HA Primer - Pos and cons of X-10, Z-wave, Insteon, UPB
echo
still somewhat of an issue and commands still get lost in the ether. It
would be nice to add a level of "robustness" to the system. So I start this
thread and hope it can become a quick primer on the newer tech versus the
X-10 or a mini buyers guide.
So what if any would be a good technology to invest in for your modern house
? What are the simple pros and cons of Z-wave and Insteon versus X-10 for a
24/7 PC based automation system. Are there any new technologies promising to
make obsolete all the others ?
I'll open by summarizing X-10s pros and cons for newbies who might stumble
upon this and leave the Zigbee Insteon, etc for other to chime in about.
An X-10 "controller" sends a signal to a "module". Modules can turn on,
off or dim lights etc. The X-10 controllers and modules constitute a
primitive network.
X-10 Build quality
X-10 is the company who created the first home automation products for the
consumer. The technology was fairly advanced for its day, but that was back
in the seventies and has seen little improvement since then. X-10 has
developed new models over the years but they have lacked the polish of a
product suitable for modern homes. Indeed the company seems more interested
in quantity of sales versus quality. The plastics they chose degraded and
discolored readily, circuit boards suffered from cold solder joints, wall
switch contacts were fragile. There are newer models but the best ones
always seem to be made by companies other than X-10. Any serious old-school
X-10 home automator likely has a box of dead X-10 parts waiting to be
recycled when the next module dies. Home Automation got off to a rocky start
since X-10 was doomed to be a hobby for the technically inclined. Poor
build quality was X-10s first real problem.
X-10 and powerline noise
X-10's underlying technology is part of its second problem. The homes
powerlines that the modules are wired or plugged into, are used to
distribute the signals. The signal is one way and modules have no provision
to send an acknowledgment. More on that later. If you had an operating TV
or motorized appliance plugged into the same circuit as a module, it was
unlikely the module would work due to noise on the powerlines.
X-10 phase coupling
Houses in North America use split phase wiring (2 x 110volt phases = 220V).
The X-10 signal had to be able to jump across the from one phase to the
other or the signal would only reach half the outlets in the house. A
capacitive signal bridge of the phases using a module called a "phase
coupler" helped for the most part but required wiring into a 220volt circuit
either in a breaker box or a dryer or stove outlet. This was not for the
average home owner and is the third problem.
X-10 device limitations
There are 16 House codes x 16 Unit codes = 256 useable addresses. It was
thought that no one would use more than 16 units in their houses. Signals
travel on the powerline up to the power pole, cross over to the other phase
and back down. In many cases a neighbor who used X-10 could control your
lights if they share the same power pole. So the idea was to allow each
house to use 16 modules and there could be 16 houses. Who'd have thought I
could have 16 devices in a bedroom alone. So this is surely a limitation and
X-10s fourth problem.
X-10 network speed
Commands can only be sent at the zero crossing of the AC waveform which
severely limits the amount of information that can be passed in a reasonable
amount of time. X-10 control systems have visible lag due to the speed
limitations. The fifth problem has and can not be solved with current X-10
technology.
X-10 one-way network
A big hurdle for automators was not knowing if the signal reached the module
or not. X-10s answer was the "2-way module". They are not really 2-way
since they can't acknowledge a command directly but they can be polled. the
problem is that due to the slow speed of the X-10 network the polling
responses can collide with other commands being sent. X-10 2-way is not
worth the extra money or trouble. This sixth problem is also hard wired into
the protocol.
X-10 user unfriendly
I had a friend insist on dimming his stereo with an X-10 lamp module, only
to watch his amp go up in smoke taking the module with it. Okay these are
electrical loads, and the problem is not unique to X-10, all electrical
dimmers behave in a similar fashion. A consumer having to know what an
inductive load is a mind bender for most, if not all, non technical people.
The seventh problem for X-10.
Those are the 7 deadly sins in HA as I see it. Yes there may be more but
lets get on to the good stuff. X-10 has a wide product line and the
availability of unique modules not yet available with other network
protocols. An example of this might be the PR511 floodlight motion detector.
Pricing can also be a factor and X-10 seems to give stuff away killing the
smaller dedicated home automation dealers.
Please confine the comments to other technologies since X-10 has already
been covered.
Jeff Volp
comments:
"echo" <sh...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:z1YWh.116736$DE1.58348@pd7urf2no...
Modules made by X10 are very inexpensive. Their build quality reflects that
fact. Higher quality X10 products are available from other manufactureres
at much higher prices.
> X-10 and powerline noise
> X-10's underlying technology is part of its second problem. The homes
> powerlines that the modules are wired or plugged into, are used to
> distribute the signals. The signal is one way and modules have no
> provision
> to send an acknowledgment. More on that later. If you had an operating TV
> or motorized appliance plugged into the same circuit as a module, it was
> unlikely the module would work due to noise on the powerlines.
Actually, "signal suckers" are more of an issue than noise sources. Most
X10 transmitters have limited power output, and their signals are easily
attenuated by devices that include a capacitor directly across the
powerline, such as most computers.
> X-10 phase coupling
> Houses in North America use split phase wiring (2 x 110volt phases =
> 220V).
> The X-10 signal had to be able to jump across the from one phase to the
> other or the signal would only reach half the outlets in the house. A
> capacitive signal bridge of the phases using a module called a "phase
> coupler" helped for the most part but required wiring into a 220volt
> circuit
> either in a breaker box or a dryer or stove outlet. This was not for the
> average home owner and is the third problem.
True, but there are plug-in versions now available that work for many
people.
> X-10 device limitations
> There are 16 House codes x 16 Unit codes = 256 useable addresses. It was
> thought that no one would use more than 16 units in their houses. Signals
> travel on the powerline up to the power pole, cross over to the other
> phase
> and back down. In many cases a neighbor who used X-10 could control your
> lights if they share the same power pole. So the idea was to allow each
> house to use 16 modules and there could be 16 houses. Who'd have thought I
> could have 16 devices in a bedroom alone. So this is surely a limitation
> and
> X-10s fourth problem.
And 640K of RAM and a 20MB harddrive was all any computer user would ever
need.
There is a signal blocker that can be installed at the distribution panel
that allows you to keep all 256 codes for yourself. However, a few house
codes will probably serve the needs of most users.
> X-10 network speed
> Commands can only be sent at the zero crossing of the AC waveform which
> severely limits the amount of information that can be passed in a
> reasonable
> amount of time. X-10 control systems have visible lag due to the speed
> limitations. The fifth problem has and can not be solved with current X-10
> technology.
True again. However, X10 speed is adaquate for most home automation
applications. Since our Oceltot controls virtually everthing here, the
delay is transparent to us. The delay usually becomes a factor if you use
X10 motion detectors to trigger lighting.
> X-10 one-way network
> A big hurdle for automators was not knowing if the signal reached the
> module
> or not. X-10s answer was the "2-way module". They are not really 2-way
> since they can't acknowledge a command directly but they can be polled.
> the
> problem is that due to the slow speed of the X-10 network the polling
> responses can collide with other commands being sent. X-10 2-way is not
> worth the extra money or trouble. This sixth problem is also hard wired
> into
> the protocol.
No answer back is necessary if there is communication reliablity. That is
addressed by providing adaquate signal levels at all modules. You almost
never ask for return receipt when you mail something. X10 can achieve the
same level of communication reliability.
> X-10 user unfriendly
> I had a friend insist on dimming his stereo with an X-10 lamp module, only
> to watch his amp go up in smoke taking the module with it. Okay these are
> electrical loads, and the problem is not unique to X-10, all electrical
> dimmers behave in a similar fashion. A consumer having to know what an
> inductive load is a mind bender for most, if not all, non technical
> people.
> The seventh problem for X-10.
That is an X10 problem? They do call it a LAMP module.
> Those are the 7 deadly sins in HA as I see it. Yes there may be more but
> lets get on to the good stuff. X-10 has a wide product line and the
> availability of unique modules not yet available with other network
> protocols. An example of this might be the PR511 floodlight motion
> detector.
> Pricing can also be a factor and X-10 seems to give stuff away killing the
> smaller dedicated home automation dealers.
Agree here.
> Please confine the comments to other technologies since X-10 has already
> been covered.
Yes, see: http://jeffvolp.home.att.net/x10_info/x10_troubleshooting.htm
Jeff
Dan Lanciani
| X-10s answer was the "2-way module". They are not really 2-way
| since they can't acknowledge a command directly but they can be polled.
Actually, they can be configured to acknowledge a command (or any state
change). I've never needed this feature because (a) I don't have the
reliability problems you are worried about and (b) my use for 2-way
functionality is generally to see in what state some other person/process
has left the device--something that is usually best done at the moment I
want the information. You might want to take a look at X10's extended
command set; it is quite complete.
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
Dave Houston
And, most of the Smarthome designed X10-compatible modules report changes
and respond to Status Request with the current preset dim level, even
transmitting an OFF should a bulb burn out.
echo
ear. X-10 has had its day and it is time for a more robust technology to
fill the need and fix the issues I mentioned. Until we get more robust user
friendly devices out there HA will be for the geeks. I would never
recommend X-10 for a serious installation because of the 7 problems. Just
think how users respond to Windows vs DOS and how Google has changed our
lives. No way will home automation come of age until we abandon this old
crap. Using signal bridges and having to add filters to TVs and not using
power bars with filters that eat x-10. Need I go on. I used to sell this
stuff. There is nothing modern about X-10 and justifying its continued
sales is like hanging on to DOS. Oh ya..I like DOS and have one PC running
24/7 on DOS 6 oddly enough it runs an ECS based X-10 system. Very powerful
in its day, 10+ years ago.
As for two-way, sorry X-10 is not. The newer modules can respond because of
modern PICs and programming but the protocol underlying is the problem. In a
proper communication system the network protocol must handle the error
correction and acknowledgments not the application (module). Having a
module respond is a Band-Aid that does not work. It clutters up the
powerline with even more X-10 commands so that more collisions occur and
even more commands get lost making the system less reliable. Answerback
modules must be used carefully allowing a time for response. Again, not too
friendly.
The TCP/IP would be great if it could be implemented over powerlines. But
an even more robust protocol would be nice where any module plugged into the
homes power system could be auto-detected and have a property sheet
instantly available to the control software.
I have a feeling a hybrid system of some kind may be good since powerline
commands can't be heard by low voltage DC devices. These could easily use a
wireless protocol.
As I mentioned X-10 has been discussed. Lets talk about something new like
the way Insteon works or Zwave, Zigbee, or Home PNP
"Dave Houston" <nob...@whocares.com> wrote in message
news:462d2bdd....@nntp.fuse.net...
Dave Houston
>As I mentioned X-10 has been discussed. Lets talk about something new like
>the way Insteon works or Zwave, Zigbee, or Home PNP
To what purpose? You've demonstrated that you don't understand X-10 so it's
unlikely you will understand the other technologies.
BTW, TCP/IP has been in widespread use over the powerlines for a few years
now. Search Google using (HomePlug or BPL). HomePlug has a simpler Command
and Control protocol that should start appearing in products soon. I suggest
starting with an overview like...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HomePlug_Powerline_Alliance
For HPCC, see..
http://www.itrancomm.com/pr2006_03_06_Homeplug.htm
There are at least two other competing (can coexist, cannot interoperate)
alliances pushing their own broadband powerline technologies.
http://www.upaplc.com/
http://wirelesswatch.jp/2005/03/14/seca-powerline-alliance/
There's no reason powerline commands cannot be heard by low voltage DC
devices if they get their power from the powerline. The ESM1 X10 meter is a
low voltage device that gets its power from a wall transformer. If you mean
battery powered, then wireless would be necessary.
Insteon, UPB and ZWave have been discussed here for a few years. Do a little
research.
Insteon is a faster, two-way PLC protocol. It uses 131.65kHz and suffers
with the same noise sources and signal sinks as does X10 although the fact
that each Insteon module or switch repeats the signal tends to alleviate
things somewhat. It needs a phase bridge - it just uses a wireless method
for this. Prices are comparable to X10 but there are, as yet, not as many
devices available. User feedback has been positive.
UPB is a faster, two-way PLC protocol. PCS claims no phase bridge is needed
but they are sold by all UPB suppliers none-the-less. Prices are high,
variety is low. User feedback has been positive.
Z-Wave requires a minimal density of modules to assure coverage. This plus
their 4 hops max limits the physical size of a network although one supplier
now offers a system with 7 hops max. Lutron has a strong patent on two-way
RF operated switches which is likely to further delay market acceptance and
add cost (for royalties and court costs). There has been very little user
feedback here.
Zigbee is not, in and of itself, a home automation protocol. There are some
manufacturers supplying Zigbee based HA devices but devices from various
manufacturers do not interoperate. Zigbee based devices may also run afoul
of Lutron's patents (Lutron has sued Control-4). I cannot recall seeing any
user feedback.
I have no idea what "Home PNP" is. Google spits up non HA related links.
There are numerous hard-wired systems available.
Clipsal C-Bus is both hard-wired and wireless and has an excellent
reputation. It is starting to appear in N. America. Search on "Square-D
C-Bus".
Some of these links may be outdated.
http://www.brightan.com/
http://caraca.sourceforge.net/
http://www.cebus.org/
http://www.centralite.com/
http://www.control4.com/
http://www.cytech-technology.com/
http://www.crestron.com/
http://www.elkproducts.com/
http://www.homeauto.com/
http://www.leaxcontrols.com/
http://www.lolcontrols.com/
http://www.litetouch.com/
http://www.echelon.com/
http://www.lutron.com/lutron/
http://www.onqtech.com/
http://www.touchplate.com/
http://www.vantageinc.com/
http://www.zen-sys.com/
http://www.zigbee.org/
http://www.hawkingtech.com/homeremote.php
http://www.act-solutions.com/HomePro.htm
http://www.intermatic.com/
Dan Lanciani
| I have no idea what "Home PNP" is. Google spits up non HA related links.
Home PnP was an additional layer of "semantics" for CEBus to allow better
interoperability between vendors proposed (IIRC) about ten years ago. In
conjunction with proprietary power increases in the transmitters it made
CEBus what it is today, i.e., not much. In theory Home PnP was protocol-
independent and I thought it somehow merged with some other specification,
but I didn't keep track.
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
Dave Houston
Thanks. Googling on "CEBus Home PNP" only turns up one relevant URL from 7
years ago. I'm not surprised that I'd never heard of it.
http://www.hometoys.com/htinews/aug00/articles/cebus/yong.htm
Robert L Bass
> to assure coverage. This plus their 4 hops max
> limits the physical size of a network although
> one supplier now offers a system with 7 hops
Mr. Houston is wrong about this. Standard
Z-Wave systems with "only" 4 hops can handle
extremely large homes. If the controller is
centrally located, 4 hops in every direction
can cover a home that is ~200 long by ~200 feet
wide. That's quite a bit larger than the average
HA palace.
> Lutron has a strong patent on two-way RF
> operated switches which is likely to further
> delay market acceptance and add cost...
So far, Lutron's patent has not hindered development
or market acceptance of Z-Wave in the least. It has
not cost anything either. Lutron's patent is too weak
to prevent anyone from placing a 2-way RF module
inside a junction box. That's like saying that Victrola
could keep anyone else from making a record player.
They'll press their lawsuit as far as they can in hopes
of maintaining their market position a little longer, but
price competition as well as the fact that Z-Wave is
compatible with far more systems than Lutron will
doom Radio RA.
> (for royalties and court costs). There has been
> very little user feedback here.
There has been plenty of negative comment from one
individual who rarely mentions that he has never tried
it.
> Zigbee is not, in and of itself, a home automation
> protocol. There are some manufacturers supplying
> Zigbee based HA devices but devices from various
> manufacturers do not interoperate...
Z-Wave devices from different manufacturers
generally do interoperate. There are over a hundred
manufacturers developing or already marketing
Z-Wave compatible hardware.
> Zigbee based devices may also run afoul
> of Lutron's patents...
or not.
--
Regards,
Robert L Bass
=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
941-925-8650
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34233
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
=============================>
mmikem32
wrote:
z-wave for me, all the way. the house is 100% z-wave. Installation
was a snap, Homeseer 2.0 supports is all. IHO powerline control is
too noisy and too buggy (filter, etc) to be a complete home automation
solution.
Robert L Bass
> Installation was a snap, Homeseer 2.0 supports is all.
> IHO powerline control is too noisy and too buggy (filter,
> etc) to be a complete home automation solution.
Would you mind sharing a few details of your installation?
How large is the home? How many Z-Wave devices are
you currently using? How long is the longest hop?
Robert Green
news:epudnbJ-yKw-SbLb...@comcast.com...
> > Z-Wave requires a minimal density of modules
> > to assure coverage. This plus their 4 hops max
> > limits the physical size of a network although
> > one supplier now offers a system with 7 hops
> > max...
>
> Mr. Houston is wrong about this. Standard
> Z-Wave systems with "only" 4 hops can handle
> extremely large homes.
Wrong about what? Are you saying that Zwave networks are limitless?
Re-read that paragraph. He made no mention of house size, just that there
are physical parameters that define the topology and limitations of Zwave's
mesh network.
> If the controller is centrally located, 4 hops in every direction
> can cover a home that is ~200 long by ~200 feet wide
That's nice if it's possible to centrally locate the controller. It's also
nice if people can realize the advertised maximum RF range. I think we both
know that sometimes, neither situation is possible. Dave didn't say
anything about home sizes, so I don't see how you can say he's "wrong" when
he points out that 4 hops defines the network range and that it apparently
had to be extended to 7 hops in an "add on" to the basic protocol. That 3
hop boost could easily imply that range might well have been a problem in
the real world for the basic 4 hop design.
> wide. That's quite a bit larger than the average
> HA palace.
We have a number of people that have posted here that need to control
devices in outbuildings of various sorts. A 200' maximum range (that's
probably under ideal circumstance may simply be inadequate for people who
don't live in standard buildings. For a vendor to "break" the existing
protocol to add nearly twice the hops indicates a theoretical collision with
real world problems. I don't see how having a 4 hop and a 7 hop system
improves interoperability between manufacturers. It seems to be the
reverse. If they are just now discovering they have to nearly double the ma
x hops to ensure reliable performance, this stuff's still in beta, at least
IMHO.
> Lutron's patent is too weak
> to prevent anyone from placing a 2-way RF module
> inside a junction box.
Only a judge can meaningfully determine whether their patent is so *weak*
that it is unenforceable. Patent problems can be very, very costly and the
feeling was, when the case below was first filed, that MercExchange couldn't
possibly prevail because "Buy It Now" was such an obvious invention:
<<A U.S. district Court jury sided with MercExchange of Great Falls, Va.,
which accused eBay in 2001 of infringing on three patents held by
MercExchange founder Tom Woolston. The verdict determined that eBay and its
Half.com subsidiary willfully infringed on two of those patents with their
"Buy It Now" feature for fixed-price sales.
The willful infringement ruling opens the door for the judge to hold eBay
liable for triple damages, or $105 million, said Neil Smith, an attorney
specializing in intellectual property law at Howard Rice, a San Francisco
firm.>>
source: http://news.com.com/2100-1017_3-1010397.html
> That's like saying that Victrola
> could keep anyone else from making a record player.
Huh? Edison patented the phonograph on February 19, 1878 as US Patent
200,521. Victor, the makers of the Victrola, didn't begin to make their
machines until after 1901. Ironically, the name Victor allegedly comes from
the owner of the company finally emerging as the 'Victor' in incredibly
lengthy and costly patent litigation involving others who claimed (oddly
enough!) patent infringement. In any case, Victor would have no standing to
prevent anyone from making a phonograph *after* someone *else's* patent had
expired!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Talking_Machine_Company
--
Bobby G.
mmikem32
wrote:
Hi Robert!
The house is 2500sqft. 2 story. Z-Troller from Homeseer controls all
from up stairs bedroom (office) in one corner of house. Homeseer
2.2.0.11. 14 Z-Wave devices (so far), dimmer, relay and a couple
plugin modules. Longest hop is about 60ft. This was my first device
so I know it actually went that far. Now it probably takes some
hops. Average is about 15-20ft thru 1 or 2 walls. There is a device
in almost every room. I also have a lot of other RF devices in the
house. Wireless cameras, routers, etc. Absolutly no problems.
Either with installation or with operation. I had no experience with
Z-Wave before this installation. I had that first device working and
setup in Homeseer in about 30 minutes. Including installing
Homeseer. Any other questions? Did I leave anything out?
Dave Houston
>Longest hop is about 60ft. This was my first device
>so I know it actually went that far.
Was this line-of-sight or through walls? What type of device - plug-in
module, dimmer mounted in wall switchbox?
mmikem32
60ft is thru normally open door to down stairs plugin device via large
vaulted ceiling and space open to down stairs. All are in wall
devices except two plugin modules.
Dave Houston
>60ft is thru normally open door to down stairs plugin device via large
>vaulted ceiling and space open to down stairs. All are in wall
>devices except two plugin modules.
So, the 60' was basically line-of-sight? Was that specific device in-wall or
plug-in?
Dave Houston
>> If the controller is centrally located, 4 hops in every direction
>> can cover a home that is ~200 long by ~200 feet wide
>
>That's nice if it's possible to centrally locate the controller.
If you're the owner of this specious estate and want to walk around the
perimeter of your network while using a handheld remote to control it,
you'll find that you can only control 1/2 (or less) of the network from
anywhere on the perimeter as signals fall off the edge of the earth after 4
hops.
Robert Green
I don't think they would have "broken the standard" to add three more hops
if real world experience didn't reveal situations like the one you've
postulated. They didn't add huge steel reinforcements to WWII Liberty ship
hulls until *after* they began to crack in half and sink in seconds, in
especially cold, rough weather.
Same principle applies to Zwave, from what I can see. The design theory
didn't quite mesh with the real world and had to be modified to cope. It
sounds, once again, that people who are early adopters are really beta
testers. One would think that any transmission range issues would have
surfaced somewhat earlier in a well-designed beta test and that seven hops
would have been used in all the production units from the start. It seems
awfully messy to decide a range boost is needed after so many four hop units
have been sold to the general public.
I think it's ironic that Zwave has "scaling up" issues since it's designed
to replace a technology (X-10) that has its own scaling problems. We also
have very little idea of what the RF spectrum will look like in 20 years.
Will RF turn out to become as problematic a transmission medium as home
powerlines have become for X-10? Only time will tell. These are "must
accept harmful interference" devices, aren't they?
--
Bobby G.
Robert L Bass
mal·a·prop·ism
-noun 1. an act or habit of misusing words ridiculously,
esp. by the confusion of words that are similar
in sound.
> and want to walk around the perimeter of
> your network while using a handheld remote
> to control it...
I've never met anyone who asked to do
that. Most people use a handheld Z-Wave
remote for its intended purposes:
1. As a setup device during configuration
2. To control things in the room where
they are standing.
Robert Green
> > If you're the owner of this specious estate...
>
> -noun 1. an act or habit of misusing words ridiculously,
> esp. by the confusion of words that are similar
> in sound.
I think it was a pun as in 'specious' means false and said mansion doesn't
exist and the situation described is speculative and not based on direct
experience.
But getting back to the technical issues, why do you think one vendor
decided they had to extend the specification to seven hops if four hops
covers even mega-mansions, (whether specious, spacious, speculative or
spherical?)
--
Bobby G.
mmikem32
The device was a plugin device. I have the homeseer z-troller so it
doesn't act as a hand held remote. but, I loaded homeseer on my
laptop, connected the z-troller up and walked around the house setting
off events. Every device worked from every location. This took a bit
of time to make sure that the all devices were working from each place
I stopped. Now...all devices may be working because I have so many
devices in the house now. But they do work. So I am not really on
board with all the negative talk about Z-wave. It all has worked
flawless for me from day one.
Dave Houston
As I recall, you said your house was 2500 ft² on two levels not the 40,000
ft² on one level that Bass claims 4 hops will cover. Your test doesn't
address the issue in any way since no one has said 4 hops is inadequate with
the distances involved in your house.
Aside from mentioning the Lutron patent and the reference to the imaginary
40,000 ft² house which you quoted, the only statement I made about Z-Wave
was, "Z-Wave requires a minimal density of modules to assure coverage. This
plus their 4 hops max limits the physical size of a network although one
supplier now offers a system with 7 hops max." I don't see where that is
either negative or inaccurate unless you're claiming that your 16 device
system will work equally well in the imaginary 40,000 ft² house.
"Fat Tony" D'Amico
>As I recall, you said your house was 2500 ft² on two levels not the 40,000
>ft² on one level that Bass claims 4 hops will cover. Your test doesn't
>address the issue in any way since no one has said 4 hops is inadequate with
>the distances involved in your house.
>
>Aside from mentioning the Lutron patent and the reference to the imaginary
>40,000 ft² house which you quoted, the only statement I made about Z-Wave
>was, "Z-Wave requires a minimal density of modules to assure coverage. This
>plus their 4 hops max limits the physical size of a network although one
>supplier now offers a system with 7 hops max." I don't see where that is
>either negative or inaccurate unless you're claiming that your 16 device
>system will work equally well in the imaginary 40,000 ft² house.
BWahahahahahaha!!!!
LOL!!
"Fat Tony" D'Amico
>
>> If you're the owner of this specious estate...
>
>mal戢搆rop搏sm
>-noun 1. an act or habit of misusing words ridiculously,
> esp. by the confusion of words that are similar
> in sound.
Good one..
Definitions of specious on the Web:
* plausible but false; "a specious claim"; "spurious inferences"
* gilded: based on pretense; deceptively pleasing; "the gilded and
perfumed but inwardly rotten nobility"; "meretricious praise"; "a
meretricious argument"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
* counterfeit, as in: Be careful, he is known for using specious
arguments to back up his claims.
* See a picture - http://members.cox.net/alarman/RLB.jpg
Robert L Bass
According to ABC News, "The average
single family home was 2349 square feet in
2004"
> not the 40,000 ft² on one level that
> Bass claims 4 hops will cover...
That is roughly the theoretical limit with
four hops and the controller located in
the center. If the house were round,
it would be more. Given four 30' hops
we have a radius of 120'. You do the
math.
> Your test doesn't address the issue
> in any way...
Wrong. His home isn't a test of your
ill-informed theory. It's a successful
application of Z-Wave in a home that
is slightly larger than average.
> since no one has said 4 hops is
> inadequate with the distances involved
> in your house.
You've implied that it is grossly ineadequate
for all but the smallest homes. You were
wrong.
> Aside from mentioning the Lutron patent
> and the reference to the imaginary 40,000
> ft² house which you quoted, the only
> statement I made about Z-Wave was,
> "Z-Wave requires a minimal density of
> modules to assure coverage...
That is far from the *only* statement you've made.
You have repeatedly claimed (without benefit of
experience) that Z-Wave is inadequate to the task.
The gentleman's application, along with numerous
others, shows you were wrong on that count.
You've insisted that it would never take hold --
this despite the more than 100 companies
backing it, including the likes of Intel.
> This plus their 4 hops max limits the physical
> size of a network...
All syetms have a limitation. Z-Wave is capable
of automating much larger homes than you
imagine.
> although one supplier now offers a system
> with 7 hops max."
Wrong again. It's 8. The supplier is InTouch
http://www.intouchcontrols.com/intouch-technology.php
> I don't see ...
Precisely.
Robert L Bass
Almost all of the negative talk about
Z-Wave has come from Houston.
Everyone I've spoken to who has tried
it says it works flawlessly.
When it first hit the streets, product
options were limited. There were no
3-way switches or dimmers for example.
This was an initial drawback but as you
are aware 3-way switches are readily
available.
Some folks didn't like the early release
hand-held remotes. Some didn't like
the cumbersome method used to remove
a module from one's system. However,
for most HA users it's not often necessary
to remove a module.
Other than that the main detractor of
Z-Wave is one fellow who has never
seen a single Z-Wave module, much
less tested one.
Glad your system is working well for
you. I hope you'll share whatever
troubles and successes you have as
your HA project grows (they have a
way of doing that) over time.
Dave Houston
> "gilded and perfumed but inwardly rotten..."
Sounds like what one might try to cover the stench of a fish rotting from
the head. ;)
mmikem32
>
> - Show quoted text -
A 40,000 ft² house...Fine...Never claimed any about 16 devices working
in that size. I was just asked about my setup and made the assertion
that Z-Wave was better than X-10 IMHO. Thats it !
mmikem32
Dave, Do you own any Z-Wave equipment? If so, are you having issues
getting it to work? If not, are you using a technology that you are
having problems with? I am just trying to understand your negative
theorical specification speak against Z-Wave when most of the posters
here think its a solid technology, and some posters, including myself,
have a successful installation with no bandaids like line filters, etc.
Robert L Bass
> If so, are you having issues getting it to work?
> If not, are you using a technology that you
> are having problems with? I am just trying to
> understand your negative theorical specification
> speak against Z-Wave when most of the posters
> here think its a solid technology, and some
> posters, including myself, have a successful
> installation with no bandaids like line filters, etc.
There are two reasons Houston dislikes Z-Wave.
Neither of them has anything to do with Z-Wave
itself. First, when it came out I spoke well of it.
Houston has it in for me because I've disagreed
with him on several occasions. That's why he
often posts childish insults about fish and such.
He erroneously believed that I was trying to sell
Z-Wave. Second, Houston tries to market X10
compatible devices. As such he has a financial
interest in steering people away from anything
that isn't X10.
There's little hope that he'll change tack. A
while back when he was having financial and
health problems I offered to help him out,
mistakenly believing I could bury the hatchet.
He responded by posting a vicious, personal
attack here. He claims he can tell what people
are thinking and can detect evil intent even in
friendly discussions.
I wouldn't bring any of this up except that Mr.
Houston's negative comments about Z-Wave
are misleading to the newsgroup. If taken at
face value his posts could lead people into
making wrong choices.
Dave Houston
>Dave, Do you own any Z-Wave equipment? If so, are you having issues
>getting it to work? If not, are you using a technology that you are
>having problems with? I am just trying to understand your negative
>theorical specification speak against Z-Wave when most of the posters
>here think its a solid technology, and some posters, including myself,
>have a successful installation with no bandaids like line filters, etc.
To the best of my recollection you are the very first Z-Wave end-user (aside
from dealers and installers) to post here in the 5 years or so that Z-Wave
has been available. So "most of the posters here" have never indicated
whether they think Z-Wave is "a solid technology". One rather knowledgeable
person, the author of Charmed Quark, uses Z-Wave and has, by and large,
agreed with most of the things I've had to say about it. Had you not just
recently "fallen from the sky" into CHA, you would know that.
As to my "negative" views, I suggest you actually review my posts on the
topic (my first post about Z-Wave was in June of 2002). You will find they
are factual and backed by evidence. If you want to argue with me on
technical issues I suggest you arm yourself with facts and supporting
evidence rather than relying on the litany of lies and misrepresentations
from Bass.
I live in a building that isn't very friendly to RF of this type. The walls
are plaster with lots of wire lath and with metal junction boxes, metallic
conduit, and hot water heat with large metal register enclosures in each
room. I have no problem with either X10 or Insteon and my RF setup (of my
own design) manages to handle RF quite well here.
While I have range tested some Z-Wave modules I do not use nor do I expect I
ever will use Z-Wave. I try to test and evaluate each new HA technology
(some manufacturers and dealers have loaned me hardware to make this
possible) and report on it here for the benefit of others - especially those
with disabilities for whom reliable HA technology is important.
Robert Green
There's a high irony content in that name when you consider that the most
recent positive posts come from a person who indeed appears to have "fallen
from the sky" into CHA. It could be genuine, but it always looks like
someone's sock puppet when the first post they make here seems so
serendipitous.
I've been looking for more info on why at least one manufacturer increased
the number of maximum hops and unless something's wrong with Google, there
just isn't much discussion about Z-wave out there on the net.
Results 1 - 10 of about 39 English pages for z-wave max hops. (0.21 seconds)
Most of the Google Groups searches lead to discussions by Dave, Dean Roddey
and sometimes me. The lack of hits made me realize how many more X-10 units
there are on the market (the site below says 5 million and still growing)
than Z-Wave.
I still like what David Rye said on CocoonTech:
http://www.cocoontech.com/index.php?act=ST&f=7&t=2129 (very bottom)
"These new technologies haven't yet been around long enough to even know
what problems they have."
I find Zen-sys themselves a little shady when they say "unlimited signal
range" although I am sure that the word "virtually" in this case is used to
make the lie not quite so bald-faced.
"Z-Wave’s dynamic routing principle, integrated into the technology, secures
a virtually unlimited signal range, as each of the Z-Wave devices repeats
the signal from one device to the next. The same routing principle ensures
the RF-signals are routed around radio dead spots and signal reflections
thereby securing a highly robust transmission covering the entire home."
http://support.zen-sys.com/modules/GettingStarted/?id=34&chk=6bd049add5fccc0
683bc30b27b33f0dc
If I understand the mesh network and max hops principles correctly, that
paragraph is just total BS. The range is as far as max hops allows, and not
a hop further. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I seem to remember they
limited the max hops in the first place primarily because network latency
increases with each added hop.
--
Bobby G.
Robert L Bass
> actually review my posts on the topic (my
> first post about Z-Wave was in June of
> 2002). You will find they are factual and
Actually, you will find thatr Mr. Houston routinely
posts apparently deliberate misleading "analysis"
of data he finds online about Z-Wave. This is not
the only subject for which he has been chastised
for doing so.
> If you want to argue with me on technical issues
> I suggest you arm yourself with facts and
> supporting evidence...
I suggest the gentleman already has more experience
with and knowledge of Z-Wave than Mr. Houston.
For one thing, he actually uses it. Houston has never
so much as laid eyes on a Z-Wave product. let alone
tested any of it.
> I live in a building that isn't very friendly
> to RF of this type...
That is completely irrelevent to the discussion at hand.
Were he to dwell in a metal box it would also be
unfriendly to RF. That means nothing to the vast majority
of users.
> ...and my RF setup (of my own design)...
The setup of Houston's own design (or which he claims
to have designed) is one of the real issues here. His
design was and is a commercial failure. Z-Wave is not.
> While I have range tested some Z-Wave
> modules...
That is a fabrication. He has posted lots of erroneous
supposition about Z-Wave but never tested any of it.
> I try to test and evaluate each new HA technology
> (some manufacturers and dealers have loaned me
> hardware to make this possible) and report on it
> here for the benefit of others - especially those
> with disabilities for whom reliable HA technology is
> important.
Name one manufacturer of Z-Wave hardware that
has loaned you anything.
Dave Houston
>If I understand the mesh network and max hops principles correctly, that
>paragraph is just total BS. The range is as far as max hops allows, and not
>a hop further. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I seem to remember they
>limited the max hops in the first place primarily because network latency
>increases with each added hop.
Your understanding is correct. There's a neat little video on the Intermatic
InTouch site that illustrates the difference between 4 hops and 8 hops. I've
cited it before. Most two-way networks put some type of limit on the number
of transmissions - Insteon has a max limit, TCP/IP has a "time to live"
limit. Otherwise, in addition to increased latency, a signal that was
neither ACKed nor NAKed would echo forever.
Robert L Bass
>> principles correctly, that paragraph is just total BS.
>> The range is as far as max hops allows, and not
The range is roughly 30 per hop indoors. If the
controller is located in the center of the house,
a 4-hop signal can travel 120' in each direction.
If this were a round house (not very common)
the maximum area would be ~(3.14 x 120^^2)
which is 45,216. Hence the theoretical limit of
40,000 sf. With an 8-hop system the limi
quadruples to 180,000 sf. Again, this is for a
round home.
A more typical though still very large rectangular
home 200' in length and 80' deep would have a
hypotenuse a tad over 215'. A centrally located
controller could handle that theoretical 16,000sf
home in 4 hops.
I submit that any system capable of handling a
16,000 sf home is more than adequate for most
of the folks we meet here in CHA. I will post
(with permission) to a new thread a few articles
on Z-Wave which readers here may find of
interest.
"Fat Tony" D'Amico
> I will post
>(with permission) to a new thread a few articles
>on Z-Wave which readers here may find of
>interest.
Permission denied.
Robert L Bass
> has been available.
Z-Wave products have only been commercially
available for about three years.
> One rather knowledgeable person, the author
> of Charmed Quark, uses Z-Wave and has, by
> and large, agreed with most of the things I've
> had to say about it...
Coincidentally, CQC (aka Charmed Quark) is
being used to interface Z-Wave and an ELK-M1G
controller on one of the better known Z-Wave
installations, the winner of Z-Wave World's
"Rock Star" award. I don't have the dimensions
of the home but it's a nice example of what can
be accomplished using Z-Wave, an ELK Products
controller and CQC software.
> I live in a building...
Me, too. I asked Mark Walters of Zen-sys what
was the largest successful installation of Z-Wave
that he knew of. He said the largest job with which
he was personally involved was a 7,800 sf home.
That's twice the size of my little bungalow but my
home presents a special challenge to any RF
system. It's shaped like a "C" with a large, open
space (Lanai) in the middle. RF transceivers in
one wing will need to reach a controller in the other.
The most central utility space in the home is the
laundry, but that's got some potential problems.
There's a tall freezer and various appliances in
there which may cause problems with blocked
and reflected signals. I'm planning to try using
that room first, just to see how well it works in
a difficult location. If not, there's a decorative
bridge between the "family" wing and the rest
of the house where I could hide a transceiver.
I'm not yet up to climbing ladders and stuff but as
soon as I get enough strength back I'll get started.
I'll post my experiences here in case anyone's
interested.
Frank Olson
> I'm not yet up to climbing ladders and stuff but as
> soon as I get enough strength back I'll get started.
> I'll post my experiences here in case anyone's
> interested.
>
With lots of links to your online store... On second thought... I'm
not really interested in anything you have to say on the subject...
echo
"Robert L Bass" <no-sales-spam@bassburglaralarms> wrote in message
> There are two reasons Houston dislikes Z-Wave.
> Neither of them has anything to do with Z-Wave
> itself. First, when it came out I spoke well of it.
> Houston has it in for me because I've disagreed
> with him on several occasions. That's why he
> often posts childish insults about fish and such.
> He erroneously believed that I was trying to sell
> Z-Wave. Second, Houston tries to market X10
> compatible devices. As such he has a financial
> interest in steering people away from anything
> that isn't X10.
Quite believable since he attacked me as the original poster claiming I did
not understand X-10 and would not be able to understand other technologies.
It's uncomfortable when people get emotional, defensive and personal. Maybe
I hit a nerve or maybe he is just ACTing. Funny he did didn't counter any
of X-10s seven deadly sins I outlined in the opening post.
Robert L Bass
> as the original poster claiming I did not
> understand X-10 and would not be able
> to understand other technologies.
You're not alone. He's attacked me for
having a name like a fish. :^)
> It's uncomfortable when people get
> emotional, defensive and personal.
> Maybe I hit a nerve or maybe he is just
> ACTing. Funny he did didn't counter
> any of X-10s seven deadly sins I
> outlined in the opening post.
FWIW, I don't mind that he has a financial
interest in what he posts here. Since I sell
home automation and security systems online
I have much more to gain than Houston. The
difference is when I post something positive
about something I carry I include a statement
to the effect that I may be biased since I sell
the stuff.
Frank Olson
> ... The
> difference is when I post something positive
> about something I carry I include a statement
> to the effect that I may be biased since I sell
> the stuff.
The difference is, Dave (and a host of others) post meaningful responses
to the Group WITHOUT an agenda. Your sole purpose for being here is to
market the products you sell. Why not spend some time answering your
phone and emails? I figure you stand to benefit from doing so. There
will be fewer complaints filed with the BBB for one thing...