New Leviton Coupler/Repeater
Roy Ligresti
new
2-phase coupler/repeater with a PR-511 unit (infrared floodlight/X10). I
now
have something new to report. On many occasions, the PR-511 will "get
stuck"
ON. After some trouble-shooting, I found that the Leviton unit's transmit
light during this time will blink continuously. Shutting down the coupler's
two breakers stops this "infinite loop" situation and the PR-511 then goes
off. Somehow, these two units just are not compatible. I don't know if the
PR-511 is, somehow, noisy...or, more likely, my house circuits are noisy.
Any ideas ?
Roy
Dan Dugan
<roy...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
I have the Leviton 2-phase amp, and I'm having problems with getting stuck
in continuous transmissions, too. It stops when I unplug my HD11A
interface, so apparently there's some kind of feedback loop happening.
-Dan Dugan
Claus V.
2-phase coupler/repeater:
>> Problems, problems. I recently posted about my experience using
>> Leviton's new 2-phase coupler/repeater with a PR-511
Are you using the PR-511 in the multi-unit mode with other floodlights
slaved to it? I can easily see how a repeater could get into a fatal
embrace with the PR-511 in the this mode although it seems other repeaters
handle this without incident. Have you contacted either X-10 Pro (howls of
laughter) or Leviton or (wherever you bought it from - details please!) for
technical support? Leviton, at least, should be aware of potential issues.
> > ON. After some trouble-shooting, I found that the Leviton unit's
transmit
> > light during this time will blink continuously. Shutting down the
coupler's
> > two breakers stops this "infinite loop" situation and the PR-511 then
goes
> > off.
That seems to be a pretty conclusive indictment of the repeater (what's the
exact model number again? I asked for an eval unit early on so I could
write about it but none was forthcoming - now I am getting suspicious). I
don't suppose either of you guys has a Monterey analyzer. I'm sure we could
learn a lot about the problem by using its signal dissect mode to look at
each zero crossing to find out what's being transmitted by both devices.
> > Any ideas ?
I think the PR-511 is sending signals and then responding to whatever the
repeater sends out and sending more signals and it goes on until one is
unplugged. The HD11A may be doing the same thing but without seeing what's
on the line in terms of 1's and 0's it's just speculation.
Is anyone out there running either the HD11A or the PR-511 reliably on the
new repeater?
> I have the Leviton 2-phase amp, and I'm having problems with getting stuck
> in continuous transmissions, too. It stops when I unplug my HD11A
> interface, so apparently there's some kind of feedback loop happening.
Does your problem also stop when your turn off the repeater breakers?
Claus V.
Damon Bruccoleri
Send me some email offline and I will help you out.
I am not familiar with devices from other manufacturers but can give
detailed info on the HCA02.
I suspect these other devices do not respect the X10 protocol fully agreed
to in the industry spec, but then again, its something Leviton should know
about if its an issue there, and I can help with that.
"Claus V." <claus...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:971itf$apv$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Dan Dugan
<claus...@usa.net> wrote:
> Dan Dugan and Roy Ligresti wrote about their troubles with the new Leviton
> 2-phase coupler/repeater:
>
> >> Problems, problems. I recently posted about my experience using
> >> Leviton's new 2-phase coupler/repeater with a PR-511
>
> Are you using the PR-511 in the multi-unit mode with other floodlights
> slaved to it?
No PR-511 in my system.
I can easily see how a repeater could get into a fatal
> embrace with the PR-511 in the this mode although it seems other repeaters
> handle this without incident. Have you contacted either X-10 Pro (howls of
> laughter) or Leviton or (wherever you bought it from - details please!) for
> technical support? Leviton, at least, should be aware of potential issues.
Have not. Someone named Damon Bruccoleri wrote me yesterday asking for
details, didn't identify him/herself.
> > > ON. After some trouble-shooting, I found that the Leviton unit's
> transmit
> > > light during this time will blink continuously. Shutting down the
> coupler's
> > > two breakers stops this "infinite loop" situation and the PR-511 then
> goes
> > > off.
>
> That seems to be a pretty conclusive indictment of the repeater (what's the
> exact model number again?
Mine is Leviton HCA02-10E.
I asked for an eval unit early on so I could
> write about it but none was forthcoming - now I am getting suspicious). I
> don't suppose either of you guys has a Monterey analyzer. I'm sure we could
> learn a lot about the problem by using its signal dissect mode to look at
> each zero crossing to find out what's being transmitted by both devices.
I have only an Elk meter, don't have a probe for my scope that can look at
ac line safely.
> > > Any ideas ?
>
> I think the PR-511 is sending signals and then responding to whatever the
> repeater sends out and sending more signals and it goes on until one is
> unplugged. The HD11A may be doing the same thing but without seeing what's
> on the line in terms of 1's and 0's it's just speculation.
I think so too.
> Is anyone out there running either the HD11A or the PR-511 reliably on the
> new repeater?
It's reliable after I took the macros out of the program.
> > I have the Leviton 2-phase amp, and I'm having problems with getting stuck
> > in continuous transmissions, too. It stops when I unplug my HD11A
> > interface, so apparently there's some kind of feedback loop happening.
>
> Does your problem also stop when your turn off the repeater breakers?
Not having it now...
-Dan
Claus V.
> > Dan Dugan and Roy Ligresti wrote about their troubles with the new
Leviton
> > 2-phase coupler/repeater:
> >
> > >> Problems, problems. I recently posted about my experience using
> > >> Leviton's new 2-phase coupler/repeater with a PR-511
> >
> > Are you using the PR-511 in the multi-unit mode with other floodlights
> > slaved to it?
>
> No PR-511 in my system.
Sorry - I doubled up the quesion - that part was for Roy.
> > That seems to be a pretty conclusive indictment of the repeater (what's
the
> > exact model number again?
>
> Mine is Leviton HCA02-10E.
Thanks - that's the one that Tom of Worthington was recently talking about,
IIRC.
> > learn a lot about the problem by using its signal dissect mode to look
at
> > each zero crossing to find out what's being transmitted by both devices.
>
> I have only an Elk meter, don't have a probe for my scope that can look at
> ac line safely.
>
> > > > Any ideas ?
Nope - this is really one of those few situations where only an analyzer
will help. But identifying the cause of the problem might be enough for me
to reproduce the problem here and look at it on my analyzer if I ever get my
hands on an HCA02-10E repeater unit. Perhaps one of the other CHA readers
has both and can look at some transmissions.
> > I think the PR-511 is sending signals and then responding to whatever
the
> > repeater sends out and sending more signals and it goes on until one is
> > unplugged. The HD11A may be doing the same thing but without seeing
what's
> > on the line in terms of 1's and 0's it's just speculation.
>
> I think so too.
It's less clear to me what the possible mechanism is in your case.
> > Is anyone out there running either the HD11A or the PR-511 reliably on
the
> > new repeater?
>
> It's reliable after I took the macros out of the program.
That's a fairly big clue - but surely others are running macros with this
same device. Anyone out there who is?
Claus V.
Dave Houston
[...]
>It's reliable after I took the macros out of the program.
Do you mean fast macros (i.e. downloaded to the CM11A/HD11A EEPROM)? If so,
I believe they do not put 3 idle cycles between commands. This may be
messing up your repeater.
---
This message was composed entirely from recycled words and phrases using only
renewable, caffeinated energy sources. No trees or whales died in the process.
Damon Bruccoleri
I have approached the engineer who designed the HCA02.
He tried what was suggested and says you WASTED a DAY OF HIS TIME! If you
cannot help me I will lose credibility with him. I tried to email you,
please respond. He said something about the boy who cried wolf. He begged
you call Leviton tech support.
-Damon
"Dave Houston" <dhou...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:3a956fac....@nntp.fuse.net...
Dan Lanciani
| I have approached the engineer who designed the HCA02.
|
| He tried what was suggested and says you WASTED a DAY OF HIS TIME!
Debugging your products is never a waste of time. :)
Just to add my own wild speculations to this thread: I noticed some time
ago that the PR511 responds to a status query so quickly that a CM11a with
recent firmware requests polls for a buffer upload before it ever acknowledges
transmission of the query that elicited the response. (This is of course a
bug in the CM11a, but it takes a fast transceiver to provoke it.) If you
handle retries in the obvious way (service the poll, repeat your command) you
get into an endless loop. Perhaps the new Leviton repeater is a true store-
and-forward design based on firmware similar to that in the CM11a.
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
Claus V.
> | He tried what was suggested and says you WASTED a DAY OF HIS TIME!
>
> Debugging your products is never a waste of time. :)
Amen, brother. This is the third or fourth problem report we've heard of
concerning this new repeater. Where there's smoke . . .
> Just to add my own wild speculations to this thread: I noticed some time
> ago that the PR511 responds to a status query so quickly that a CM11a with
> recent firmware requests polls for a buffer upload before it ever
acknowledges
> transmission of the query that elicited the response.
It sounds like they have tested this unit with the PR511 at Leviton and have
come up empty. Perhaps there's some other additional component that
interacts with all three? They also may not have had the PR511 set up to
act as master to other lights - a scenario that I think could easily disturb
a repeater.
Claus V.
Matthew Lintula
for software to help diagnose the problem (sorry for the repeat here). I just
installed the Leviton HCA02-10E at my brother's house and he called me two days
later saying his lights were "going crazy!" I have a scope coming, and the probe
from ACT to use with it, but don't have either of the X-10 analyzers (but do
have the Elk signal strength meter).
His problem seems to be very unexpected lighting "action"
using some SwitchLinc 2-way switches, a couple of Leviton 6400-series
4-button wall transmitters, and the NEW Leviton HCA02-10E
Coupler/Repeater. Turning the coupler/repeater OFF "fixed" the strange
behavior, but now signals crossing over the opposite "sides" of the
breaker panel are WAY too weak.
I may need to call Leviton from his house during the day sometime soon. Glad I
saw these threads. May have to ask Worthington if they have heard of any
problems. Mine was from the first shipment they received.
Matt Lintula
Dan Lanciani
| "Dan Lanciani" <ddl@danlan.*com> wrote in message
|
| > | He tried what was suggested and says you WASTED a DAY OF HIS TIME!
| >
| > Debugging your products is never a waste of time. :)
|
| Amen, brother. This is the third or fourth problem report we've heard of
| concerning this new repeater. Where there's smoke . . .
|
| > Just to add my own wild speculations to this thread: I noticed some time
| > ago that the PR511 responds to a status query so quickly that a CM11a with
| > recent firmware requests polls for a buffer upload before it ever
| acknowledges
| > transmission of the query that elicited the response.
|
| It sounds like they have tested this unit with the PR511 at Leviton and have
| come up empty.
From the response (which seemed more concerned about WASTED TIME than
finding a problem) I couldn't be sure what (if anything) they really
tested. Based on extensive past experience, I conclude that when a company
responds with a vague ``we don't see it'' rather than a detailed description
of what they did, generally they haven't actually tested anything. Often
you need to be on the phone with the technician telling him to make this
connection and push that button in order to view the problem. Then you
get the ever-popular, ``wow, we never tried that before!'' Of course, with
large companies it can be extremely difficult to get the technician on the
phone...
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
Claus V.
> | It sounds like they have tested this unit with the PR511 at Leviton and
have
> | come up empty.
>
> From the response (which seemed more concerned about WASTED TIME > than
finding a problem) I couldn't be sure what (if anything) they really
> tested.
Yes - it would have been more comforting knowing what he actually tried and
that he's not just mad at being pulled away away from a hot Quake tournament
to answer an email - which believe me can take some techies I've seen all
day to craft.
> Based on extensive past experience, I conclude that when a company
> responds with a vague ``we don't see it'' rather than a detailed
description
> of what they did, generally they haven't actually tested anything.
A reasonable conclusion. I'm chomping at the bit to put a Leviton repeater
up on my Monterey to see how it actually handles some of the odder equipment
in my collection along with the PR511 floods (of which I have four - I
suspect the more of them you have the more problems a repeater might have
with them).
> you need to be on the phone with the technician telling him to make this
> connection and push that button in order to view the problem. Then you
> get the ever-popular, ``wow, we never tried that before!'' Of course,
with
> large companies it can be extremely difficult to get the technician on the
> phone...
It's more fun when you can hear the explosion or fire alarms going off in
the background! We has some removable SCSI devices that when hooked up just
right would incinerate the built-in power supplies in a loud pop.
Fortunately they were able to duplicate our test results easily and reworked
the circuit boards soon afterwards.
However I must admit I have run into techies who were not only well-versed
in their product but in a multitude of trouble shooting techniques, many of
which I picked up from them during the course of debugging HW and SW betas.
Claus V.
Claus V.
> His problem seems to be very unexpected lighting "action"
> using some SwitchLinc 2-way switches, a couple of Leviton 6400-series
> 4-button wall transmitters, and the NEW Leviton HCA02-10E
> Coupler/Repeater. Turning the coupler/repeater OFF "fixed" the strange
> behavior, but now signals crossing over the opposite "sides" of the
> breaker panel are WAY too weak.
It would be useful in troubleshooting to try to describe the bizarre actions
precisely so we could try to determine what device is really the offender.
> I may need to call Leviton from his house during the day sometime soon.
A problem like that may be close to impossible to diagnose without an
analyzer. If you live close to Washington, DC I could help you out.
> May have to ask Worthington if they have heard of any
> problems. Mine was from the first shipment they received.
They have a rep that reads through here from time to time. Maybe he'll pick
up on this thread. I would suspect the Switchlincs, not because they are a
frequent bashee around here but simply because I can imagine Leviton taking
the position that they don't have to consider Switchlinc behavior in their
own product design. Not Invented Here syndrome.
Claus V.
Damon Bruccoleri
It is a wonderful product.
"Roy Ligresti" <roy...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:3A96...@MailAndNews.com...
Damon Bruccoleri
Its wonderful but has its flaws.
"Claus V." <claus...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:976pr5$q95$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Damon Bruccoleri
probably fly an engineer out to a customers site.
No one on this thread has sent me even 1 personal email.
"Dan Lanciani" <ddl@danlan.*com> wrote in message
news:864...@news1.IPSWITCHS.CMM...
Dan Lanciani
| The Monterey does not respect the X10 timing. Be careful with that device.
Could you expand on this? Exactly what timing are you referring to and in
what way does the Monterey not respect it?
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
Claus V.
>
> | The Monterey does not respect the X10 timing. Be careful with that
device.
>
> Could you expand on this? Exactly what timing are you referring to and in
> what way does the Monterey not respect it?
Yes - I am quite curious, too. There's been some discussion of the
shorthand the Monterey uses to report various error conditions when reading
out codes. But when used in the signal dissect mode it looks at each zero
crossing and reports the raw data. There isn't much room for timing issues
when you're looking at each bit in sequence.
Claus V.
Damon Bruccoleri
LCD. They probably cant write the data fast enough and interpret good data
as BSC's (bad start codes). If you cross check the PLC data with an
oscilloscope you will see that everything in actuality is fine.
"Claus V." <claus...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:977cea$67q$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Dave Houston
which Claus, who denigrates the $50 ESM1 as lowly and unworthy, has
repeatedly praised as the be all and end all of X-10 tools and which Claus
has told us reports "tons of BSCs", can actually report fictitious BSCs. ;)
"Damon Bruccoleri" <dbru...@optonline.net> wrote:
Fringe Ryder
>They have a rep that reads through here from time to time. Maybe he'll pick
>up on this thread. I would suspect the Switchlincs, not because they are a
>frequent bashee around here but simply because I can imagine Leviton taking
>the position that they don't have to consider Switchlinc behavior in their
>own product design. Not Invented Here syndrome.
Claus, be fair. NOBODY can counter Switchlinc behavior. I recently
completed a competitive analysis of five different X10-compatible light
switches for an article, and came to the inescapable conclusion that of all
five brands, only SwitchLincs weren't even close to X10-compatible.
Expecting Leviton to test and work around known-faulty equipment is like
expecting to host a mission-critical application on a Windows 98 computer.
- EMail must delete "delete" embedded in domain
Damon Bruccoleri
I really really do like this device, even recommend it. We all need to
focus on interoperability and go over the X10 fundamentals. We need some
sort of industry sha-bang to attend. Ever since X10 lost the patents there
has been a vacuum forming with a fragmented industry. Dave, do you work for
X10? The dynamics here sometimes escape me. Its in all our best interests
to co-promote this, there are many companies, right now as we quibble, that
are trying to make inroads into this space with large amounts of cash. I
bet Leviton would come up with the cash to make something like this happen.
"Dave Houston" <dhou...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:3a97ce0b....@nntp.fuse.net...
Claus V.
> Claus, you are probably right.
About what? I think you may have misread my response. (-:
> It may be a limitation with the speed of the LCD.
I don't think so. The data is stored in onboard memory and doesn't update
the display in real time (if that's what you're referring to). I don't
think LCD speed is an issue but if you've got some explanatory information
to show me I would be happy to consider it. (-:
> They probably cant write the data fast enough and interpret good data
> as BSC's (bad start codes). If you cross check the PLC data with an
> oscilloscope you will see that everything in actuality is fine.
Whenever the Monterey shows bad start codes (BSC's) I have *always* been
able to track it down to a collision of some sort. It even shows the
garbage that some devices like two-way modules and TM-751's put on the line
at power-up. I do not recall any reports by any of the other Monterey
owners here of erroneous reporting of bad X-10 data. In my hands-on
experience when it spits out BSC's there's something wrong on the powerline,
period. I would trust the Monterey to give me a much better readout of the
strings being sent out by an X-10 device than any other device except an
O'scope, and most O'scopes have no on-board intelligence to parse and
readout the codes. It's absolutely primitive in comparison.
I'm also sure that in the signal dissect mode, where it reads and records
each bit in sequence, that any objection to the way it interprets bit
strings doesn't hold water. It will not only tell you the strength of the
bits, but the noise surrounding it at different points in the sine wave as
well. It's much harder to use in that mode but it does tell me with
stunning accuracy which bits were coming from the repeater and which were
coming from the original source (they will always show up at different
voltage levels).
Like any other X-10 receiver in the world the Monterey has to make certain
assumptions in the data parsing mode concerning the structure of the signal.
Devices that play fast and loose with the X-10 standard might fool it in the
analysis mode but NOT in the dissect mode. Even given that caveat, for the
several years I have owned it I have not seen it report bad start codes or
other anomalies without an underlying X-10 issue - the most common among
them colliding X-10 devices.
I trust my Monterey and love it and would recommend it to anyone who really
wants to knows what's going on on their powerline. Although it's far more
expensive than primitive LED bargraph meters like the Elk ESM-1 it's cheaper
than most O'scopes and a hell of lot more portable and easy to use. It's
really a "must have" tool for anyone serious about X-10 troublehooting and
has solved innumerable problems that a bargraph meter wouldn't even touch.
I would have to see some *pretty* conclusive evidence from someone who has
actually used one and written up some detailed analysis to make me change
that opinion.
There's no end of people in newgroups that will egotistically expound
endlessly and erroneously on equipment they don't have any experience with
but in this case I have used the Monterey continuously for at least three
years and it's been the most valuable piece of troubleshooting equipment of
*ANY KIND* that I have ever owned. I think I would have given up on X-10 a
long time ago without it. It has found signal suckers, colliding
transceivers, stuck controller buttons, severe noise problems, etc.
Compared to a bulky O'scope that can't store or parse readings - well,
obviously there's no comparison. The Monterey is smaller that a pack of
cigarettes with a simple line cord (no wall wart). It stores 190 of the last
received codes and has five different analysis modes built into it. Its
only real flaw as far as I am concerned is that there is no way to capture
the information to a disk file.
But the attributes of the Monterey Signal Analyzer really aren't relevant to
the subject at hand, which is the trouble reports we're seeing here
concerning the Leviton HCA02. I am absolutely positive that I could shed
more light on the repeater issue by watching it in the signal dissect mode
on the Monterey. If I could generate an endless loop the way that othere
here have done I'll bet I can even determine what it's happening.
Remember, the trouble reports we're seeing here are *not* based on Monterey
analysis, they are based on users observing that endless loops stop when
they take the Leviton HCA02 off line. I asked Worthington for a review unit
to write about but nothing ever came of it. Maybe you can persuade Leviton
to send me a loaner to analyze. (-:
Claus V.
Claus V.
> >I can imagine Leviton taking
> >the position that they don't have to consider Switchlinc behavior in
their
> >own product design. Not Invented Here syndrome.
>
> Claus, be fair. NOBODY can counter Switchlinc behavior.
Jeez, dude, I'm trying to be fair to Switchlinc for once! (-:
> I recently
> completed a competitive analysis of five different X10-compatible light
> switches for an article, and came to the inescapable conclusion that of
all
> five brands, only SwitchLincs weren't even close to X10-compatible.
My point is that a repeater has a lot of potential probelms right out of the
gate just because of how it must operate. It works because the X-10 spec
calls for a transmitter to send out two copies of the command in each
transmission. The HCA02 takes the first copy, reads it (probably does a lot
of analysis to determine what kind of command it was and how to deal with
it) and then sends it out on top of the second copy. It's not just simply
hearing a command and spitting out a duplicate as it's name implies, there's
some serious processing going on in there. It's a miracle that they can
sell the sucker as cheaply as they can and I suspect that problems that
we're seeing here might be easily correctable with a firmware upgrade.
But getting back to the HCA02. I guess we need to go back and look at the
trouble reports and try to determine if SwitchLinc is a common denominator
throughout.
> Expecting Leviton to test and work around known-faulty equipment is like
> expecting to host a mission-critical application on a Windows 98 computer.
It's a pretty small universe of X-10 device makers out there. Switchlincs
are popular enough that I would be disappointed but not surprised if they
were not tested by Leviton for compatibility. Were there 20 different X-10
switch makers out there it would be a different story.
Claus V.
Dan Lanciani
| My point is that a repeater has a lot of potential probelms right out of the
| gate just because of how it must operate. It works because the X-10 spec
| calls for a transmitter to send out two copies of the command in each
| transmission. The HCA02 takes the first copy, reads it (probably does a lot
| of analysis to determine what kind of command it was and how to deal with
| it) and then sends it out on top of the second copy.
That's one way to implement a repeater (and the way all the current ones
work), but you could also do a true store-and-forward. The current approach
is popular because it is largely transparent and because it does *not* require
all the analysis you mention. (Though are you sure that's how the HCA02 works?)
| > Expecting Leviton to test and work around known-faulty equipment is like
| > expecting to host a mission-critical application on a Windows 98 computer.
|
| It's a pretty small universe of X-10 device makers out there. Switchlincs
| are popular enough that I would be disappointed but not surprised if they
| were not tested by Leviton for compatibility.
There would be little point in testing a SwitchLinc against any repeater
that uses the current overwrite mechanism. A basic bug in the SwitchLinc
firmware (both versions 1.9 and 2.1) make it nearly impossible for the
SwitchLinc to benefit from a conventional repeater. Simply put, the
SwitchLinc ignores a good frame if it follows a bad frame. This pattern
is characteristic of what a switch sees in a repeated environment. Only
a store-and-forward repeater would be generally useful for a SwitchLinc.
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
Damon Bruccoleri
customers and our home automation industry. Everyone would stand to
benefit.
What would be the benefit to the customer of a store and forward design over
an overwrite mechanism? Besides fixing problems in other companies
protocols.
Dan Lanciani
N.B. I was not suggesting that you try to work around SwitchLinc's bugs. Only
that there is no point even testing since it cannot work well with an overwrite
repeater.
That said, there are two reasons to consider a store-and-forward design:
The overwrite approach is nondeterministic in that it ignores the potential
destructive interference effects between the carrier of the original transmitter
and the carrier of the repeater. It is always assumed that every receiver
either is close enough to the original transmitter that it hears the first
instance of the command or is close enough to the repeater that the repeater's
carrier completely overwhelms that of the original transmitter. In practice
making this assumption is a pretty good bet, but the odds get worse as the
system grows. Eventually you reach a size where it is entirely possible for
a receiver to be far enough from the original transmitter that the first
instance of the command cannot be read reliably, yet close enough that there
is enough carrier from the original transmitter to interact with a (potentially)
distant repeater's carrier.
The second reason is more general. As overall system complexity increases
and blind transmissions are replaced with sophisticated (by X10 standards)
medium access protocols, the "just stomp on it" exception for the repeater
becomes somewhat anachronistic. In the long run it might be better for all
transmitters (including repeaters) to play be the same rules. But I'm not
prepared to prove it yet. :)
Unfortunately there is a big downside to store-and-forward repeaters. While
an overwrite repeater can make dimming appear to work well enough for at least
manual control (it will still be subject to off-by-one problems, but when it
is your finger on the button you can compensate) a store-and-forward repeater
would pretty much have to forsake dimming altogether.
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
Claus V.
the
> | gate just because of how it must operate. It works because the X-10
spec
> | calls for a transmitter to send out two copies of the command in each
> | transmission. The HCA02 takes the first copy, reads it (probably does a
lot
> | of analysis to determine what kind of command it was and how to deal
with
> | it) and then sends it out on top of the second copy.
>
> That's one way to implement a repeater (and the way all the current ones
> work), but you could also do a true store-and-forward.
Wouldn't store-and-forward present its own set of nasty demons? Aside from
the time lag it would introduce I can see all sorts of potential issues with
macros and two-way operation as well as what I do, piggybacking modules to
prevent accidental operation.
> The current approach
> is popular because it is largely transparent and because it does *not*
require
> all the analysis you mention. (Though are you sure that's how the HCA02
works?)
It's what Tom Morgan told me off-line. I may have misunderstood. He seemed
to be quite knowledgeable about the product and has one himself but I have
not made that determination personally.
> There would be little point in testing a SwitchLinc against any repeater
> that uses the current overwrite mechanism. A basic bug in the SwitchLinc
> firmware (both versions 1.9 and 2.1) make it nearly impossible for the
> SwitchLinc to benefit from a conventional repeater. Simply put, the
> SwitchLinc ignores a good frame if it follows a bad frame.
That's certainly going to make a repeater that amplifies and repeats the
second frame very troublesome. (-:
>This pattern
> is characteristic of what a switch sees in a repeated environment. Only
> a store-and-forward repeater would be generally useful for a SwitchLinc.
A store and forward repeater would kill me because I use a double module
(one piggy-backed into another) to insure the darkroom lights don't come on
when I accidentally bang the belt chip transmitter into the wall. If I
understand you correctly a S&F repeater would very likely send two copies of
the command and activate both modules and turn on the light from a single
button push. No good! Ruined film.
I also do the same to conserve unit codes upstairs with two TV's piggybacked
so when I want to activate the second TV I push 7 again and activate the
downstream module of the two piggybacked modules.
Claus V.
Claus V.
> Leviton Tech support has had 0 complaints about the HCA02
>
> It is a wonderful product.
Yeah - but . . . We've already seen at least three reports of problems here.
Just because Leviton hasn't heard about the problems doesn't mean they don't
exist. If purchasers of the product got their repeaters from Worthington
there's some evidence that any technical issues reported back to them got
lost in space with a lot of other correspondence.
I think it's great that we have someone here that's got an inside track with
Leviton. Unfortunately that typically means you'll take a lot a flack for
anything that goes wrong with any Leviton product. <g> On the plus side I
think Leviton can gain valuable insight about their end users by your being
here.
Already we've unearthed a major disconnect - Leviton says there have
received no trouble reports (and I'm willing to take that at face value) but
the readers here know that there has been trouble with these units
nonetheless. Should this stimulate folks who *are* having difficulty with
the HCA02 to report their problems? I hope so.
But I'm with Dan, I would like to have the warm fuzzy feeling that the guy
whom you reported the PR511 problem to really took a close look at it and
didn't just blow you off with a comment about "wasting his time." That sits
very poorly with me. The PR5111, IIRC, is an item that has been once before
mentioned as a troublemaker for the HCA02). Something's going on, whether
it's Leviton's problem or another vendors remains to be seen. Do you know
if they beta test outside the company?
Claus V.
Damon Bruccoleri
You have hit the nail on the head on a couple of issues. Dimming is a
bitch. Dimming in the presence of noise (absolutely necessary for the
IntelliSense trademark) is even more of an algorithmic nightmare.
Perhaps the engineers at Leviton wanted to design the most robust product
they could that would actually work in close to all circumstances. Time
will tell. Hopefully Tom Morgan is monitoring for any new features on the
HCA02 and looking to bring back to those people any possible improvements.
So far, knock on wood, so good. I just know there will be that one house
somewhere that presents a new challenge though.
I think the new features on that device, the test button and the error lamp,
are real and useful features. Hopefully customers will see that Leviton
spent alot to research and design this product and is losing money on it,
probably in the hopes they can sell more dimmers. I am sure the Leviton
engineers never dreamed that Leviton Marketing and Worthington sales could
actually offer this to customers at only $65, the margins must be slim to
none. Worthington must be doing this to get customers to their site. Or,
maybe the both of them are doing this as a good will gesture to their
customers.
I am uncertain about this 'destructive interference' issue. I can see the
beating of the two signals on a scope, but have never actually seen a system
fail because of it. I think its a non-issue.
"Dan Lanciani" <ddl@danlan.*com> wrote in message
news:864...@news1.IPSWITCHS.CMM...
Damon Bruccoleri
I don't know what your agenda is here. But I am going to turn on my ignore
feature on you soon. I wish we could work together on real issues though.
CALL UP LEVITON, ASK FOR AN ENGINEER, and report a problem! They will
probably fly someone out to the site if it cant be troubleshot over the
phone.
I know for a fact this this product is in many homes with zero complaints.
It works well, and the new test button and noise detection features are
winners! I was just at a house that had two of the Leviton outdoor motion
floods and two HCA02's. It worked fine.
If your Monterey meter shows a storm of activity, I would suggest you get a
prom update from that manufacturer. And while your at it get them to
include the extended codes.
What your doing is very very bad.
Damon
"Claus V." <claus...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:97cads$nke$2...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Dan Lanciani
| Wouldn't store-and-forward present its own set of nasty demons?
Pretty much the same issues we have seen with the Smart RF repeater...
| Aside from
| the time lag it would introduce I can see all sorts of potential issues with
| macros and two-way operation as well as what I do, piggybacking modules to
| prevent accidental operation.
X10 commands (other than DIM/BRI) are supposed to be idempotent, so relying on
this sort of thing is dangerous. (Though I must admit that I do it myself to
some extent, e.g., I map three or more ALLUNITSOFF in a certain time period
to global ALLUNITSOFF on all supported housecodes..)
| A store and forward repeater would kill me because I use a double module
| (one piggy-backed into another) to insure the darkroom lights don't come on
| when I accidentally bang the belt chip transmitter into the wall. If I
| understand you correctly a S&F repeater would very likely send two copies of
| the command and activate both modules and turn on the light from a single
| button push. No good! Ruined film.
Yes, that will probably happen with the RF repeaters as well.
Dan
Damon Bruccoleri
I usually go out of the way to help people that I like, or ones in trouble.
The abrasive ones I turn off.
Damon
"Claus V." <claus...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:97cads$nke$2...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Claus V.
> Claus,
>
> I don't know what your agenda is here.
I'm sorry we seem to be getting off on the wrong foot. I have no other
agenda than to find out what's behind the *multiple* reports we have seen
regarding problems with the HAC02 repeater - nothing more than that. In
fact we wouldn't be *having* this conversation if it weren't for someone
*else's* trouble reports about the units. When this repeater first came out
I had a some off-line discussion with Tom because the unit seemed to good to
be true - a repeater with built in diagnostic aids for under $100. I'd like
to be able to recommend the unit to people knowing that they won't
experience *any* problems or tell them to avoid it if they own certain
conflicting equipment or if they do something out of the ordinary that might
give them problems.
So far, if you read back through CHA we've recently had one gentlemen report
that macros screwed up his HCA02 and another report that his PR511's caused
problems. I just want to know why. If that makes me a "bad man" then so be
it. I want to be prepared so that when someone asks about the repeater I
can say: "It works well with X and Y but not with Z." That's my simple
"agenda" - I want to figure out what's behind the trouble reports. But I
guess as Dan found out with SwitchLinc and I discovered with Adaptec
manufacturers often don't appear to want any help in refining and
troubleshooting their products.
Please don't take my determination to get to the bottom of the trouble
reported here to mean I'm saying that the repeater or Leviton is bad. I
suspect it's not even Leviton's problem but the fault of other X-10
equipment that's not playing by the rules. I want to identify that other
equipment, if I can, so that I might be able to intelligently advise people
who come here what they should buy. It may turn out that if folks already
own X-10 equipment from SwitchLinc or ACT they might experience some issues.
But right now I can't say for sure. I want to know that ahead of time as I
am sure do many other readers here.
> But I am going to turn on my ignore feature on you soon.
Well, that's certainly your right. But think about how the image closing
off channels saying things you seem not to want to hear clashes with the
caring image of a company ready to fly engineers out to a customer site.
It's not just me, BTW, both Dan and I felt the "Don't waste my time" comment
by your tech support person put Leviton in a far less-than-glowing light.
And even if you think *I'm* just dogging you and your employer you ought to
heed Dan's remark because unlike me he's a very well-respected member of the
HA community. (-:
I would have felt much better if you had told us Leviton tech support had
connected with the guy having trouble and would report back later after
trying to reproduce his results. C'mon, Damon, put yourself in the reader's
shoes, here. Does the "Do not waste my time" response equate well with
"we'll fly out an engineer to your site?"
> wish we could work together on real issues though.
Well, so do I. Accusing me of having a some hidden agenda is not exactly
the best way to move that joint effort forward but I can understand why you
feel under attack. We have a disconnect - I believe trouble reports don't
always filter up to the manufacturer but are very real nonetheless. It
sounds like you don't believe that, however. So then how should we evaluate
the trouble reports about macros and PR-511's that we've seen reported here
by others? Were they just complaining in an attempt to make Leviton look
bad? Possibly, but hardly likely. Perhaps they really, really did have
problems with the repeater. I tend to believe the latter and I want to know
*why* they were having trouble.
> They will probably fly someone out to the site if it cant be
> troubleshot over the phone.
I hope that's underway with the gentlemen who had the PR511 problems and
that what the techie reported back about time-wasting was not the end of it.
I also hope whatever results are discovered are also relayed back here so we
all can share them. I have four PR-511's (actually the X-10 Pro models) and
I think I'm perfectly justified in being worried after seeing the report
posted here that my HCA02 will go into an infinitely loop as well when I
install it.
> I know for a fact this this product is in many homes with zero complaints.
> It works well, and the new test button and noise detection features are
> winners!
Yes - I agree, those are excellent features and add to the reasons to
purchase this new device aside from the fact that it's half the price of any
other repeater on the market. I believe repeaters are going to become more
and more necessary in most modern X-10 environments and so far the HCA02
looks like the best deal om the market. Is there something so wrong with
wanting to make it better? And you might be surprised to learn that I also
agree with you that there isn't a flood of trouble reports but I hope you
would also agree that there are *some* reports and that they deserve to be
investigated fully.
> I was just at a house that had two of the Leviton outdoor motion
> floods and two HCA02's. It worked fine.
And I don't doubt that report. But those floods can be configured in a
number of different ways - it may be very likely that the gentlemen having
problems configured his units differently than the units that Leviton tested
and the units you just mentioned. But wouldn't it be nice to hook up tech
support with that gentleman and find out for sure what they problem is? I
think so.
> If your Monterey meter shows a storm of activity, I would suggest you get
a
> prom update from that manufacturer. And while your at it get them to
> include the extended codes.
No, it doesn't show a storm of activity because as I have noted I do not yet
own the HCA02 repeater. I've been following the reports here quite closely
because if it's not going to work for me I would like to find out before I
spend time installing it, uninstalling it and sending it back. I already
have an X-10 Smart RF repeater in the dustbin because it did not work well
within my environment. I'm trying to keep from repeating that repeater
mistake. <g> I have an HAC02 on backorder at Worthington so eventually the
HCA02 will meet up with my Monterey but I don't know when it will arrive.
FWIW, in speaking to Debby at Worthington she tells me a) they sell like
hotcakes and b) she hasn't heard any complaints about them. So I am quite
willing to agree with you that there have been very few problems reported to
the vendor and by extension, the manufacturer. But that doesn't mean there
are no problems.
So where does that leave us? With a number of public reports here which I
would like to troubleshoot. Those reports indicated endless loops and
lockups were solved by taking the HCA02 off-line. So "goodness" or
"badness" in my Monterey meter has *nothing* to do with people (who don't
own one) reporting endless loops. True? It also seems that these people
weren't having endless loop problems before installing the HCA02. My only
hope is that when I get my hands on an HCA02 that the Monterey would shed
some very precise light on why even these few people are having problems.
And, Damon, that's really why I am asking so many questions and seem to be
quite a pain in the neck to you, for which I apologize. But sometimes you
really, really have to be persistent to get to the bottom of things. I also
realize that sometimes persistence can be mistaken for aggression.
> What your doing is very very bad.
Kinda like right now. <grin> Uh, oh! Bad Claus! What am I am doing that's
so bad? You have my email address - we can take this offline if it's going
to get into personal issues. I had hoped that I have avoided personal
comments so far but I can understand how criticism of your employer or your
fellow employees can seem like a personal attack on you. Trust me, though,
it's not.
You seem quite knowledgeable, Damon, and are offering us a rare inside link
to one of the largest X-10 makers in the world. I consider that to be of
some value to me and almost everyone else here in CHA. So I am very much
willing to work with you to try to figure out what the issues are (if we can
ever get around to agreeing that their *are* any issues <grin>) with the
HCA02.
I think it's also important to remember that I didn't originate the trouble
reports posted here - I am merely trying to understand what's behind them.
From my perspective all I am trying to do is get smarter and to share that
wisdom with others. If that comes off as an attack on you or Leviton then
I'm sorry. I just had hoped that Leviton and its reps would be open to the
possibility of a problem in their product and would be willing to
investigate trouble reports (even those coming in through unofficial
channels) to get to the bottom of things.
If you're upset that both Dan and I made a point of your tech's remarks
about "wasting his time" well, ask yourself who you should really be mad
at - your tech who made the remark or the people like me who thought that it
made Leviton tech support seem uncaring?
Claus V.
Damon Bruccoleri
right. There are many variables involved. The CM11a also. I have email
from both Roy Ligrasti and Dan Dugan, I hope they can keep the board posted
as to what is going on.
Somthing tells me you guys are right, the Switchlinc is probably a problem.
I dont know alot about their protocol, but from what I heard it may be
incompatible with the HCA02 or the 6201, or any repeater that uses the
second part of the X10 message and overwrites it. If someone knew alot
about that product, I would be glad to help analyze maybe some sort of work
around.
Promoting interoperability should be number 1. I think everyone wins.
Thomas Morgan
ready for the EH show. Ever since the original post that I made about
the HCA repeater I have been beating the daylights out if it and the
performance has been flawless. There is a strange anomaly with
extended code that I cannot explain but I can duplicate. On one leg I
see ~.81m for all 52 cycles. On the opposite leg I get ~.52m for
cycles 1-20 and then 21-51 at ~1.1. The Monterey gives that a
strength of ~.52m not the assumed repeated level of ~1.1. More
unexplainable then wrong. Since the performance is perfect I have not
pursued it further.
The comment Damon made on standards is an excellent one. Things are
not getting better, only worse. How long can we expect controller
companies to implement protocol variations (Extended, Preset Dim,
Scene Select, Status Request)? Trust me, more is on the way (read EH
show) and with 2-way becoming reality it is going to get real
confusing (yes, I wrote 2-way! Finally, a SmartLinc alternative).
Unfortunately, loose protocols are only going to fragment the industry
further. The irony is that the Monterey has become the benchmark for
compatibility and they are a pool company!
My bet on the HCA repeater is that it is not the repeater but the
PM511 spotlights. In my last house I had 3 of them with an Apex
Destiny 6100 and a 6201 repeater. I experienced exactly what was
described. A signal was sent and then the repeater was put in a
tailspin. I always blamed the 6100 because it was known to be
out-of-spec and I did not have the issue with an OmniPro (removed and
the house was returned to an Apex). In the end I ripped the guts out
of the PM511 and turned them back to standard spots. Just as
mentioned, I had 3 so it could be an issue when you have more then 1.
Who knows? Bottom line, the PM511 is junk. It is at the very top of
our returned item list mostly because of failures. I have not heard
any HCA complaints except when the PM511 is involved. I also never
hear of 6201 complaints since the 3 phase version came out (~2 years
ago). Unless the described issue occurs with items other then the
PM511 is it worth chasing? Think about it, what else uses the
transceiver circuits found in the PM511? If there was an issue with
the PM511, how would it show up? Usually the circuit is in a number
of products so you point to that chip set or design. The PM511 seems
to be a one-of-a-kind transceiver. Please correct me if I am wrong.
At $39 it is hard to believe that the transceiver, motion, and quality
control is high quality. I have not taken the time to study the PM511
transmissions but are they dual frame? Could the timing be off? There
is something weird there but if the source is the PM511 the focus
should be directed at X10 not Leviton.
Damon, thanks for participating! It is great to have you involved.
Just my 2 cents.
Tom Morgan
Director of Worthington Solutions
Dan Dugan
>
> That's a fairly big clue - but surely others are running macros with this
> same device. Anyone out there who is?
I was wrong about that. The signal "storms" have continued several times a
day. Nothing to do with Macros. Sorry to have misled you.
Intermittents drive you crazy. You do something, the problem doesn't
happen, you think you fixed it...
Recording activity in Thinking Home's log.
-Dan Dugan
Dan Dugan
After reading this thread up to date, I regret having dropped out for a few
days. I was concentrating on offline correspondence with Damon. As I
reported in an earlier message, today's news is that my connection of the
racing condition with the use of macros in the HD11A was INCORRECT.
I know the race condition can be stopped by unplugging the HD11A from the
AC line. A couple of times the unplug would stop the behavior, and I could
plug it right back in again and everything would be normal. Another time
the racing started up again when I plugged the HD11A back in, twice, even.
Today I tried popping the breakers for the HCA02-10E repeater during a
racing incident. It stopped, but I can't be sure I got there in time; it
may have stopped on its own before I got to the breakers.
Maybe I could pull the HCA02 out of the box and wire it up between a couple
of extension cords where I can watch it along with the elk meter and the
Thinking Home log...
-Dan Dugan
Damon Bruccoleri
Hello, got your 'message'.
This thread is too complicated. Too many things going on from too many
people. Is there a way to sort out the multiple conversations?
The problem with the PR511 may not be the motion detector. That fellow has
multiple RF transceivers also plugged in. Could they be relaying the
message back and forth Tom?
Dan had sent me a log from Thinking Home and the HD11. Looks like Thinking
Home is the sorce of the activity from what I read so far....
The command protocol is not up for grabs. If a manufacturer does his own
thing then let the buyer beware. Even the data link layer and physical
layer seems to be in question. This is also fully documented by X10. The
sad thing is that the X10 protocol is not that difficult to understand if
you take the time.
Dan Lanciani
| The command protocol is not up for grabs. If a manufacturer does his own
| thing then let the buyer beware. Even the data link layer and physical
| layer seems to be in question.
This is very true. If only third-party manufacturers of X10 "compatible"
equipment could understand that there *is* a protocol, life would be much
easier for everyone. However, one big reason that this does not happen is
that...
| This is also fully documented by X10.
This unfortunately is completely untrue. Over the years X10 (in its various
corporate forms) has released selected tidbits of protocol documentation
geared primarily to showing how X10 would like third-party products (of the
kind that X10 would like third parties to build) to behave. This documentation
is incomplete and, in some cases, misleading.
As an example of the latter, you might find that X10 tells you to leave
three power line cycles between different commands. You might even find
that they tell you that their receivers *require* those three cycles. If
you are building a transmitter and you leave those three cycles, everything
will be fine because X10's intention was (in this case) to tell you how to
build a transmitter. But if you build a receiver that requires a three cycle
gap you may find that it doesn't work with a genuine X10 transmitter because
that transmitter leaves only a two cycle gap. X10's own receivers work fine
since they never required the three cycle gap in the first place. Of course,
X10 didn't want you to build a receiver...
There are many examples of the former incompleteness, e.g., the true semantics
of strings of DIM/BRI commands, the conditions for detection of a start code
(this one is more complicated than you might think), and even the operation
of the unit selection state machine that every third party vendor seems to
screw up in one way or another (in spite of my years of trying to explain it
with words and pictures :). Clearly these details are documented somewhere
within X10 because they were able to preserve the exact (if obscure) semantics
when they switched from the old ASIC implementation to the new PIC-based one
in their 2-way modules. But that documentation has remained internal along with
(among other things) the entire RF portion of the protocol.
| The
| sad thing is that the X10 protocol is not that difficult to understand if
| you take the time.
Indeed, this is not rocket science. But neither is it completely trivial.
And the lack of any formal protocol documentation means that they only way
to develop interoperable products is to observe in great detail the operation
of existing X10 brand products. From such observations most of the necessary
protocol information can be inferred, though even after years (decades?) of
experience I'd be hard pressed to tell you the exact semantics of microdims.
The problem is that many third party developers are unwilling to perform this
kind of testing (or don't even realize that they need to). The problem is
compounded when people like me (who know most of the necessary details) are
ignored because we can't point to a protocol document that shows that the
third-party product is in fact behaving incorrectly.
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
Dan Dugan
> That's the nature of troubleshooting. Lots of dead ends, mistaken leads,
> etc. Can you describe the nature of the 'signal storms?' Do they block out
> all other activity?
Here's an example of a log. First and last lines are normal signals, the
body is the "storm."
2/25/01, at 10:51 PM Kitchen Lights turned on.
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned on all lights for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "O".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned on Bench Overhead Light.
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned on all lights for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "O".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned on all lights for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned on Dining Room Light.
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned on all lights for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "O".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned on all lights for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "O".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned on Bench Overhead Light.
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned on all lights for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "O".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Brightened Dan's bedroom light by 50%.
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "N".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned on all lights for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "N".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned on Bench Overhead Light.
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned on all lights for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "N".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned on Bench Overhead Light.
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned on all lights for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "O".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned on all lights for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "N".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned on Dining Room Light.
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "N".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned on all lights for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "O".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned on all lights for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "N".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Unknown operation on device "J1", device "J5", device
"J7", device "J10", device "J11", device "J13" and device "J16".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "B".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned on all lights for house code "O".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Unknown operation on device "O5", device "O11" and
device "O14".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:00 PM Turned off all units for house code "M".
2/25/01, at 11:01 PM Kitchen Lights turned off.
Notes:
I am only using house codes A, B & C.
The few commands sprinkled in that refer to existing programmed devices
were not executed. I suspect this is mangled code due to collisions.
-Dan Dugan
Claus V.
seems to be a popular one to misreport - perhaps because the code for M
consists of 4 zero bits in row. The All Units Off command consists of 4
zeros followed by a one bit. So I think you may onto something. The
constant repetition of the same commands makes it highly unlikely, IMHO,
that your problem is due to garden variety noise on the line.
Good news is that my new HCA02 repeater just arrived via Fedex (a week ahead
of promised delivery by Worthington, FWIW) and as soon as I get some help I
will be violating the NEC by hotwiring it temporarily into my panel. (-:
Then I'll turn my analyzer loose on it to see what I can see.
Claus V.
"Dan Dugan" <d...@dandugan.com> wrote in message
news:dan-ya023680002...@news.slip.net...
> Claus, you wrote,
>
> > That's the nature of troubleshooting. Lots of dead ends, mistaken
leads,
> > etc. Can you describe the nature of the 'signal storms?' Do they block
out
> > all other activity?
>
> Here's an example of a log. First and last lines are normal signals, the
> body is the "storm."
>
> 2/25/01, at 10:51 PM Kitchen Lights turned on.
<close to 100 bogus transmissions skipped! - C.V.>
nibyak
surge protector. Nothing needed to be plugged into to cause this.
"Claus V." <claus...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:97jdl1$a8r$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Claus V.
> I used to get flooded by housecode M by my wife's "memorex" under
> monitor surge protector. Nothing needed to be plugged into to cause this.
That's fascinating - what program/device was reporting the spurious M
signals? I ask because it seems very odd (but obviously not impossible)
that a typically passive device like a surge protector could generate
readable X-10 interference. I'm not doubting your report, though, Nibyak.
I'm simply wondering if what we're seeing here has something to do with an
interaction with the logging device.
Can you describe your X-10 setup (controller type, types of switches,
repeaters, etc.) in a little more detail? When the unit was on line did it
inhibit normal X-10 communication?
Typically unwanted (though apparently legitimate) X-10 signals like you and
Dan have reported are caused by things like baby monitors and X-10 devices
in collision or locked in a fatal embrace. Do you recall what commands on
the M code were being sent? Was it the same as Dan's - All Units Off?
The plot's really thickening here. What did you do with the surge
protector?
Claus V.
Claus V.
I've just started playing around with my new HCA02. I began by hooking it
up as a single phase repeater for testing purposes by using just the
red/white wires (as mentioned in the docs) hooked up to a polarized plug. I
plugged it into a powerstrip next to a maxi-controller and hit the test
button and it generated p1 on's and off's as it should (with the lower case
"p" on the analyzer indicating it was only transmitting 1 of the frames in
the command, as expected), but only at 3.5 volts which sort of surprised me.
Then I hit the maxicontroller ON to stop the test, and the maxi, which
normally outputs a 4+ volt signal now dropped to 3.5 volts. I hadn't gone
into the signal dissect mode yet to analyze each cycle but I was really
surprised that the repeater voltage wasn't higher than 3.5 volts and that it
actually attenuated the voltage from the maxi. Of course these are very
preliminary results. When I unplugged the repeater the maxicontroller once
again output 4+ volts.
My question is - does 3.5 volts match your results as the maximum output of
this unit? Damon, if you're reading - do you know?
I realize that this isn't the normal mode of operation but I don't see any
reason the voltage would increase when I finally get someone to help me
stick it in the circuit box.
I can tell I'm going to really wish the Monterey had some way of
transferring its sigmal dissect data to a disk file. This manual
transcription is going to get old *very* quickly. (-:
The first column shows the unrepeated values - the second shows the frame
that has been amplified and overlaid on top of the original signal. What
really worries me shows up on lines 5, 17, 20 and especially 21. The
repeated voltage is substantially lower than the original signal in some
cycles but not in others. This is going to be very diifficult to sort out.
Repeating a 4.+ volt signal at 1.3 volts doesn't seem quite right. In fact,
at the end of a long run the 1.3 volt bit would drop down into the noise and
probably be read as a zero.
I thought at first glance it might be akin to the infamous TW523 problem
because the lowest voltage appears towards the end of the commands but I
will have to run a lot more tests to draw any real conclusions, especially
since the attentuation *doesn't* appear in the first two bits of the second
frame's start code and appears to be generally quite inconsistent. FWIW, I
reversed the line cord plug on the maxicontroller (it's unpolarized) with no
appreciable difference.
Now I realize that the unit's not hooked up as recommended but it's an awful
lot easier to do preliminary testing at my desk than it is at my circuit
panel.
# Bit 1st 2nd Frame (output of repeater & maxi)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 1 4.+ 3.3
2 1 4.+ 4.+
3 1 4.+ 4.+
4 0 02m 02m
5 1 4.+ 2.1
6 0 02m 02m
7 1 4.+ 4.+
8 0 02m 02m
9 1 4.+ 3.8
10 1 03m 03m
11 0 03m 02m
12 1 4.+ 4.+
13 0 02m 02m
14 1 4.+ 4.+
15 0 02m 02m
16 1 4.+ 4.+
17 1 4.+ 2.9
18 0 02m 03m
19 0 02m 02m
20 1 4.+ 3.4
21 1 4.+ 1.3
22 0 03m 02m
Claus V.
Dan Dugan
four-rocker RF wall plate transmitter. Since this device uses three
consecutive house codes, I set it up to trigger macros to work the devices
I wanted to control:
C7 on triggers A12 on
C7 off triggers A12 off
C8 saved for light not installed yet
C9 on triggers C13 on (C13 also has a hawkeye on it)
C9 off triggers C13 off
After I wrote the macros and downloaded them into the HD11A, I pushed a
button to test. A storm began. Having just told everyone this phenomenon
had nothing to do with macros, I was freaked. A coincidence, I suppose. A
few further tests did not trigger any problems.
Tonight I went to use the wireless remote for the first time. There was no
response to my button push. I ran to look at the Elk meter and the log.
Sure enough, I had triggered a storm!
Moving the Elk to where I could see it from the transmitter, I
experimented. Using the two active buttons (macros), a storm would be
triggered by about one press in ten.
I turned off the HCA02 repeater breakers. Now nothing happens; the house
code C RF receiver is on the other phase from the HD11A, and can't get
through to trigger the macros.
So I have to say now, macros aren't necessary to trigger this anomaly, but
they seem to increase its likelihood of occurrence. And I have a way to
trigger storms that will be helpful for troubleshooting.
Damon suggested I try putting a half-second delay in the macros. I don't
know how to do this; Thinking Home only allows delays in -minutes- on macro
actions.
-Dan
nibyak
This was a few years ago but I still have the power strip (filtered now)
so I'll pull the filter and see what shows up in the log. I'm using
homeseer and a CM11. No expensive switches (3 PLM21s) some motion sensors
and rf remotes. I am using two old RS remote control RF bases (looks like a
mini controller with an antenna and IR blaster window on the front) to
receive from some hawkeyes and sticky switches. Right now I have identified
all of the problem devices in that house (and fixed them) and even the wife
is pleased with the x-10 performance. I'm not using a bridge or an amp as I
just don't need one. I guess I have about 25 to 30 (maybe more) different
plug in modules, wall switches, and inline modules total one RR501 and two
TM751s. The way I filter most of my computers is using a TRIPLITE ISOBAR
surge strip (the metal ones). The things that gave me the most problems
(noise, signal suckers) were a Sony 27"TV, 2 viewsonic monitors, 2 RCA DSSs,
and my kids no name VCR. Like I said I'll check out the Surge protector
when I get home and see if I can get the M codes again.
Bill
"Claus V." <claus...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:97jmg5$kli$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Claus V.
> After I wrote the macros and downloaded them into the HD11A, I pushed a
> button to test. A storm began. Having just told everyone this phenomenon
> had nothing to do with macros, I was freaked. A coincidence, I suppose. A
> few further tests did not trigger any problems.
Oh boy! )-: This is really an intermittent problem of the worst sort.
<snip>
> I turned off the HCA02 repeater breakers. Now nothing happens; the house
> code C RF receiver is on the other phase from the HD11A, and can't get
> through to trigger the macros.
I think it's clear the HCA02 is part of the phenomena but what part isn't
eactly clear yet.
> Damon suggested I try putting a half-second delay in the macros. I don't
> know how to do this; Thinking Home only allows delays in -minutes- on
> macro actions.
From that advice I suspect that your X-10 transmissions are somehow
"stepping" on each other. The HAC02 is repeating something when a new
transmission comes in. Exactly how this is occurring is unknown at this
point, at least to me. Has Thinking Home tech support been of any help?
I've got my HCA02 on the test bench and although it's been exhibiting some
anomalistic behavior further tests have shown it to take a *distant* 50mv
signal and nicely boost it to 3.5 volts, just as it should. When the
transmitter is right on top of the repeater, though, odd things happen.
FWIW, my HCA02 is marked version 1.1 internally. Do you know what yours is
marked (you have to open the case)? Also, does the trouble light on the
unit come on during these storms or is it possible for you to tell?
Do you have an 220V appliances that might be acting as secondary bridges
across the two phases? (I'm trying to figure out what makes it behave
correctly at one time but generate X-10 storms at another)
Claus V.
Dan Dugan
<claus...@usa.net> wrote:
> Now I realize that the unit's not hooked up as recommended but it's an awful
> lot easier to do preliminary testing at my desk than it is at my circuit
> panel.
My thought was to plug it into extension cords from the two phases...for
test purposes only!!!
-Dan Dugan
Dan Dugan
<claus...@usa.net> wrote:
> I think it's clear the HCA02 is part of the phenomena but what part isn't
> eactly clear yet.
>
> > Damon suggested I try putting a half-second delay in the macros. I don't
> > know how to do this; Thinking Home only allows delays in -minutes- on
> > macro actions.
>
> From that advice I suspect that your X-10 transmissions are somehow
> "stepping" on each other. The HAC02 is repeating something when a new
> transmission comes in. Exactly how this is occurring is unknown at this
> point, at least to me. Has Thinking Home tech support been of any help?
Haven't contacted them...I always get better results from user groups.
> I've got my HCA02 on the test bench and although it's been exhibiting some
> anomalistic behavior further tests have shown it to take a *distant* 50mv
> signal and nicely boost it to 3.5 volts, just as it should. When the
> transmitter is right on top of the repeater, though, odd things happen.
> FWIW, my HCA02 is marked version 1.1 internally. Do you know what yours is
> marked (you have to open the case)? Also, does the trouble light on the
> unit come on during these storms or is it possible for you to tell?
Opened it up, mine is version 1.0
> Do you have an 220V appliances that might be acting as secondary bridges
> across the two phases? (I'm trying to figure out what makes it behave
> correctly at one time but generate X-10 storms at another)
No 220V equipment.
-Dan
Dan Dugan
(Dan Dugan) wrote:
Also, does the trouble light on the
> > unit come on during these storms or is it possible for you to tell?
Forgot to answer that: no, just the normal signal light blinking a little
faster than once per second.
-Dan
Dan Dugan
software. Certainly possible...but no, the phenomenon occurs when the
interface is unplugged from the computer.
-Dan
Claus V.
> Claus,
> This was a few years ago but I still have the power strip (filtered
now)
> so I'll pull the filter and see what shows up in the log.
Thanks! I'm really interested in the mechanism of operation here.
> I'm using homeseer and a CM11. No expensive switches (3 PLM21s) some >
motion sensors and rf remotes. I am using two old RS remote control RF
> bases (looks like a mini controller with an antenna and IR blaster window
on > the front) to
Sounds like it looks exactly like the Smart RF repeater. I've never seen
that model of RS RF base - the ones that I used to get a long time ago
looked just like RR501's. Do you recall when you bought it? Got a model
number handy? I ask because my RS RR501 clones had to be taken off-line
because of the collisions they generated with the newer TM751 transceivers.
IIRC, unwanted M housecode transmission were among many of the unfortunate
interactions between the two.
> receive from some hawkeyes and sticky switches. Right now I have
> identified all of the problem devices in that house (and fixed them) and
> even the wife is pleased with the x-10 performance.
Give yourself a gold star! Spouse approval of X-10 often runs very low and
Mother-in-Law approval even lower than that! I had to put filters on at
least 6 devices and I still finally had to break down and by a repeater
because the more goodies you have plugged in, the more the X-10 signal
attenuates until all the filters in the world aren't going to help.
> I'm not using a bridge or an amp as I just don't need one.
Consider yourself lucky.
>I guess I have about 25 to 30 (maybe more) different plug in modules, wall
>switches, and inline modules total one RR501 and two TM751s. The way I
>filter most of my computers is using a TRIPLITE ISOBAR
>surge strip (the metal ones).
Got a model number for the Isobar? I would like to try it - these filter
modules add $20 to the cost of each device being filtered so if the Isobar
handles 15 amps and costs less than $60 it's going to save be some money.
Besides with all the reports of plastic power strips catching fire I think I
should switch over to metal-cased ones.
> The things that gave me the most problems (noise, signal suckers) were a
> Sony 27"TV, 2 viewsonic monitors, 2 RCA DSSs,
> and my kids no name VCR.
Mine were Belkin UPS's and USB hubs (the wall wart), an Enlight power supply
in a PC and one APC UPS but not another (different models) .
> Like I said I'll check out the Surge protector
> when I get home and see if I can get the M codes again.
Great! Thanks, Bill.
Claus V.
Claus V.
>> Now I realize that the unit's not hooked up as recommended but it's an
>> awful lot easier to do preliminary testing at my desk than it is at my
circuit
>> panel.
>
> My thought was to plug it into extension cords from the two phases...for
> test purposes only!!!
I'm going to poke a piece of three conductor cable up from the panel to the
Dr. Claus's X-10 chamber of horrors (the spare bedroom) and hot wire it that
way. All my testing goodies are in that room and I want to be able to see
the panel lights on the HCA02 from there as well as be able to disconnect
the phases for testing. I suppose I could wire it correctly and use one of
the many video cameras in my goodies drawer to monitor it remotely.
Claus V.
Dan Lanciani
| In article <97m4nl$crr$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "Claus V."
| <claus...@usa.net> wrote:
| > FWIW, my HCA02 is marked version 1.1 internally. Do you know what yours is
| > marked (you have to open the case)? Also, does the trouble light on the
| > unit come on during these storms or is it possible for you to tell?
|
| Opened it up, mine is version 1.0
Wow, two revisions this early in its life. Perhaps the Leviton person can
tell us what was changed?
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
Claus V.
>> Has Thinking Home tech support been of any help?
>
> Haven't contacted them...I always get better results from user groups.
Same here. You gotta believe that if companies don't even want to email
people who are looking to *buy* their products that they aren't going to be
a whole lot better with service/support inquiries. Still, I'd give it a
shot just in case they are inundated with similar reports and can shed some
light on your problems.
> > FWIW, my HCA02 is marked version 1.1 internally.
> Opened it up, mine is version 1.0
Hmmmm . . . could mean I'm chasing my tail and whatever issues you are
experiencing have been corrected in the newer revision. Mine is dated
12-20-00 and I don't see any way to upgrade the chip, easily, either.
I posted a photo of the chip in alt.binaries.misc under HCA02 Pic
Message ID 97mfgq$3mg$1...@bob.news.rcn.net
I can post other photos of the internals if anyone's interested.
> > Do you have an 220V appliances that might be acting as secondary bridges
> > across the two phases? (I'm trying to figure out what makes it behave
> > correctly at one time but generate X-10 storms at another)
>
> No 220V equipment.
OK - scratch that idea! I'm out of ideas to try at the moment. Let's see
what further testing of the unit reveals. I am going to try it with the
PR511 in the next few days to see whether I can duplicate Roy's problem.
I'm not giving up on you - it's just that without Thinking Home it won't be
easy to duplicate your setup and hence your problems.
Claus V.
Claus V.
>> Also, does the trouble light on the
>> unit come on during these storms or is it possible for you to tell?
>
> Forgot to answer that: no, just the normal signal light blinking a little
> faster than once per second.
The lack of the noise light and the interpretation of the codes as valid by
Thinking Home really lead me to believe it's not noise but some sort
interaction between the HCA02 and something else. (I know, duh! <g> ) I'm
not terribly familiar with Thinking Home - can you tell me what device
you're using with it to communicate with the powerline? IIRC it supports
number of different interfaces.
Claus V.
Claus V.
Yes - that would tend to eliminate the software as the cause. What really
bothers me about this is the intermittent nature of the problem. Is it a
specific unit code/house code that's setting it off? It sounds like it's
wired in correctly because when it's not on there's no communcation betweem
the phases.
Since the unit's got a 2 year warranty I would suggest asking for a newer
replacement from Leviton if they are unable to diagnose the problem with
your current unit. Obviously there has been a PIC update already in the few
months the device has been on the market. I suppose only Leviton can tell
us what the difference is between the two PIC versions.
Claus V.
Claus V.
> Wow, two revisions this early in its life. Perhaps the Leviton person can
> tell us what was changed?
Hey, that's no so bad! In motherboard BIOS's it's not unusual to see weekly
revisions, especially when a new release kills more that it cures and they
have to back up a little bit. I'll readily admitm though, that a PC BIOS
has a lot more potential problems than a repeater PIC might.
Still, I think that Dan D. might want to press Leviton for a swap now that
he knows there's a new revision. It must have fixed *something* doncha
think?
Claus V.
Dan Dugan
using a CM11 and a 6201 (may not have the number right, the earlier model)
repeater. In his opinion this is a problem to be taken up with X-10.
-Dan Dugan
Claus V.
> Damon reports today that he has reproduced the problem of signal storms,
> using a CM11 and a 6201 (may not have the number right, the earlier model)
> repeater. In his opinion this is a problem to be taken up with X-10.
Yeow!!!! How many CM11A's do you think were sold *before* the HCA02 came on
the market? Something tells me that Leviton's unbroken record of "no
trouble reports the HCA02" will only be maintained by keeping the support
phone off the hook.
Is this an issue with stored macros only? I suppose I had better dig out my
copy of Activehome and my CM11A and concentrate my testing on that device.
I'd still like to know precisely what you should be taking up with X-10,
wouldn't you? I'd also like to know why it was repeating some bits with
such a variance in voltage when the repeater was operating near a
maxi-controller.
FWIW, when I was looking closely at the case of the repeater today it's
clearly marked "For use with DHC (Decora Home Controls)." Apparently it's
more like: "For use ONLY with DHC."
Another object lesson in the old saying "when something seems too good to be
true, it probably is." Well, I am sure there are plenty of potential
repeater buyers out there who owe you a debt for having brought this issue
to light before they bought one and hired an electrician to stuff it in
their circuit panel. I thank you on their behalf, Dan, and am sorry to say
I don't know what you can do now other than passively couple the two phases
and hope for the best. Perhaps you can upgrade to an Ocelot (although I
don't think that device is supported by Thinking Home).
Claus V.
Frank Schmittroth
>Still, I think that Dan D. might want to press Leviton for a swap now that
>he knows there's a new revision. It must have fixed *something* doncha
>think?
>
>Claus V.
That is why there are so many people that don't abide by "If it ain't
broke, don't fix it"
Frank
Dan Lanciani
I don't know. Given the claim that there were _0_ known problems, I'm
surprised that they would be so quick to put a new revision into
production. On the other hand, since there are at least two different
revisions, I'd expect the first question asked wrt the problem reports
we've seen to be, ``which revision do you have?'' Unless they know for
sure that the revision makes absolutely no change to the behavior. But
then why make the revision?
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
Claus V.
Well, at least Dan has a better idea of what what's *broke* in his system
now. The HCA02 is the ultimate black box: there aren't many ways to fix it
other than replacing it completely. The options open to the manufacturer for
fixing the incompatibility problems between the two devices, even if they
appeared interested in doing so, are not clear to me.
Since I'm not a PIC programmer I can't tell you whether updated firmware
will ever be able to cope with whatever the CM11A "signal storm" issue turns
out to be. Maybe someone will chime in and venture an opinion whether it's
likely to be the missing 3 cycle gap or some other feature of the CM11A that
Leviton considers not to operate within the X-10 specifications (which is a
sort of funny concept to begin with). It's likely more analysis will be
required to say for sure and worse, still, the interactions may be complex
enough to defy complete understanding, at least by mere mortals like me.
It's always a bit problematical about whether to upgrade if "nothing's
broke." In the world of software if you *don't* upgrade when the vendor
tells you, you'll get orphaned and all support questions will be answered
with: "You have to upgrade." Now hardware is different. The vendor usually
loses money on the deal instead of gaining upgrade revenue. Since the HCA02
PIC is not socketed it looks like Leviton won't be encouraging many users to
upgrade their firmware.
Claus V.
"Frank Schmittroth" <fra...@owt.com> wrote in message
news:senaxfbjgpbz.g...@news.newsguy.com...
Dan Dugan
<claus...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Dan Dugan" <d...@dandugan.com> wrote
>
> > Damon reports today that he has reproduced the problem of signal storms,
> > using a CM11 and a 6201 (may not have the number right, the earlier model)
> > repeater. In his opinion this is a problem to be taken up with X-10.
>
> Yeow!!!! How many CM11A's do you think were sold *before* the HCA02 came on
> the market? Something tells me that Leviton's unbroken record of "no
> trouble reports the HCA02" will only be maintained by keeping the support
> phone off the hook.
>
> Is this an issue with stored macros only?
No, it happens a couple of times a day when there are no macros. Macros
(utterly simple address substitutions) seem to trigger it maybe 10-20% of
the time.
I suppose I had better dig out my
> copy of Activehome and my CM11A and concentrate my testing on that device.
> I'd still like to know precisely what you should be taking up with X-10,
> wouldn't you? I'd also like to know why it was repeating some bits with
> such a variance in voltage when the repeater was operating near a
> maxi-controller.
>
> FWIW, when I was looking closely at the case of the repeater today it's
> clearly marked "For use with DHC (Decora Home Controls)." Apparently it's
> more like: "For use ONLY with DHC."
>
> Another object lesson in the old saying "when something seems too good to be
> true, it probably is." Well, I am sure there are plenty of potential
> repeater buyers out there who owe you a debt for having brought this issue
> to light before they bought one and hired an electrician to stuff it in
> their circuit panel. I thank you on their behalf, Dan, and am sorry to say
> I don't know what you can do now other than passively couple the two phases
> and hope for the best. Perhaps you can upgrade to an Ocelot (although I
> don't think that device is supported by Thinking Home).
I've been thinking of buying an Ocelot anyway, I'm already outgrowing the HD11A.
-Dan
Claus V.
> > Is this an issue with stored macros only?
>
> No, it happens a couple of times a day when there are no macros. Macros
> (utterly simple address substitutions) seem to trigger it maybe 10-20% of
> the time.
But it's gone with the HD11A off-line, correct?
> I've been thinking of buying an Ocelot anyway, I'm already outgrowing the
>HD11A.
We only know that the reports of "no troubles" are not "non-zero" but we
really don't know how "non-zero" they are. The Ocelot isn't made by
Leviton, either, you know. (-: If it's not stored macros then it could
easily be something else that affects the Ocelot as well. I think I'll look
there next. As for ending your X-10 typhoons is there a Mac version of the
C-max software?
Claus V.
Claus V.
> I don't know. Given the claim that there were _0_ known problems,
Let's not be too hard on Damon - I'm sure that's what they told him. They
put him in between a rock and a hard place. We'll never get *anyone* to
admit an association with a manufacturer! (-: But seriously in this day an
age a claim of zero defects always comes with a qualifier. I think we've
already divined the qualifier here is zero trouble with *Leviton only*
equipment: all others beware. I wish someone had mentioned that *before*
the sale. )-:
>I'm surprised that they would be so quick to put a new revision into
> production.
I recall in my last trip the Leviton's site seeing a very sophisticated
newish-looking automated timer/controller. I would bet someone found an
issue with that or some other high-end Decora equipment. I think we can
pretty much assume it wasn't incompatibility *outside* the DHC line that
caused it. If this issue was unknown to them it's really pretty scary
comment on their beta testing program.
> On the other hand, since there are at least two different
> revisions, I'd expect the first question asked wrt the problem reports
> we've seen to be, ``which revision do you have?''
Because to admit to a revision is to admit to a problem. (-:
> Unless they know for sure that the revision makes absolutely no change to
> the behavior. But then why make the revision?
I imagine that some large contractor/builder of DHC-only homes had some
signal storms or similar screwup and there was no other X-10 manufacturer to
point the finger at. Someone out there knows, I'm sure. It may even be in
a Leviton tech note somewhere that you and I will never see. Or someone
from Leviton might even tell us. Maybe.
Claus V.
nibyak
> Sounds like it looks exactly like the Smart RF repeater. I've never seen
> that model of RS RF base - the ones that I used to get a long time ago
> looked just like RR501's. Do you recall when you bought it?
I bought it three or four years ago. They don't make the remote any more
but I think it was a modle 15-1918 or 1919. I'll have to check. It was
their multi room remote. The remote sent RF to the base and the base
blasted IR in the other room. This base works with one of the el-cheapo
x-10 remotes that I have now but I don't recall which model it is (I think
its the 6 in 1). RS and OneForAll They still make this type of remotes but
the base is just a plain old box with an IR window and antenna. The old RS
base looks like an x-10 IR receiver with antenna and the mini controller
buttons on top. I'd like to add that it dims just fine.
>
> Got a model number for the Isobar? I would like to try it - these filter
> modules add $20 to the cost of each device being filtered so if the Isobar
> handles 15 amps and costs less than $60 it's going to save be some money.
> Besides with all the reports of plastic power strips catching fire I think
I
> should switch over to metal-cased ones.
>
I have a few different ISOBARS that seem to work.
http://www.tripplite.com/products/family/surge/isobar.cfm
I have a few ISOBAR 6s an ultra 6 (which has 3 leds on it) and on 4. The
number is just the number of outlets. I wish I had an x-10 tester to see
what they really do. An example of a problem I fixed with one is that I
could turn on a PLM21 in the bedroom, but I couldn't receive a status back
from the unit. I put the PC (monitor . . .) on the ISOBAR and it all works
fine. I've seen them for a lot of different prices but all under $60.00.
The 8 outlet models might be more but I'm not sure. I've seen other posts
in this group talking about them also. I now have extra plug in filters
sitting on the work bench.
nibyak
> Sounds like it looks exactly like the Smart RF repeater. I've never seen
> that model of RS RF base - the ones that I used to get a long time ago
> looked just like RR501's. Do you recall when you bought it?
I bought it three or four years ago. They don't make the remote any more
but I think it was a modle 15-1918 or 1919. I'll have to check. It was
their multi room remote. The remote sent RF to the base and the base
blasted IR in the other room. This base works with one of the el-cheapo
x-10 remotes that I have now but I don't recall which model it is (I think
its the 6 in 1). RS and OneForAll They still make this type of remotes but
the base is just a plain old box with an IR window and antenna. The old RS
base looks like an x-10 IR receiver with antenna and the mini controller
buttons on top. I'd like to add that dims just fine.
>
> Got a model number for the Isobar? I would like to try it - these filter
> modules add $20 to the cost of each device being filtered so if the Isobar
> handles 15 amps and costs less than $60 it's going to save be some money.
> Besides with all the reports of plastic power strips catching fire I think
I
> should switch over to metal-cased ones.
>
John C. Seifert
Sorry to hear of your ill fortune. From the sound of this note, it sounds like
you bought this piece of equipment.
j...
Bholio
anything to do with this? Especially, since I see no one complain about
similar behavior on their 6201, I doubt it's the same thing that's going on
with the HCA02.
To Dan (original poster with the problem:)
Are you positive that the repeater is hooked up correctly? That it is not
hooked up to the same phase twice? When everything works (between storms),
are you positive that your communication is actually better than it was
before? If not, maybe it's not hooked up right. I don't have the early
parts of this thread, I apologize if I'm repeating stuff. If the repeater
is hooked up twice to the same phase, repeating signals from one phase to
itself, I can imagine a disaster.
Have you tried a passive coupler before going to a repeater? I think a
passive coupler would yield less-error-prone results (assuming the signal
strength is there), than a repeater which has to deal with all sorts of
issues.
"Claus V." <claus...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:97mt3a$j28$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Claus V.
> How does a recreate of a similar problem on a different repeater have
> anything to do with this? Especially, since I see no one complain about
> similar behavior on their 6201, I doubt it's the same thing that's going
on
> with the HCA02.
From what I recall of the older unit this is mostly a two phase version of
it (anyone got a picture of the innards of older 6201? - I'll post my HCA02
autopsy photos later this weekend). It has an empty hole for a fourth wire
that tends to reinforce that belief. One of the two internal boards looks
quite old with lots of TTL components. Looks like a "tried and true"
design. I doubt they would re-engineer the entire product - more like they
just snipped stuff out of the three phase version.
> To Dan (original poster with the problem:)
> Are you positive that the repeater is hooked up correctly? That it is not
> hooked up to the same phase twice? When everything works (between
storms),
> are you positive that your communication is actually better than it was
> before? If not, maybe it's not hooked up right. I don't have the early
> parts of this thread, I apologize if I'm repeating stuff. If the
repeater
> is hooked up twice to the same phase, repeating signals from one phase to
> itself, I can imagine a disaster.
I believe he eliminated that long ago because when the HCA02 is unhooked his
X-10 signals don't cross the phases. Nor does he have some occasionally
"back coupling" occuring as he has no 220 votls devices.
Repeaters are typically going to be the devices that expose all the
interoperability issues between different manufacturers and their
interpretation of the X-10 protocol. None of this should be terribly
surprising. The only surprise I found here was that Leviton claimed not to
have had any trouble reports about the new repeater. I'm no longer
surprised by that, either. (-:
Claus V.
Claus V.
> Claus...
>
> Sorry to hear of your ill fortune. From the sound of this note, it sounds
like
> you bought this piece of equipment.
A recent proud owner, indeed. )-: A true pioneer has the arrows in his back
to prove his trailbreaking status. (-: I imagine that I will learn an awful
lot about interoperability issues by playing around with it and maybe even
come up with some caveats for other readers here who are thinking of buying
it. It may work perfectly well under a lot of circumstances and I will
attempt to delimit those. Or it may require people to change their
programming style to use it successfully. I knew there was a big chance I
would be the victim of hype so I'm not *too* PO'ed.
There's no doubt that taking a 38mv signal and boosting it to 3.5v on both
phases is going to help some parts of my X-10 operation. I just hope I
don't fall victim to the signal storms Dan and Roy have reported.
Claus V.
Dan Lanciani
| "Dan Lanciani" <ddl@danlan.*com> wrote in message
|
| > I don't know. Given the claim that there were _0_ known problems,
|
| Let's not be too hard on Damon - I'm sure that's what they told him. They
| put him in between a rock and a hard place. We'll never get *anyone* to
| admit an association with a manufacturer! (-:
Perhaps that's just as well if such admission pretty much obligates the
representative to assert that there are no problems...
| But seriously in this day an
| age a claim of zero defects always comes with a qualifier. I think we've
| already divined the qualifier here is zero trouble with *Leviton only*
| equipment: all others beware.
Hmm, well, it certainly wasn't obvious to me.
| I wish someone had mentioned that *before*
| the sale. )-:
|
| >I'm surprised that they would be so quick to put a new revision into
| > production.
|
| I recall in my last trip the Leviton's site seeing a very sophisticated
| newish-looking automated timer/controller. I would bet someone found an
| issue with that or some other high-end Decora equipment. I think we can
| pretty much assume it wasn't incompatibility *outside* the DHC line that
| caused it. If this issue was unknown to them it's really pretty scary
| comment on their beta testing program.
If someone found a problem with high-end Decora equipment then there
would not have been 0 problems even considering only Leviton equipment.
| > On the other hand, since there are at least two different
| > revisions, I'd expect the first question asked wrt the problem reports
| > we've seen to be, ``which revision do you have?''
|
| Because to admit to a revision is to admit to a problem. (-:
I suppose. But if you can do neither then the goal of everybody working
together to resolve interoperability issues becomes very difficult to achieve.
| > Unless they know for sure that the revision makes absolutely no change to
| > the behavior. But then why make the revision?
|
| I imagine that some large contractor/builder of DHC-only homes had some
| signal storms or similar screwup and there was no other X-10 manufacturer to
| point the finger at.
But that would be at odds with even the qualified version of "0 problems."
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
Dan Lanciani
| "Bholio" <bholio...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
|
| > How does a recreate of a similar problem on a different repeater have
| > anything to do with this? Especially, since I see no one complain about
| > similar behavior on their 6201, I doubt it's the same thing that's going
| on
| > with the HCA02.
|
| From what I recall of the older unit this is mostly a two phase version of
| it (anyone got a picture of the innards of older 6201? - I'll post my HCA02
| autopsy photos later this weekend).
There are at least two completely different versions of Leviton's older
repeater (and I think they both have the same part number). The really
old one that I have (and used until I replaced it with the ACT unit) is
strictly split-phase (hot neutral hot) and has none of the silly powerup
sequencing requirements of the newer model. It does not handle extended
codes, stomping on the portion following the initial command. Apart from
that it has no problems with the CM11a that I have seen (and I used them
together for quite a while).
If you don't care about UL listings, ACT's CR230 is still a good bet for
an extended-code-compatible repeater. I have never had any problems at all
with it, though an internal examination shows some components getting
hotter than I would like.
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
John C. Seifert
Don't have one and probably won't pop for it either. We have only a 1000 sq. ft.
domicile and the only problem I've ever had was communicating with the lights on
our unattached garage. Finally switched phases in the service panel for that
circuit and the X-10 communications problem went away.
Regards
j...
Claus V.
> | Let's not be too hard on Damon - I'm sure that's what they told him.
They
> | put him in between a rock and a hard place. We'll never get *anyone* to
> | admit an association with a manufacturer! (-:
>
> Perhaps that's just as well if such admission pretty much obligates the
> representative to assert that there are no problems...
It's a judgement call. It may be the lack of further public discourse from
Leviton means the issue of Damon staying or going has already been decided
by them. Obviously he's still talking to Dan D. off-line, which is good but
leaving his to fend for himself, which is bad. We'll see, eventually, I
guess.
> | But seriously in this day an
> | age a claim of zero defects always comes with a qualifier. I think
we've
> | already divined the qualifier here is zero trouble with *Leviton only*
> | equipment: all others beware.
>
> Hmm, well, it certainly wasn't obvious to me.
Well, not until we beat it out of them it wasn't, I agree, but you have to
assume that after OJ and Clinton and all the other famous trials we've had
that no one tells the flat out truth anymore about anything. It's just not
stylish.
> | I wish someone had mentioned that *before*
> | the sale. )-:
> |
> | >I'm surprised that they would be so quick to put a new revision into
> | > production.
Repeaters are tricky things, obviously, and I'm sure it had some untoward
side-effect with some DHC stuff. It's not hard to imagine how it would
happen. And if it's a in-house, inbred beat program we can expect to see
more revisions in the future. The question is how many will there be by the
time the unit is 1 year old. I'm guessing at least two more revisions will
be on the street by Dec. 2001.
> | I recall in my last trip the Leviton's site seeing a very sophisticated
> | newish-looking automated timer/controller. I would bet someone found an
> | issue with that or some other high-end Decora equipment. I think we can
> | pretty much assume it wasn't incompatibility *outside* the DHC line that
> | caused it. If this issue was unknown to them it's really pretty scary
> | comment on their beta testing program.
>
> If someone found a problem with high-end Decora equipment then there
> would not have been 0 problems even considering only Leviton equipment.
I'm trying hard to give them an out whether they deserve it or not. (-:
There's always the hope that some smart VP at Leviton will realize the
resources that are available here in CHA and seek out the opinions of the
many, many HA experts on how to improve their products. Or explain to us
the many problems they had to work around to get even this level of
functioning out of a device like the HCA02. But in the back of my mind I
hear an old SNL skit with Steve Martin as Theodoric of York, Medieval
Barber. He asks himself: "Should I stop bleeding people with leeches and
consider modern medical techniques? Nyaaahhh!"
> | Because to admit to a revision is to admit to a problem. (-:
>
> I suppose. But if you can do neither then the goal of everybody working
> together to resolve interoperability issues becomes very difficult to
achieve.
I think the response Dan got to "take it up with X-10" shows us how much
vendors are willing to work with each other to standardize the X-10
protocol. Not at all. They treat them as evil competitors. They talk the
talk but at the first sign of trouble out come the pointer fingers and the
declarations that it's the other guy's fault. But to be fair that's human
nature and we see that here with people developing similarly functioning
X-10 equipment who are reluctant to share research lest it end up in a
competitor's product.
> | I imagine that some large contractor/builder of DHC-only homes had some
> | signal storms or similar screwup and there was no other X-10
manufacturer > | to point the finger at.
>
> But that would be at odds with even the qualified version of "0 problems."
Well, I'm quite willing to believe that the testy tech that told Damon that
testing was "wasting his time" was the source of the "no troubles" report.
The guy (or his clone) works for a lot of technical support ops I run into.
Mostly they hang around playing Quake all day. (-:
Claus V.
Claus V.
> | From what I recall of the older unit this is mostly a two phase version
of
> | it (anyone got a picture of the innards of older 6201? - I'll post my
HCA02
> | autopsy photos later this weekend).
>
> There are at least two completely different versions of Leviton's older
> repeater (and I think they both have the same part number). The really
> old one that I have (and used until I replaced it with the ACT unit) is
> strictly split-phase (hot neutral hot) and has none of the silly powerup
> sequencing requirements of the newer model. It does not handle extended
> codes, stomping on the portion following the initial command. Apart from
> that it has no problems with the CM11a that I have seen (and I used them
> together for quite a while).
Got some photos of the innards? I'd like to compare the two units at least
visually. I don't know if it's an important difference but Dan D. was
having problems with the IBM version of the CM11A. We really don't know
much about what Damon was testing with the older 6201 and I won't have much
time this weekend to look into things further. I have hotwired the repeater
into the circuit box for the time being to see if it has any problems with
things in my configuration.
> If you don't care about UL listings,
!!!!!!!! But I *DO*
> ACT's CR230 is still a good bet for an extended-code-compatible repeater.
You know my feelings about extended codes - I have enough issues with the
garden variety ON/OFF/DIM stuff.
> I have never had any problems at all
> with it, though an internal examination shows some components getting
> hotter than I would like.
That's why they make cooling fans in every size known to mankind. I just
recently mounted an old Pentium Pro Cooler atop a Netgear hub that was
getting a lot hotter than I thought it should. I just had to wire a "T"
into the 12V powersupply.
Claus V.
Claus V.
> Claus....
>
> Don't have one and probably won't pop for it either. We have only a 1000
sq. ft.
My house is the same size. Because I have so many Maxi controllers (that
suck almost .2 volts each) and other types of electronic junk I have a
number of areas in the house that can't send a signal. My kitchen can't
talk to upper attic bedroom on opposite side of house. After finding all
the big time suckers and filtering them I still couldn't get the signal to
go all around the house. The HCA02, at under $100, looked like the ideal
candidate for my small home and may still turn out to be the right device
for me. We'll see.
> ...the only problem I've ever had was communicating with the lights on
> our unattached garage. Finally switched phases in the service panel for
that
> circuit and the X-10 communications problem went away.
So you may be just on the border. It may be that if you had more
electronics in the house that you will enter the Repeater Zone - or at least
the Passive Coupler one. (-: But by then we might be on revision 3.6 or
something and all the bugs will have been worked out.
Claus V.
Dan Lanciani
| Got some photos of the innards?
No, but I suppose I could take some. (With what I'm not sure... :)
| > If you don't care about UL listings,
|
| !!!!!!!! But I *DO*
You might want to express this to ACT to help encourage them to move the
approval process along.
| > ACT's CR230 is still a good bet for an extended-code-compatible repeater.
|
| You know my feelings about extended codes - I have enough issues with the
| garden variety ON/OFF/DIM stuff.
If you really don't care about extended codes you should try to find an
original Leviton repeater. They are extremely reliable. (I used mine even
before the CM11a and it was happy with everything I tossed at it.)
| > I have never had any problems at all
| > with it, though an internal examination shows some components getting
| > hotter than I would like.
|
| That's why they make cooling fans in every size known to mankind.
I'm not sure that would help. One part gets hot enough to char the
PC board. It needs to be mounted higher and/or replaced with a higher
power version. (Alternately, as someone else mentioned, the dropping
capacitor can be reduced.)
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
Claus V.
> | Got some photos of the innards?
>
> No, but I suppose I could take some. (With what I'm not sure... :)
Well, maybe when I post mine you can look at them to see if they look
similar without the bother of doing photos.
> | > If you don't care about UL listings,
> |
> | !!!!!!!! But I *DO*
>
> You might want to express this to ACT to help encourage them to move the
> approval process along.
And they want you to install it right at the circuit panel . . . It's like
waving a red flag to a bull - inspectors may take issue with it being UL
pending.
> If you really don't care about extended codes you should try to find an
> original Leviton repeater. They are extremely reliable. (I used mine
even
> before the CM11a and it was happy with everything I tossed at it.)
Do you know what its signal voltage output is? I'd think about a swap to
get another volt or two of out of it.
> One part gets hot enough to char the
> PC board. It needs to be mounted higher and/or replaced with a higher
> power version. (Alternately, as someone else mentioned, the dropping
> capacitor can be reduced.)
Wimp. Get a Peltier cooler like the motherboard overclockers do. (-:
Claus V.
Dan Lanciani
| > You might want to express this to ACT to help encourage them to move the
| > approval process along.
|
| And they want you to install it right at the circuit panel . . . It's like
| waving a red flag to a bull - inspectors may take issue with it being UL
| pending.
Let's hope it is at least pending. :)
| > If you really don't care about extended codes you should try to find an
| > original Leviton repeater. They are extremely reliable. (I used mine
| even
| > before the CM11a and it was happy with everything I tossed at it.)
|
| Do you know what its signal voltage output is? I'd think about a swap to
| get another volt or two of out of it.
As I recall, it maxed out the original Leviton signal meter, but that only
means it was >= 2V. How about I lend it to you? You can take pictures,
measure the voltage, etc.
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
Dan Dugan
wrote:
> How does a recreate of a similar problem on a different repeater have
> anything to do with this? Especially, since I see no one complain about
> similar behavior on their 6201, I doubt it's the same thing that's going on
> with the HCA02.
>
> To Dan (original poster with the problem:)
> Are you positive that the repeater is hooked up correctly? That it is not
> hooked up to the same phase twice? When everything works (between storms),
> are you positive that your communication is actually better than it was
> before?
Yes, I can turn it off and be unable to actuate units on the other phase.
If not, maybe it's not hooked up right. I don't have the early
> parts of this thread, I apologize if I'm repeating stuff. If the repeater
> is hooked up twice to the same phase, repeating signals from one phase to
> itself, I can imagine a disaster.
>
> Have you tried a passive coupler before going to a repeater?
Yes, I tried the passive coupler/noise filter first. Coupling was
inadequate, and I had an episode of ghost activations that I assumed was
external in origin (I'm near a substation and every few months I get
strange occurrences).
I think a
> passive coupler would yield less-error-prone results (assuming the signal
> strength is there), than a repeater which has to deal with all sorts of
> issues.
Agreed, but I needed better coupling. The repeater solved -all- coupling issues.
-Dan Dugan
Dan Dugan
<claus...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Dan Dugan" <d...@dandugan.com> wrote
>
> > > Is this an issue with stored macros only?
> >
> > No, it happens a couple of times a day when there are no macros. Macros
> > (utterly simple address substitutions) seem to trigger it maybe 10-20% of
> > the time.
>
> But it's gone with the HD11A off-line, correct?
Correct, unplugging the HD11A from the line stops it.
-Dan Dugan
Dave Houston
FWIW, it is possible to trigger similar "signal storm" behavior in a CM11A
w/o the involvement of a repeater.
I normally have two CM11As piggy-back so both are on the same circuit.
Usually, I am actively using one for software development and the other is
used to monitor the powerline and/or send signals for the software under
development to receive/decode.
On 5-6 occasions, I have discovered the second CM11A in a mode where it is
continuosly transmitting "good" X-10 codes despite the fact that neither of
my CM11As have ever had more than a single timer event stored to EEPROM.
These events have always occured when I was working on new software and have
always occured in the "passive" CM11A rather than the one in use with the
developing software. By "good" codes, I mean ones that are reported as
normal by the other CM11A and/or whatever other PLIs I may have active at
the time. I have not taken particular note of the exact codes as this
usually occurs when I'm busy with an ongoing development project. Since they
occur infrequently and are not something I can reproduce, I haven't learned
much beyond the fact that they occur. The first couple of times I saw it was
when I was first beginning to program for the various PLIs about 3 years ago
and I was more baffled than enlightened. Recent occurences are equally
baffling but now I'm confident that the phenomenon is real and maybe is
being triggered by some esoteric sequence of commands (or partial commands?)
sent by the other PLI.
Patrick Brochu, who is developing his own AHT recently confirmed that he had
seen something similar under similar conditions. Other developers may have
seen it w/o reporting it.
There is also a detailed write-up on Ido's site about similar behavior being
induced in a CM11A by a noisy, non-X10 dimmer. However, I don't think there
was a second CM11A in situ to report whether the signals were good or not. I
have no idea how or even whether these cases are related.
There was also a thread 18 months or more back where a CM11A was
mysteriously transmitting for periods that lasted for several minutes and
that were repeated on some periodic basis. As I recall, there were 4 CM11As
being used with 4 PCs as sort of a powerline network. If there was a
coupler/repeater, I don't recall it being mentioned. In the cases I've seen,
I have not tried waiting to see whether the activity stops (and recurs
later) on its own as I was always actively working on other things and did
not want to shift focus.
It may be that the repeater is triggering the same phenomenon.
A final note is that I believe the first time I saw it was when a
CPUXA/TW523 was the sending unit under active test and the CM11A was passive
and one of the most recent may have been with a PowerLinc as the active PLI,
so it is not something that requires dual (or dueling;) CM11As. I think the
first cases even came when I had only a single CM11A.
---
BX24-AHT All Housecode Transceiver
http://Commander-X.com/bx24-aht.htm
Vincent Von Lobrand
There are two issues at work here.
1. X10 transmitting devices that are plugged in very close to each other
will slightly attenuate the others signal. Leviton suggests that a maximum
of four transmitter be plugged on the same branch circuit. That is a very
very conservative number. In reality you can have a dozen. You want to shy
from close proximity of transmitters.
2. When the repeater is in close proximity to the transmitter there is an
interference pattern generated on the carrier envelope because of the
overwrite mechanism. This is an artificial condition you have created in
your lab (mostly). You need to take the voltage reading with a grain of
salt. Even if the transmitter and repeater are in close proximity in a real
installation the actual signal will be better than what the meter reads.
The interference pattern is faking the meter because of the close proximity
of the two components. The meter reads the strength of the X10 carrier via
a different circuit than an X10 receiver. A real receiver though only need
to see the presence or absence of carrier. The interference pattern on the
envelope is only a slight problem with the meter, not with an X10 receiver
who does not care about amplitude variations.
"Claus V." <claus...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:97kfkd$53v$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> To Tom and Damon:
>
> I've just started playing around with my new HCA02. I began by hooking it
> up as a single phase repeater for testing purposes by using just the
> red/white wires (as mentioned in the docs) hooked up to a polarized plug.
I
> plugged it into a powerstrip next to a maxi-controller and hit the test
> button and it generated p1 on's and off's as it should (with the lower
case
> "p" on the analyzer indicating it was only transmitting 1 of the frames in
> the command, as expected), but only at 3.5 volts which sort of surprised
me.
>
> Then I hit the maxicontroller ON to stop the test, and the maxi, which
> normally outputs a 4+ volt signal now dropped to 3.5 volts. I hadn't gone
> into the signal dissect mode yet to analyze each cycle but I was really
> surprised that the repeater voltage wasn't higher than 3.5 volts and that
it
> actually attenuated the voltage from the maxi. Of course these are very
> preliminary results. When I unplugged the repeater the maxicontroller
once
> again output 4+ volts.
>
> My question is - does 3.5 volts match your results as the maximum output
of
> this unit? Damon, if you're reading - do you know?
>
> I realize that this isn't the normal mode of operation but I don't see any
> reason the voltage would increase when I finally get someone to help me
> stick it in the circuit box.
>
> I can tell I'm going to really wish the Monterey had some way of
> transferring its sigmal dissect data to a disk file. This manual
> transcription is going to get old *very* quickly. (-:
>
> The first column shows the unrepeated values - the second shows the frame
> that has been amplified and overlaid on top of the original signal. What
> really worries me shows up on lines 5, 17, 20 and especially 21. The
> repeated voltage is substantially lower than the original signal in some
> cycles but not in others. This is going to be very diifficult to sort
out.
> Repeating a 4.+ volt signal at 1.3 volts doesn't seem quite right. In
fact,
> at the end of a long run the 1.3 volt bit would drop down into the noise
and
> probably be read as a zero.
>
> I thought at first glance it might be akin to the infamous TW523 problem
> because the lowest voltage appears towards the end of the commands but I
> will have to run a lot more tests to draw any real conclusions, especially
> since the attentuation *doesn't* appear in the first two bits of the
second
> frame's start code and appears to be generally quite inconsistent. FWIW, I
> reversed the line cord plug on the maxicontroller (it's unpolarized) with
no
> appreciable difference.
>
> Now I realize that the unit's not hooked up as recommended but it's an
awful
> lot easier to do preliminary testing at my desk than it is at my circuit
> panel.
>
> # Bit 1st 2nd Frame (output of repeater & maxi)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> 1 1 4.+ 3.3
> 2 1 4.+ 4.+
> 3 1 4.+ 4.+
> 4 0 02m 02m
> 5 1 4.+ 2.1
> 6 0 02m 02m
> 7 1 4.+ 4.+
> 8 0 02m 02m
> 9 1 4.+ 3.8
> 10 1 03m 03m
> 11 0 03m 02m
> 12 1 4.+ 4.+
> 13 0 02m 02m
> 14 1 4.+ 4.+
> 15 0 02m 02m
> 16 1 4.+ 4.+
> 17 1 4.+ 2.9
> 18 0 02m 03m
> 19 0 02m 02m
> 20 1 4.+ 3.4
> 21 1 4.+ 1.3
> 22 0 03m 02m
>
> Claus V.
>
>
Claus V.
> | And they want you to install it right at the circuit panel . . . It's
like
> | waving a red flag to a bull - inspectors may take issue with it being UL
> | pending.
>
> Let's hope it is at least pending. :)
Now that you mention it hasn't this device been out for a while? I don't
see any UL markings on their on-line photo:
http://www.act-solutions.com/images/fig4.jpg I seem to recall some
discussion of UL listing but Deja ain't what it used to be. What are the
ramifications of using non-listed equipment? Would it not pass a new home
inspection?
FWIW, I also found an interesting comment about the ACT repeaters and
Leviton two way switches:
"[regarding new Leviton 2-way switches] . . . our repeaters think that they
are repeating ACT’s protocol and in doing so causes the new Leviton two-way
modules to re-transmit their initial "I’m Here" message, over and over
again."
http://www.act-solutions.com/kingery05.htm
So much for interoperability. <sigh> At least we have an explanation for one
type of "signal storms" with at least one brand of repeater. It gives me
some idea of what to look for in the HCA02 and surrounding equipment.
> | > If you really don't care about extended codes you should try to find
an
> | > original Leviton repeater. They are extremely reliable. (I used mine
> | even
> | > before the CM11a and it was happy with everything I tossed at it.)
> |
> | Do you know what its signal voltage output is? I'd think about a swap
to
> | get another volt or two of out of it.
>
> As I recall, it maxed out the original Leviton signal meter, but that only
> means it was >= 2V.
It seems they still haven't addressed that peculiar shortcoming:
http://www.homs-smarthome.com/images/4811big.gif
At least I feel better about the Monterey topping out at 4 volts.
> How about I lend it to you? You can take pictures,
> measure the voltage, etc.
I really appreciate the offer and if I get exasperated enough with the new
one I may take you up on it. I haven't yet had time to put the HCA02
through its paces. For now, for anyone remotely interested in looking inside
the new repeater, I've posted a rather bad picture of the old one on
alt.binaries.misc under "HCA02 guts"
Message-ID: <97ugmr$f8o$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
Claus V.
Dan Lanciani
| Now that you mention it hasn't this device been out for a while?
I think I've had one for at least a year.
| What are the
| ramifications of using non-listed equipment?
Who knows? Some people say you will go to jail and/or you home insurance
will not pay any claim even if it is completely unrelated to the non-listed
device. Such people presumably never buy antiques or fixtures that have
been converted to electric. Others say it doesn't matter. It probably
depends on local law.
| "[regarding new Leviton 2-way switches] . . . our repeaters think that they
| are repeating ACTs protocol and in doing so causes the new Leviton two-way
| modules to re-transmit their initial "Im Here" message, over and over
| again."
Leviton has a 2-way switch? News to me... This sounds like a corruption of
a report I made a long time ago when X10 2-way modules came out. It does not
apply to current repeaters.
| So much for interoperability. <sigh> At least we have an explanation for one
| type of "signal storms" with at least one brand of repeater.
We've had that explanation for years, and it applied to Leviton's repeaters
at the time as well. Any pre-extended-code repeater stomps on the tail
of extended transmissions (though Leviton's and ACT's did it for different
reasons), causing X10 2-way modules to forever repeat their powerup hail.
Worse, any CM11a within earshot locks up because of the truncated extended code
(though it will recover after you stop the storm and send it a normal code). I
documented this all in great detail for X10 & Leviton when I first observed it.
My claim was that the CM11a is very broken for locking up with no timeout, the
2-way modules are moderately broken for retrying forever with no timeout, and
the Leviton repeater was somewhat broken because repeating an extended code as
it did was not compatible even with the original definition of extended data.
X10 has not fixed the CM11a or the 2-way modules. ACT was first out the
gate with an extended-code-compatible repeater. Leviton followed with
the unit that has the annoying powerup sequence requirements. Now they
have the one you are playing with. Since there are no other players, it
seems the choice is between UL listed and working...
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
Jay R. Ashworth
Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.*com> wrote:
> | What are the
> | ramifications of using non-listed equipment?
>
> Who knows? Some people say you will go to jail and/or you home insurance
> will not pay any claim even if it is completely unrelated to the non-listed
> device. Such people presumably never buy antiques or fixtures that have
> been converted to electric. Others say it doesn't matter. It probably
> depends on local law.
In general, non-listed equipment won't get you into trouble unless it's
permanently installed, in which case, yeah, it will probably be ab out
for your fire insurance company not to pay.
> X10 has not fixed the CM11a or the 2-way modules. ACT was first out the
> gate with an extended-code-compatible repeater. Leviton followed with
> the unit that has the annoying powerup sequence requirements. Now they
> have the one you are playing with. Since there are no other players, it
> seems the choice is between UL listed and working...
And there's a fuss about the patent? When they can't all even agree on
the implementation? When does it expire, anyway?
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth j...@baylink.com
Member of the Technical Staff Baylink
The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think
Tampa Bay, Florida http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 804 5015
Claus V.
> What your seeing is characteristic of X10 and Leviton devices.
> There are two issues at work here.
>
> 1. X10 transmitting devices that are plugged in very close to each other
> will slightly attenuate the others signal.
Yes - I have seen that before - multiple maxi-controllers plugged into a 6
outlet power strip attenuating the overall signal but this seemed different.
The good bits were quite good - at 3.5 volts.
> Even if the transmitter and repeater are in close proximity in a real
> installation the actual signal will be better than what the meter reads.
Agreed - the further away the repeater got the more normal the signal levels
appeared. In fact, it took 58mv signals and boosted them nicely (and
uniformly) to 3.5 volts under real world tests which immediately made me
suspicious of my test bench results.
> The interference pattern is faking the meter because of the close
proximity
> of the two components. The meter reads the strength of the X10 carrier
via
> a different circuit than an X10 receiver. A real receiver though only
need
> to see the presence or absence of carrier. The interference pattern on
the
> envelope is only a slight problem with the meter, not with an X10 receiver
> who does not care about amplitude variations.
Sounds reasonable to me. It became apparent early on that X-10 signal
measurements had be taken at a number of places to be considered valid. The
workbench, it turns out, was the least likely to yield accurate results. It
makes sense that the meter's being spoofed by the unusual circumstance of
transmitter and repeater being inches away from each other. The "variable
voltage" bits diminish quite rapidly as the transmitter/repeater distance
increases and so far the unit's been in place with absolutely no negative
impact on operations that I can detect, but then again my house is a fairly
simple X-10 implementation.
Claus V.
Claus V.
> | What are the
> | ramifications of using non-listed equipment?
>
> Who knows? Some people say you will go to jail and/or you home insurance
> will not pay any claim even if it is completely unrelated to the
non-listed
> device. Such people presumably never buy antiques or fixtures that have
> been converted to electric. Others say it doesn't matter. It probably
> depends on local law.
In other words a house has to burn down for anyone to really know how it
will affect them. (-: I wonder if UL would reveal whether the device was
"pending" or not if they were asked point blank.
> | "[regarding new Leviton 2-way switches] . . . our repeaters think that
they
> | are repeating ACTs protocol and in doing so causes the new Leviton
two-way
> | modules to re-transmit their initial "Im Here" message, over and over
> | again."
>
> Leviton has a 2-way switch? News to me... This sounds like a corruption
of
> a report I made a long time ago when X10 2-way modules came out. It does
not
> apply to current repeaters.
Hmmm - well, it came from the ACT site and was written by Uncle Phil
himself. Maybe if he's reading he can help us out here as to what he really
meant . . .
> We've had that explanation for years, and it applied to Leviton's
repeaters
> at the time as well. Any pre-extended-code repeater stomps on the tail
> of extended transmissions (though Leviton's and ACT's did it for different
> reasons), causing X10 2-way modules to forever repeat their powerup hail.
> Worse, any CM11a within earshot locks up because of the truncated extended
code
> (though it will recover after you stop the storm and send it a normal
code).
Which, I believe, was what Dan D. reported about the storms stopping when
his software sent another legitimate code.
> I documented this all in great detail for X10 & Leviton when I first
observed > it.
And obviously they have been hard at work ignoring your advice . . .
> My claim was that the CM11a is very broken for locking up with no
> timeout,
Yes - it's unlikely that a normal user would want a CM11A transmitting on
every power cycle - it should give up after perhaps 300-400 tries. (-:
> the 2-way modules are moderately broken for retrying forever with
> no timeout,
It's really the X-10 protocol that allows for such fatal embraces without
timeouts, retries or some other physical means to end the contention.
> and the Leviton repeater was somewhat broken because
> repeating an extended code as it did was not compatible even with the
> original definition of extended data.
But it's UL listed! (-:
> X10 has not fixed the CM11a or the 2-way modules. ACT was first out the
> gate with an extended-code-compatible repeater. Leviton followed with
> the unit that has the annoying powerup sequence requirements. Now they
> have the one you are playing with.
Interesting - this one, IIRC, has no obscene manual breaker reset
provisions. I'll have to read the tiny scrap of paper that came with it
(FWIW, it was supposed to come with an adhesive mounting strip that was
missing from my package) to see if this new repeater requires a manual reset
each time the power fails.
> Since there are no other players, it
> seems the choice is between UL listed and working...
You could always lift the UL label from a cheap powerstrip and apply it to
the CR230. (-: It might fool a fire inspector if it got good and charred
during a fire. (Just kidding, folks!!!)
Claus V.
Matthew Lintula
Wow! I haven't been able to monitor this group for a week or so. Lots of action
on this thread! I reported to this thread back on 2/23 my problems with the
HCA02-10E and SwithLinc 2-way switches. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to
get to my brother's place to do some further analysis, but I plan to this week.
The tools I have are an O-Scope with ACT Scope2, an ELK meter, and a program
that logs X-10 activity from the CM-11A.
His only description was very mixed-up signals - ie., hitting a Leviton 6400
button would turn on an incorrect light, and trying to turn off lights would
only turn on other ones. I did not want to try troubleshooting it over the
phone, so I had him turn off the breaker on the HCA02-10E. That eliminated his
problems. He still needs something to couple (or repeat) his signal, as some
signals do not work across the breaker panel legs.
I believe the SwitchLincs we installed were manufactured early in the lifecycle.
Anyone have any suggestions as to what to try, or just "flip it back on" and try
sending commands and watch the log? His system consists of 7 SwitchLinc 2-ways,
2 Leviton 6400-series 4-button controllers, a few X-10 lamp and appliance
modules and a couple of Maxi controllers, and the CM11A (not doing any macros
with it, though).
Thanks in advance!
Matt Lintula
Claus V.
Leviton repeater was not designed with the SwitchLincs in mind. I would try
to run the house with the new repeater ON but with the circuits serving the
SwitchLincs shut off at the panel. That will at least isolate the SL's from
the mix. Also, try to ascertain your revision number. While we don't know
what relevance it has it's probably time to at least start capturing that
data with the trouble reports posted here.
Claus V.
"Matthew Lintula" <Ma...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3AA3DEBF...@worldnet.att.net...
Dan Lanciani
| > | What are the
| > | ramifications of using non-listed equipment?
| >
| > Who knows? Some people say you will go to jail and/or you home insurance
| > will not pay any claim even if it is completely unrelated to the
| non-listed
| > device. Such people presumably never buy antiques or fixtures that have
| > been converted to electric. Others say it doesn't matter. It probably
| > depends on local law.
|
| In other words a house has to burn down for anyone to really know how it
| will affect them. (-:
Your house has to burn and a fire fighter has to be killed fighting the
fire. Then you find out whether installing non-UL equipment rises to
the level of negligent arson which, being a forth degree felony in places,
in turn invokes the felony murder rules.
| Which, I believe, was what Dan D. reported about the storms stopping when
| his software sent another legitimate code.
That isn't how this particular storm works. You have to unplug the 2-way
module or kill the repeater's circuit breaker to stop the storm. Then
sending any code from some other transmitter unlocks the CM11a which is
doing nothing.
| Yes - it's unlikely that a normal user would want a CM11A transmitting on
| every power cycle - it should give up after perhaps 300-400 tries. (-:
That's a different CM11a bug having to do with the output driver locking
on because of induced spikes from certain dimmers. This one you can stop
by sending a code via the CM11a, but this storm does not send valid codes,
just carrier.
| > the 2-way modules are moderately broken for retrying forever with
| > no timeout,
|
| It's really the X-10 protocol that allows for such fatal embraces without
| timeouts, retries or some other physical means to end the contention.
No, it's just lack of common sense...
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
Damon Bruccoleri
Number 1 applies only to transmitter. No limit to number of receivers on a
branch.
Number 2, I would take exception to the term interference pattern. It is
simply a ripple on the carrier. Even if they are close together, a receiver
would hear the unrippled first command signal clearly, even if the ripple
were a problem. If the transmitter and repeater are far apart and a
receiver can hear only the repeater and not the first original command
signal, then no problem cause little or no ripple. You are right about the
receive circuit not caring about the ripple anyway, I think. Never though
about it like that.
This device is very simple. There is nothing 'deep' about it that needs
studying.
"Vincent Von Lobrand" <vvo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:irzo6.69629$Vj5.11...@news02.optonline.net...