on a potential billion dollar market. If they can put together a
cost-effective, reliable, and easy to use system, everyone will buy it.
"Dave Houston" <dhou...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:3d0f3288....@nntp.fuse.net...
Dave Houston
some very low cost FSK transceiver chips from Norway last fall for use in a
2-way RF module for a PDA. I'm betting Zensys is using the same chips. The
question is cost and whether they can deal with multipath reception.
I think costs will be at least twice what Zensys projects and then ACT will
double that. I also think multipath reception will be a big problem.
From a purely functional point of view, whether controlled by RF, by RS-485
(ALC, etc), or by the powerline, a switch/dimmer must still perform more or
less the same functions. If all of the existing quality switches are in the
$75-150 range, it's hard to see how Zensys can change the fundamentals. ACT
does not currently make mass market modules at mass market prices. I doubt
that will change.
Zensys says, "the nodes themselves can figure out how signals can best get
from one point to another." I do not believe that for a microsecond.
Household wiring, EMT, metal junction boxes, metallic vapor barriers, metal
flashings, wire lathe, etc. will all present problems for signal
propagation. Reflections, refractions, absorption, humidity, temperature,
and people moving about will all affect communication between modules. Most
of the X-10 powerline propagation problems are well understood and easily
solved. With low power multiple transmitter RF propagation patterns will
change from second to second.
The missing link is an affordable wall mounted color touchscreen control
panel. The handheld 1960's look unit shown in ACT's ads is a non-starter. If
it's not nailed down, it will quickly become the "missing link".
Zensys was started by a bunch of financial and marketing types. I suspect
their real business plan is to get bought out by X-10. ;)
"Jason" <an...@anon.com> wrote:
Fringe Ryder
Why does this amaze you? X10 is only about 25 years old. We still use
telephone which is over 100, radio over 75 easy, television over 50, our
home wiring hasn't changed significantly in the better part of a century,
excepting the switch to circuit breakers and away from aluminum.
Refridgerators haven't fundamentally changed since invention, nor have
automobiles really.
X10 is the most practical solution still for several obvious reasons
(except to young whippersnappers who idiotically equate "over 10 years old"
with "ancient" with "obsolete"):
1. It worked then, and the world hasn't fundamentally changed.
2. The R&D has long ago been amortized, so there's not a whole lot of cost
reason not to use it.
3. The patents have long ago expired, so there's even less reason not to
use it.
4. It's cheap (see #2 and #3), so it's really hard to compete against.
Newer systems can sport improved speed and security, but while they can
improve nominally on reliability, Leviton, ACT, and Lightolier have
improved X10 reliability to the point where, for most consumers, it's not
an issue. Sure you wouldn't want to run a pacemaker or iron lung on it,
but you wouldn't run 'em on any other HA system either.
So the bottom line, for people who care more about functionality and value
than about raw newness, is that X10 is better. It's good enough at a
significantly lower cost, and being good enough so cheap provides an
incredible "barrier to entry" for competing systems.
One last thing on RF-based systems... I don't have one and don't want one.
Not only is the cost of any such system prohibitive, but I also don't want
MORE RF signals wafting through my soft tissues, gently microwaving my DNA
into beef jerky. And they're NEVER reliable. They may not false and they
may keep trying over and over, but get a few RF video modulators, a few
flaky older CF bulbs, a cheap cordless phone or three, a baby monitor, some
wireless speakers for the lawn, a bluetooth and a wireless ethernet system
in there and you may be talking a different story.
</FOGEY RANT>
The amazing thing is I'm not really old, certainly not to fogey status.
Not even 40 yet. Not even close. But I get really incensed when people
wonder why a newer technology hasn't fixed an older one that really just
plain isn't sufficiently broken to NEED fixing.
- EMail must delete "delete" embedded in domain
Dave Houston
Fringe Ryder <fri...@deletefringeweb.com> wrote:
Dave Houston
><most of FOGEY RANT snipped>
>
>One last thing on RF-based systems... I don't have one and don't want one.
>Not only is the cost of any such system prohibitive, but I also don't want
>MORE RF signals wafting through my soft tissues, gently microwaving my DNA
>into beef jerky. And they're NEVER reliable. They may not false and they
>may keep trying over and over, but get a few RF video modulators, a few
>flaky older CF bulbs, a cheap cordless phone or three, a baby monitor, some
>wireless speakers for the lawn, a bluetooth and a wireless ethernet system
>in there and you may be talking a different story.
Your 'fringe' views on this may soon become mainstream.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_2053000/2053565.stm
Dave Houston
>I take exception with their statement that X10 is so unreliable. I suppose
>the thousands of people who buy a starter kit, experience problems, file it in
>the back of the closet and forget the whole thing far outnumber those who
>"thrive" on making the darned stuff work. However, with a little effort and
>perhaps $50 worth of test gear most home handymen can achieve at least 98%
>success with X10. I rate my system as 100% for the past two years or so.
>
>The single most troublesome aspect of X10 for me was getting reliable RF
>coverage - that has been solved by the BX24-AHT (Thanks Dave).
>
>Dave, I think you've hit the proverbial nail on the head concerning end user
>costs for this new technology. ACT is not going to become the next HA low
>ball marketer.
>
>I think the biggest problem to mass marketing low end lighting and HVAC
>control is that there isn't all that much demand by the average consumer.
>Most people are satisfied with plug in timers - and they already have plenty
>with random timed events to provide that "at home" look - if such a thing
>actually exists or fools anyone.
>
>I see a growing market for high-end, professionally installed, HA including
>home theater and security. I see a small group of geeks, that love to make
>this stuff work and enjoy the challenge of justifying to their better half and
>neighbors how automating your outside lights can be worth $500. And lastly
>there is the mass of average consumers who have tried X10 from Radio Shack or
>Home Depot, had a bad experience and would likely not be enthusiastic to try
>the new technology, or are part of the even larger mass that simply isn't
>interested.
>
>My prediction - X10 will remain the poor man's HA choice for some time to come
>- buy a CD and forget about investing in this surely doomed new kid on the
>block.
They claim 24 engineers on staff. That $15 million in initial capital should
last 6 months.
---
http://www.laser.com/dhouston/
Jason
category, and out of the mass market.
Accept it, X-10 is obsolete CRAP. If it wasn't we wouldn't need all kinds of
tricks and test equipment to make it work reliably. Mass market will
eventually(hopefully) drive X10 into the landfill where it belongs. Why does
a piece of crap light switch cost $79 when a 100% reliable throw away cell
phone costs $19.95? A plain "decora style" switch can be had for 79 cents at
the builders supply. I've seen toggle style switches on sale at Menards for
39 cents. Add a couple of chips, and it should not be more than $5 in
volume.
As far as fridges go, I'll take my modern Maytag over the old Crosley any
day. The basic operating principle is the same, but the results are light
years apart.
Home wiring 100 years ago did not even use insulation. Ever seen it? Fires
were common place.
You forgot to mention cars. They still have a gasoline engine and four
tires, but I much prefer my 2001 Taurus to my 1968 AMC ambassador.
"Fringe Ryder" <fri...@deletefringeweb.com> wrote in message
news:0ucvgusovclnsutoe...@4ax.com...
> <FOGEY RANT ON>
delete" embedded in domain
Fringe Ryder
>It is that mindset that has kept X-10 in the predominantly "hobbyist"
>category, and out of the mass market.
Not really. It's simply that most Americans still can't program their VCRs
even WITH VCR+ codes in the TV Guide. Programming their house is beyond
their aspirations.
>Accept it, X-10 is obsolete CRAP. If it wasn't we wouldn't need all kinds of
>tricks and test equipment to make it work reliably.
Jason, we DON'T. What tricks and test equipment do you need, precisely?
If you install decent modern X10 stuff (e.g. a Leopard with Leviton or
Lightolier switches), reliability is very good.
Sure, the $8 base X10-brand switches aren't very reliable, but neither are
$150 Goldstar or $300 Roper refridgerators, $8000 Kia automobiles, etc.
You pays more, you gets more.
> Mass market will eventually(hopefully) drive X10 into the landfill where it belongs. Why does
>a piece of crap light switch cost $79 when a 100% reliable throw away cell
>phone costs $19.95?
The $79 Leviton/Lightolier switches are very nice, very reliable, and cost
nearly that much without the X10 circuitry. (We had their normal paddle
LED electronic dimmers before automating; still do in some rooms.)
> A plain "decora style" switch can be had for 79 cents at
>the builders supply.
Yes, but it doesn't dim, doesn't remember the last high, etc. You're just
wanking off here, Jason. Stay on topic. Compare the $8 X10 switch to the
cheapest plain dimmer, since both can dim. Compare a high-end paddle
dimmer to a high-end Leviton or Lightolier X10 dimmer.
>As far as fridges go, I'll take my modern Maytag over the old Crosley any
>day. The basic operating principle is the same, but the results are light
>years apart.
Exactly the point. Get some good X10-standard stuff for better ergonomics,
better reliability,e tc.
>You forgot to mention cars. They still have a gasoline engine and four
>tires, but I much prefer my 2001 Taurus to my 1968 AMC ambassador.
Yes, and I prefer my Leopard to the old clock-controller. But they do the
same thing.
Every point you tried to make, you shot down yourself. Perhaps you're
getting caught up in semantics. X10 the Company produces dreck. X10 the
Standard works quite well for the intended purpose, as applied by Adicon,
Leviton, Lightolier, ACT, PCS, and many others. Just not as applied in the
sub-$50 domain or by X10.com.
Jason
"John, Retired to SW Missouri" <jmj...@axs.net> wrote in message
news:3d111d65...@news2.axs.net...
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 18:03:25 GMT, "Jason" <an...@anon.com> wrote:
> Some people that receive daily X10 pop-ups may argue that X10 is not 'out'
of
> the mass market ;-)
The popups advertise their crappy cameras, not the crappy switches.
> My PCS light switches are in the $79 range - and they are 100% reliable -
> hardly categorized as a piece of crap. You haven't been using that "Link"
> stuff have you?
Read through past messages, and their are countless complaints of the
switches NOT being 100% reliable.
> when a 100% reliable throw away cell
> >phone costs $19.95?
>
> They $19.95 isn't where the money is MADE- you should know that when you
pay
> your monthly cell bill. Same applies to DirecTV - do you really think
they
> can produce the receiver system for $20?
Wrong. Actually it is $29, my mistake. The 29 bucks INCLUDES several hours
of air time. The phones probably don't cost more than $5 to produce. Human
hands never touch them. 100% automated.
> I'd be careful of those 39 cent light switches at Menards - they may cause
> your own fire one of these days - especially if you take advantage of the
> stab-lock feature.
Yes, the 39cent switches should be avoided, but I would guess that even at
39cents, the mechanical quality is head and shoulders better than the X10
brand switches. My new home used some off brand switches, and the licensed
electricions used the "stab locks". There nothing wrong with it.
> Volume is the secret word. If x10 were to market PCS switches they could
be
> selling them for 1/3 of what I pay now.
Yes!!! But, that can't happen until they get their act together and market
toward the mass market.
> >As far as fridges go, I'll take my modern Maytag over the old Crosley any
> >day. The basic operating principle is the same, but the results are light
> >years apart.
> >
> >Home wiring 100 years ago did not even use insulation. Ever seen it?
Fires
> >were common place.
>
> I assume you're referring to knob-n-tube. These were very safe
installations
> - they never ran two conductors near each other. I'm speculating when I
say
> that copper-clad aluminum romex cable caused 1,000 times more residential
> fires than knob-n-tube installations.
You think bare copper running through walls, attics, and crawl spaces is
safe?
> >You forgot to mention cars. They still have a gasoline engine and four
> >tires, but I much prefer my 2001 Taurus to my 1968 AMC ambassador.
>
> Of course your Taurus may have cost $20,000 and your AMC may have been
$6,000.
Again, you are wrong. With inflation adjustments, autos have consistently
gotten cheaper for what you get. Only the rich drove model T's. The quality,
reliability, and safety level is so much better that you can't even compare
new cars to ones produced even 30 years ago. Tires rarely even go flat
anymore.
It is about time that someone has taken the initiative to come up with an
entirely new protocol. The protocol that X-10 uses is inherently slow and
unreliable. Try putting 20 2way switches and a dozen motion sensors in your
home, and watch the system crash and burn. If it wasn't unreliable, then why
do we need amplifiers, filters, phase couplers, firewalls, etc.. to make it
work? The mass consumer would never buy it.
I'm not totally against X-10, afterall I have it in my home. But it is a
hobby more than a convenience. The amount of time and effort spent far
outweighs any convenience gain that would ever be had in a lifetime.
Jason
way below what modern technology is capable of. The part that bothers me the
most about X10 is the slowness. If I have a macro that adjusts numerous
lights, it can take up to 30 seconds to go through the cycle. As I
mentioned, this IS the 21st century. 30 seconds to turn on a few lights is
unthinkable. I welcome the introduction of a new protocol, and I look
forward to removing all the X10 devices in my home and depositing them in
the nearest trash container.
Dave Houston
[snip]
>Again, you are wrong. With inflation adjustments, autos have consistently
>gotten cheaper for what you get. Only the rich drove model T's. The quality,
>reliability, and safety level is so much better that you can't even compare
>new cars to ones produced even 30 years ago. Tires rarely even go flat
>anymore.
Nope. My mother, who was recently out of college and working as a school
teacher in Kentucky, was certainly not rich (and never got rich teaching)
but she drove a Model T. Ford sold over 15,000,000 between 1908 and 1927. It
was the VW Beetle of its day, a low priced model meant for the masses.
>It is about time that someone has taken the initiative to come up with an
>entirely new protocol. The protocol that X-10 uses is inherently slow and
>unreliable. Try putting 20 2way switches and a dozen motion sensors in your
>home, and watch the system crash and burn. If it wasn't unreliable, then why
>do we need amplifiers, filters, phase couplers, firewalls, etc.. to make it
>work? The mass consumer would never buy it.
CeBus and LonWorks have faster, more robust powerline protocols. They've
been available for years without making much headway in the market. There
are others, more recent, and less well known. There are several in Europe
where CE has mandated a different frequency than the one used by X-10. We
don't hear much about them. 6-7 years ago there were several powerline modem
chips that were designed for the European market. Today, most are no longer
manufactured. Even where the government tried to mandate a non-X10 (really
non-US) system, X-10 seems to be making more headway than any of the other
systems.
HomePlug is a high-speed, DSL-ish system that while it is initially being
targeted at networking PCs over the phone lines alread sells bridges at
prices that compare to the medium range switches others have mentioned. It's
just a matter of time before it will be used for switches, etc. But X-10 has
sold over 100 million units so they're not likely to disappear.
---
http://www.laser.com/dhouston/
Jason
with
> a very straight face that no electrician worth calling himself an
electrician
> would use the stab-lock connectors.
You've been out of the business too long. Almost all new homes(in my area
anyway) are wired that way now. I don't like it either, but it's UL
approved, and seems to work fine 99.99% of the time. I can't remember ever
hearing of a fire caused by modern romex. I'm sure there's been a few, but
it's rare. I have personally seen more circuit faults caused from cut
insulation being pulled through badly prepared conduit than I have heard of
Romex failures.
> of the high end systems at a cost we can afford. There is no break
through
> technology around the corner that will give us the performance of a
$35,000
> custom system for $150.
Think back 25 years to what the first cell phone looked like and cost. Now
compare that to the 4 ounce web enabled devices we currently have. Gene
Rodenberry couldn't have dreamed of what we actually have. Has the home
automation market even come close to this scale of improvement? It's
laughable. Of course it hasn't.
Why not 2-way switches? A fully automated home system with integrated
security absolutely requires it. I have my home web-enabled, but do you
think I can tell if I forgot to turn a light off or not? How about a motion
sensing paradigm, where you don't want the sensor to turn the light off, if
the light was turned on manually with a switch? 1-way just doesn't cut it.
As far as PCS, do a Google groups search with key words PCS, and problem.
You will get 605 hits. Not all PCS, but there are many issues. I would point
out that it seems that PCS is one of the more reliable, and most of the
problems stem from the inherent X-10 protocol, and therein lies the problem.
Fringe Ryder
>It is about time that someone has taken the initiative to come up with an
>entirely new protocol. The protocol that X-10 uses is inherently slow and
>unreliable. Try putting 20 2way switches and a dozen motion sensors in your
>home, and watch the system crash and burn. If it wasn't unreliable, then why
>do we need amplifiers, filters, phase couplers, firewalls, etc.. to make it
>work? The mass consumer would never buy it.
Yeah, but try the same thing on a cheap early-on TCP/IP network. Same
problems. Names like "packet collision", "state lock", etc., but same
problems.
Then we changed default structure to a hubbed system. But that didn't
solve it all, speed still suffered dramatically as you ramped up the
traffic. So now switches and routers are more standard. All of which are
additions to the standard.
Every technology becomes improved upon over time. Back to refridgerators,
we added automatic defrost cycles. Huh? Isn't that proof that the base
concept sucked by your standards, because we're just kludging a solution to
a problem on? Automobiles... got around carb and ignition problems with
direct injection, computers, etc., but still running very low Carnot Cycle
efficiency. So obviously the technology is inferior. (We'll leave
Wankles, which I adore but have never had, out of this.)
Jason, think about this also: Even WITH a coupler (which is not a protocol
problem, incidently), X10 is still magnitudes cheaper than the next
alternative. The Z-Wave crap would probably run over $100 per RECEIEVING
node, compared to $5 for a cheap appliance/lamp module... which haven't
changed AT ALL! The trouble is that when you ramp up the cost, you lose
more consumers than you gain.
>I'm not totally against X-10, afterall I have it in my home. But it is a
>hobby more than a convenience. The amount of time and effort spent far
>outweighs any convenience gain that would ever be had in a lifetime.
Speak for yourself. My wife and I use it a LOT. Wifey suffers SAD and we
live north of the northernmost "major" city in the contiguous U.S. X10
keeps her world brightly lit in the winter. (She won't do it herself; one
of the side-effects of depression on-set is an inability to do anything
about it.) X10 wakes us to a nice halogen and, depending on temperature
and time-of-year, a heater in the master suite, every morning... at times
appropriate to the day-of-week, easily overridable from a touchpad. We
live "out there", so it's really dark at night. X10 has the lights on
early morning and evening if it's dark when we're transitioning, and also
allows us to tell it when we're leaving and when we'll be back (again, from
the touchpad), and illuminates for those periods without wasting
electricity in the middle... and allows us to turn it on or off from in our
cars via keyfob (or HomeLink) remote. And we do. Every night we turn off
all the lights from the bed... no running around to catch them all or
worrying about "am I going upstairs for the last time?". If there's a
noise, we each have a "Night Path" button that turns on selected lights
inside and ALL lights outside instantly. If it gets dark while we're on
the sofa... under cats... we don't have to move and disrupt kitty to turn
on a light... but if a light is reflecting in the T.V. we don't have to
move to turn it out either.
And it's all bullet-proof. We have multiple sensors (obviously), lots of
RF switches, a Leopard, lots of wired switches, and lots of controlled
devices. No problems at all, excepting a certain fireplace fan that
disrupts baby monitors, intercoms, cordless phones, and everything else for
10 meters also.
I don't think X10 is the culprit in your problems. Not sure what is, but
it's been very reliable and beneficial to us... and easily added
convenience and health... beyond its cost.
Fringe Ryder
via "Scenes", which are fully X10-compliant, and direct dimming which is
less X10-compliant but works in most situations.
What you do is set up a code (or extended code, depending on brand) to be a
scene, and then program your switches for that scene also. For example, C1
could tell the kitchen light to go to 100% and the dining room light to go
to 50%, while C2 tells the kitchen light to turn off and the dining room to
go full on. (Or "transmit group to preset") No additional codes. Or tell
the kitchen light to go directly to 50% via a specific code (0-31 for PCS,
0-100 for Leviton.)
I do see your view though; X10 isn't instant. However it's pretty fast if
you do it right - i.e. scenes, presets, and direct dims rather than relying
on the original X10 "dim x 20" approach.
Ironically, I don't use the direct approach for the simple reason that the
speed doesn't bug me and I sometimes swap switches (and brands) around. I
have X10, ACT HomePro, Leviton, Lightolier, and PCS switches installed.
They don't all use the same direct dim or scene approach. A normal
consumer would more likely have all one switch type, but as the switches
have improved, I've bought more.
Dave Houston
The $35 LM14A lamp module is scene capable.
The secret is to use Stickaswitches for local control and a BX24-AHT to
capture and report all of the RF activity. This works even with the $5
surplus lamp modules with Magnavox & RCA labels on them. It avoids the X-10
switches which have a reputation for poor quality and it avoids the Leviton,
PCS, and Lightolier switches which have reputations for high cost. It even
avoids the Switchlincs which have reputations for both low quality and high
cost. ;)
Fringe Ryder <fri...@deletefringeweb.com> wrote:
Jason
compatible with HomeSeer?
"Dave Houston" <dhou...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:3d1207ed....@nntp.fuse.net...
Dave Houston
created a plug-in. See my web page for details on the BX24-AHT.
"Jason" <an...@anon.com> wrote: