No more X10 at Radio Shack?
Dave
Yesterday I tried to purchase an appliance module at the local Radio
Shack (Rochester, MN) and was told that RS is discontinuing its X10
Plug N Power products. There may be some good deals at stores that
still have inventory.
What is the best alternative to Radio Shack for me, an infrequent buyer
of basic X10 products?
Thanks in advance, Dave
Patrick Klos
Dave <dcr...@charter.net> wrote:
>Yesterday I tried to purchase an appliance module at the local Radio
>Shack (Rochester, MN) and was told that RS is discontinuing its X10
>Plug N Power products. There may be some good deals at stores that
>still have inventory.
Radio Shack is fast becoming not very useful to those of us who like
electronics and doing things ourselves.
>What is the best alternative to Radio Shack for me, an infrequent buyer
>of basic X10 products?
=========== For PPP Protocol Analysis, check out PacketView Pro! ===========
Patrick Klos Email: pat...@klos.com
Klos Technologies, Inc. Web: http://www.klos.com/
============================================================================
Bill
cell phone to your ear all day!
"Patrick Klos" <pk...@osmium.mv.net> wrote in message
news:ekfa0t$1aj1$1...@pyrite.mv.net...
Neil Cherry
> In article <1164650050....@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> Dave <dcr...@charter.net> wrote:
> Radio Shack is fast becoming not very useful to those of us who like
> electronics and doing things ourselves.
>
>>What is the best alternative to Radio Shack for me, an infrequent buyer
>>of basic X10 products?
>
> http://www.x10.com/
That's just mean! ;-)
--
Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry nch...@linuxha.com
http://www.linuxha.com/ Main site
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/ My HA Blog
http://home.comcast.net/~ncherry/ Backup site
Neil Cherry
Take a look at Smarthome.com. You could do a search and see who else
is selling X10 type products.
Jeff Volp
news:1164650050....@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> What is the best alternative to Radio Shack for me, an infrequent buyer
> of basic X10 products?
eBay - there are a couple of dealers that offer a wide variety of X10 items
at prices that can't be beat.
Jeff
Bill Kearney
> Shack (Rochester, MN) and was told that RS is discontinuing its X10
> Plug N Power products.
Hallelujah! If more retail channels abandon that abomination we'll all be
better off. X10 is shite.
> What is the best alternative to Radio Shack for me, an infrequent buyer
> of basic X10 products?
Stop using X10.
Jeff Volp
news:xYWdnQOVYv4h2fHY...@speakeasy.net...
>
> Hallelujah! If more retail channels abandon that abomination we'll all be
> better off. X10 is shite.
>
X10 can be a cost-effective and very reliable system for those who care to
put in some effort.
Actually, it is probably better that retail channels drop it because that
will get rid of many of the impulse buyers who are disappointed when it
doesn't work 100% right out of the box. You know the ones - their VCRs
flashed 12:00 for years until manufacturers included automatic clock
setting.
How many of the "new and better" systems will still be around 30 years from
now?
Jeff
Joerg
> Actually, it is probably better that retail channels drop it because that
> will get rid of many of the impulse buyers who are disappointed when it
> doesn't work 100% right out of the box. You know the ones - their VCRs
> flashed 12:00 for years until manufacturers included automatic clock
> setting.
>
Ours still flashes 12:00 after an outage. X10 let us down here: We
bought the X10 universal remote and on the picture it had a "Menu"
button in the lower left. When I unpacked it I discovered that it had a
"Guide" button in that space and no menu button. Hence we cannot program
the clock or anything else at all except by unplugging again and holding
some magic buttons on the VCR itself. Its original remote had died.
Tried dozens of VCR codes in the booklet and none turns that useless
guide button into menu mode :-(
> How many of the "new and better" systems will still be around 30 years from
> now?
>
Good point. "New and better" is not only about technology, they also
need to understand marketing. So far I don't see that happen.
--
Regards, Joerg
Robert Green
news:3NYah.115414$Fi1.103737@bgtnsc05-
> X10 can be a cost-effective and very reliable system for those who care to
> put in some effort.
There's nothing on the market that can come close to either the low cost or
the breadth of product offerings. Everyone's still playing catch up. With
the addition of the XTB it's become a workable system once more. Thanks
again for inventing it!
> Actually, it is probably better that retail channels drop it because that
> will get rid of many of the impulse buyers who are disappointed when it
> doesn't work 100% right out of the box. You know the ones - their VCRs
> flashed 12:00 for years until manufacturers included automatic clock
> setting.
It's not for the faint of heart, especially in this age of CFL's and
switching power supplies. Even factoring in the cost of filters, a good
meter and XTB's on the main transmitters, X-10 *still* comes in way cheaper
per load than any other control system. And it does it with more types of
controllers (from PLC hardwired to pocket RF remotes) than anything else
currently out there.
Best of all, Ebayers who bought the stuff cheap from X-10 and never used it
are now selling it in droves on Ebay for dirt cheap. They'd be worthless to
me without your XTB. It reminds me a little of the early days of disk
compression and Stacker where you could truly get something for almost
nothing. In this case, it's the ability to extend the life of my X-10 setup
for perhaps another 10 years. Maybe 20. (-:
> How many of the "new and better" systems will still be around 30 years
from
> now?
It's been a remarkable run - made even more so because it's still a player.
Personally, I'm going to start trash talking X-10 here so that people panic
and dump their excess X-10 inventory for pennies on the dollar. I've
already made some fantastic buys - a carton of StickaSwitches, remotes,
appliance modules, transceivers and more (all unused) for $20. It's really
nice to be able to add a few more control points here and there for less
than $2 each.
While I'd love to have the reliability of Centralite or Lutron's RF system,
I don't think I'd ever be able to recover the cost when selling the house.
--
Bobby G.
Robert Green
<stuff snipped>
> Ours still flashes 12:00 after an outage. X10 let us down here: We
> bought the X10 universal remote and on the picture it had a "Menu"
> button in the lower left. When I unpacked it I discovered that it had a
> "Guide" button in that space and no menu button. Hence we cannot program
> the clock or anything else at all except by unplugging again and holding
> some magic buttons on the VCR itself. Its original remote had died.
Is it *really* their fault? If you're talking about one of their learning
Universal remotes, it *could* learn the code you're missing in all
probability, but your original died. Which of the many X-10 remotes are you
talking about?
> Tried dozens of VCR codes in the booklet and none turns that useless
> guide button into menu mode :-(
If it's a learning remote, maybe there's someone that can lend you an
original remote just for learning purposes if you list the exact make and
model of the gear you want to control.
I just had a situation where I couldn't get my X-10 learning remote to learn
the codes to control my Sony DVD jukebox. It was a real bummer because up
until that acquisition, the X-10 remote was able to learn any command it
didn't have embedded in its ROM. Dave Houston helped me out tremendously by
suggesting that I use as short a teaching press as possible because (IIRC)
Sony used atypically short codes. This was in direct contravention to the
advice I had gotten about programming my Ocelot, but lo and behold, I was
able to teach my X-10 remote to control the basic functions of the jukebox.
For some things, we still need the original remotes, but it's very nice to
have a remote that controls all the lights, the AV gear and the CCTV and can
perform 95 per cent of the work that needs doing. Very nice. Thanks Dave!
> > How many of the "new and better" systems will still be around 30 years
from
> > now?
> >
>
> Good point. "New and better" is not only about technology, they also
> need to understand marketing. So far I don't see that happen.
Dude. They ramped up sales at X10.com using popunders, popovers, popups,
popouts and spam at a rate that kept breaking records. I'm not saying those
were *good* tactics but they certainly moved the product. And now I can
benefit from all of the 2 for 1 vouchers X10.com used to give away. Those
vouchers caused people to buy far more gear than they ever needed (that's
the hallmark of effective marketing - selling snow to Eskimos). I liked
the vouchers, personally, and I know a LOT of people here bought lots of
gear with vouchers. The popup crap I could live without and did, as soon as
I got a popup blocker.
To get X-10 to work reliably in the new world, you need filters, you need a
meter and you need a signal booster like Jeff's XTB. That's really a small
cost to protect for what some is a fairly large investment in X-10 gear.
IIRC, there was a comment here a while back that claimed over 5 million X-10
devices are in use. If true, it's going to be a while before any other HA
technology reaches that number.
--
Bobby G.
Bill Kearney
system,
> I don't think I'd ever be able to recover the cost when selling the house.
Daily satisfaction of reliable operation makes RadioRA more than worth the
price paid.
When I sell the house the new owners don't even need to care about the
switches. They're just like normal switches, requiring nothing special
about using them. Unlike the X10 crap.
I switched to RadioRa a couple of years ago and it's been absolutely
fantastic. Absolutely no troubles whatsoever with switch operation,
installation and reliability. They "just work" as one should rightfully
expect. X10 is a fraud perpetrated on the public and deserves it's decline
in sales. The stuff's just junk and nobody in their right mind should waste
any time or money on it. Cheap is worthless when it aggravates like only
X10 can.
Jeff Volp
> I switched to RadioRa a couple of years ago and it's been absolutely
> fantastic. Absolutely no troubles whatsoever with switch operation,
> installation and reliability. They "just work" as one should rightfully
> expect.
X10 is both a protocol and a product. While X10 products are cheap, they do
work. Those brown BSR modules we bought almost 30 years ago are still
pushed into service for Christmas decorations. How many electronic devices
you own now will still be in use 30 years from now?
The X10 protocol does have some challenges in today’s environment. Not many
of the electronic devices found in a typical home today were in use when the
X10 protocol was developed. As the power distribution environment becomes
more complex, it does take some work to keep it “X10 friendly”.
Our X10 modules and Leviton X10 switches “just work”, doing what they should
day in and day out. Who can ask for more?
Jeff
D&SW
or money on it."
I have used X10 since 1981 (+100 modules in the house currently), am still
happy with it, and by latest account I am still in my right mind.
Just because YOU couldn't get it to work, does not mean it is junk.
"Bill Kearney" <wkear...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Rr6dnX3dnuPEWPHY...@speakeasy.net...
Robert Green
> When I sell the house the new owners don't even need to care about the
> switches. They're just like normal switches, requiring nothing special
> about using them.
But will you be able to recover the cost of your investment in RA? I have
my doubts. I'm not into making unrecoverable investments - too many years
of watching HGTV. I also understand that there's a 32/64 device limit, well
under the 256 that X-10 offers. That immediately puts RA in the back seat
because, believe it or not, I have 48 codes in play and will probably expand
that.
More importantly, RF is *always* subject to interference. I suppose you can
Faradize your house to keep out EMI from some nearby government transmitter
but that would be a bitch. Easier to filter the powerline as it comes into
the house than the entire radio spectrum as it pours through the walls.
More importantly to me, X-10 is really a dual protocol, using both RF and
PLC. That gives me a fast fallback position if the local AF base begins
transmitting a signal that ends up jamming the RF. Not likely, but not
impossible either.
> Unlike the X10 crap.
Yes. It's all crap. Anyone reading this should box all their X-10 stuff up
and sell it on Ebay before the bottom falls out completely. Palmpads,
Stickaswitches and their larger AAA powered cousins, appliance modules -
sell them now before it's too late. No reserve price either. (But drop me
a line if you do!) (/sarcasm off)
> I switched to RadioRa a couple of years ago and it's been absolutely
> fantastic. Absolutely no troubles whatsoever with switch operation,
> installation and reliability. They "just work" as one should rightfully
> expect. X10 is a fraud perpetrated on the public and deserves it's
decline
> in sales. The stuff's just junk and nobody in their right mind should
waste
> any time or money on it. Cheap is worthless when it aggravates like only
> X10 can.
It all depends on your "use profile." Obviously, for a lot of people, X-10
still does the job. Thanks to Jeff V. and the XTB, the major problem I've
suffered (weak PLC signal) has disappeared and now I am troubled more by the
rotten switch feeling of some of the switches. Would I like something
better? Sure! But there's the little problem of never being able to
justify to my self or my wife any schema that involved a cost of over $100 a
load. Or even $50 a load. Her attitude is that we have HA because *I* am
too lazy to get up and turn off a light. It's hard to advance that position
into one where we spend $1,000's on something that we'll never recover in a
sale. For us, something like a granite countertop upgrade would be a much
better long-term investment in so many ways than something like RadioRA. . .
But it's really a case of "to each his own." Reliability is important to
you. Not breaking the budget is important to me. Not putting lots of money
into a house we'll be selling soon is also important to me. X-10 lets me do
a lot of things for very little money. Not perfectly, but quite well enough
to suit my tastes.
--
Bobby G.
Dave Petrone
(http://www.pigselectronics.com/products/cartfrm.htm)
They have reasonably good prices and shipping. I have ordered from them
before and had no problems.
Dave
"Dave" <dcr...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1164650050....@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
Bill Kearney
time
> or money on it."
>
> I have used X10 since 1981 (+100 modules in the house currently), am still
> happy with it, and by latest account I am still in my right mind.
>
> Just because YOU couldn't get it to work, does not mean it is junk.
And just because you're willing to fool with it doesn't mean it's not.
I've used this stuff for decades. X10 devices regardless of vendor, time
and again, can't stand up to use, don't operate in expected fashion and
can't interoperate with other normal UL-approved devices. They're just not
worth the aggravation.
Bill Kearney
"Robert Green" <ROBERT_G...@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
news:mcmdnXsiarUfm_DY...@rcn.net...
> "Bill Kearney" <wkear...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > When I sell the house the new owners don't even need to care about the
> > switches. They're just like normal switches, requiring nothing special
> > about using them.
>
> But will you be able to recover the cost of your investment in RA? I have
> my doubts.
My time and satisfaction is worth something. The time/money wasted on X10
has no doubt been considerably more than the cost of RadioRA gear. Like I
said, I'm not at all worried about recovering the costs. I like how these
work, that makes it worth the expense.
> I also understand that there's a 32/64 device limit, well
> under the 256 that X-10 offers.
Yeah right, two hundred and fifty six pieces of shit that don't work is not
my idea of an advantage. I dare you to get that many working in a residence
anyway. The signal collisions would make it nearly impossible to use it
without driving your spouse insane.
Yeah, in theory I'd like more device addresses. In practice, however, I've
found I don't need more. Since I run all my gear through a PC I could just
add another RS232 interface and a repeater. Not as "easy" as X10 but at
least I'd KNOW they'd work.
> More importantly, RF is *always* subject to interference.
Oh that's bullshit. X10 is even WORSE for being susceptible to
interference. I've got all sorts of RF polluting crap here at the house and
have NEVER, EVER had an interference problem with RadioRA. Not once. And
I've had plenty of RF issues with things IR-RF remote repeaters (besides the
shitty powermid abominations of course).
> I suppose you can
> Faradize your house to keep out EMI from some nearby government
transmitter
> but that would be a bitch.
This is a 50's era brick on block construction house in the DC metro area.
It's ALREADY a faraday cage. Damn near kills cell phone coverage just by
walking indoors. Outside RF is the LEAST of my worries!
> Easier to filter the powerline as it comes into
> the house than the entire radio spectrum as it pours through the walls.
Outside interference isn't what plagues most single homes with X10's crappy
protocol. It's the other devices already inside the house that X10 can't
interoperate with.
> More importantly to me, X-10 is really a dual protocol, using both RF and
> PLC. That gives me a fast fallback position if the local AF base begins
> transmitting a signal that ends up jamming the RF. Not likely, but not
> impossible either.
X10's RF "sucks less" than their powerline crap, I'll give you that. But
barring use of someone else's RF transceiver even that's a pain in the ass
to get working reliably.
> Yes. It's all crap. Anyone reading this should box all their X-10 stuff
up
> and sell it on Ebay before the bottom falls out completely. Palmpads,
> Stickaswitches and their larger AAA powered cousins, appliance modules -
> sell them now before it's too late. No reserve price either. (But drop
me
> a line if you do!) (/sarcasm off)
Had I the patience to put up with shipping all the crap I'd sell 'em on
fleabay. Meanwhile they're just gathering dust. I really don't feel like
inflicting their pain on someone else.
> It all depends on your "use profile." Obviously, for a lot of people,
X-10
> still does the job. Thanks to Jeff V. and the XTB, the major problem I've
> suffered (weak PLC signal) has disappeared and now I am troubled more by
the
> rotten switch feeling of some of the switches. Would I like something
> better? Sure! But there's the little problem of never being able to
> justify to my self or my wife any schema that involved a cost of over $100
a
> load. Or even $50 a load. Her attitude is that we have HA because *I* am
> too lazy to get up and turn off a light. It's hard to advance that
position
> into one where we spend $1,000's on something that we'll never recover in
a
> sale. For us, something like a granite countertop upgrade would be a much
> better long-term investment in so many ways than something like RadioRA. .
.
No doubt, the WAF always comes into play. But for me it's a matter of
balancing between the wife absolutely DESPISING the crappy X10 switch-feel,
not to mention the complete lack of reliability, or the one time
unrecoverable costs. Buck up, waste the money and avoid the complaints.
> But it's really a case of "to each his own." Reliability is important to
> you. Not breaking the budget is important to me. Not putting lots of
money
> into a house we'll be selling soon is also important to me. X-10 lets me
do
> a lot of things for very little money. Not perfectly, but quite well
enough
> to suit my tastes.
I'm always boggled by the number of people that will go to such lengths to
defend the absolutely shitty performance of the X10 gear. It JUST DOESN'T
WORK. Sure, tweak it endlessly and don't add any new devices and you MAY be
able to get it stabilized. It's not a matter of not being perfect, hell,
even I'd put up with some degree of issues. But without having reliable
2-way or status tracking it's just impossible to get it all working in a
manner that doesn't constantly call attention to itself as being a
clusterfuck. This is not conducive to garnering spousal respect.
Of course now with the recent news that Control4 is going to start pimping
their stuff through BestBuy it might be interesting to see how the price
points adjust again...
-Bill Kearney
Jeff Volp
> I'm always boggled by the number of people that will go to such lengths to
> defend the absolutely shitty performance of the X10 gear. It JUST DOESN'T
> WORK. Sure, tweak it endlessly and don't add any new devices and you MAY
be
> able to get it stabilized.
You sound like a typical teckie with money falling out of his pockets.
Can't get something to work? Just throw money at it. Can't be bothered to
understand how it works.
Remember, X10 was developed 30 years ago in a different environment. It
worked then out of the box. The environment has changed, and now it takes
some planning. But X10 still works, and can work 100%. The WAF is
important, and she is my best indicator of any X10 problem. We only had one
cranky module on a compact fluorescent light before adding the XTB. It
missed its OFF command every few months. Now everything works 100%.
So, what "endless tweaking" did I do to get this reliability?
1) Most electronics is on its own circuit isolated by a 20A filter.
2) All circuits with X10 devices were wired to the same phase.
3) Leviton "Intellisense" X10 wall switches are used throughout.
4) All X10 circuits feeding CF ceiling cans use Leviton 6287 filters.
5) One signal sucking UPS is isolated with its own filter.
All but #5 was done over 3 years ago when the house was built. Since then
the only "tweaking" has been to the Ocelot program adjusting irrigation
cycles, and adding even more automation.
RadioRA works well now. Will it run into problems as more RF devices move
into our homes? Only time will tell...
Jeff
Kurt Delaney
>
> While I'd love to have the reliability of Centralite or Lutron's RF
> system,
> I don't think I'd ever be able to recover the cost when selling the house.
Having X10 switches installed actually *reduces* the value of the house --
the average home buyer sees this stuff as an unknown, and most home
inspectors will flag it as a liability. Which, IMHO, is correct. If a X10
switch quits working (which is quite common, unless you are using very high
quality stuff like PCS), how will a new homeowner who knows nothing about
X10 be able to fix it? Most likely, they would have to call an electrician
(read: $$$) and they would most likely just replace the X10 w/ a regular
switch.
When you come to sell the place, don't be suprised if you will have to swap
out all of your X10 switches with regular switches.
Kurt
Mike
>
>Ours still flashes 12:00 after an outage. X10 let us down here: We
>bought the X10 universal remote and on the picture it had a "Menu"
>button in the lower left. When I unpacked it I discovered that it had a
>"Guide" button in that space and no menu button. Hence we cannot program
>the clock or anything else at all except by unplugging again and holding
>some magic buttons on the VCR itself. Its original remote had died.
>
>Tried dozens of VCR codes in the booklet and none turns that useless
>guide button into menu mode :-(
Take a learning remote programmed to your VCR to a store that sells
VCRs made by the same manufacturer as your old one. Get permission to
see if the new ones respond to your remote. If they do then teach your
remote the Menu function from their remote.
-Mike
Robert Green
news:KQhbh.2954$ad7....@news.cpqcorp.net...
>
> "Robert Green" <ROBERT_G...@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
> news:XuudnZ-osJyEHPHY...@rcn.net...
> >
> > While I'd love to have the reliability of Centralite or Lutron's RF
> > system,
> > I don't think I'd ever be able to recover the cost when selling the
house.
>
> Having X10 switches installed actually *reduces* the value of the house --
> the average home buyer sees this stuff as an unknown, and most home
> inspectors will flag it as a liability.
I've got a big plastic bag in the basement filled with the manual switches I
yanked to install the X-10 ones. I figure it will take a few hours to pull
the X-10 and replace it with the original stuff when we move. The only
problems I anticipate are broken pigtails if I futz with the wires too much.
> Which, IMHO, is correct. If a X10
> switch quits working (which is quite common, unless you are using very
high
> quality stuff like PCS), how will a new homeowner who knows nothing about
> X10 be able to fix it? Most likely, they would have to call an
electrician
> (read: $$$) and they would most likely just replace the X10 w/ a regular
> switch.
Two points here. Number one is that X-10 users have lots of quality level
choices when it comes to switches. That's good. I checked RadioRA pricing
again last night and it seems that they are in the $100 to $300 "price per
load" if you factor in the cost of their controllers and bridges. To be
fair, and to modify my original statement somewhat, it sounds like a
homeowner *could* take RA with them with they moved as easily as I can take
X-10, so it's not really a factor in choosing between the two.
I wouldn't feel that I'd be leaving much $ behind using either X-10 or
Lutron or even Insteon. The problem is that I would want my next HA system
to be hardwired, based on Ethernet-type cabling and that's an investment
that won't transport easily to the next home. Part of the beauty of X-10
(and other HA protocols) is that you can do so much without rewiring. If
you want to control clusters of lights, have multiple control points, etc.
you can do it without having to pull wires or rewire outlets or light
switches unless you need a neutral where none exists. But RF and PLC are
both vulnerable to interference while "fly by wire" is inherently "battle
hardened."
The second point is that it's been absolutely YEARS since I've had to
replace an X-10 wall switch. I got a closeout of Stanley-branded wallswitch
modules with pushbuttons and have had no failures since (that was in mid
90's or so, IIRC). One reason might be that the Stanley instructions were
quite clear that the blue and black wires were NOT interchangeable. One
went to the hot side, the other to the neutral. Was that secret that's kept
them all working all this time? Dunno. All I know is that in MY house,
X-10 wall switches have been very reliable, although I will agree that at
one time I was replacing them far too frequently. Everyone can have a bad
product run or can mislabel their installation instructions. As you point
out, if X-10 switches had NOT been reliable, I would still have had my
choices of alternatives in a range of prices from $20 to $100.
> When you come to sell the place, don't be suprised if you will have to
swap
> out all of your X10 switches with regular switches.
Kurt, I agree wholeheartedly. I've already planned for and budgeted for the
swap. I've got the original switches labeled by outlet number and ready to
be swapped before we even show the place. Having X-10, and to a lesser
extent *any* HA system, is going to hurt rather than help any home sale,
IMHO, unless, of course, you're selling to a fellow HA enthusiast.
P.S. - Maybe my spell checker's biased but it wants to replace "Lutron" with
"latrine!" (-:
--
Bobby G.
Marc_F_Hult
message <3NYah.115414$Fi1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
>X10 can be a cost-effective and very reliable system for those who care to
>put in some effort.
>
>Actually, it is probably better that retail channels drop it because that
>will get rid of many of the impulse buyers who are disappointed when it
>doesn't work 100% right out of the box. You know the ones - their VCRs
>flashed 12:00 for years until manufacturers included automatic clock
>setting.
This is a not an apt comparison in my opinion. A person does not need an
electrician to program a VCR, but in most jurisdictions in the US, a person
must either have the knowledge, manual skills, tools *and* authorization to
do electrical AC work themselves, or hire a licensed electrician who may
also need to be bonded and(or) show proof of paying fees/taxes in the local
jurisdiction.
What proportion of folks are competent enough to accurately construct a
schematic diagram of their home's AC wiring and then reconfigure the main
entrance panel to put all X-10 on one phase safely and in accordance with
codes?
In many/most US jurisdictions, the home owner (not a renter, not
brother-in-law) is the only individual other than licensed electricians that
can do this work. And it is part and parcel of what makes your system --
built during _new_ construction -- successful.
Folks should be made aware that your approach, applied during new
construction, was a different situation than a retrofit to existing housing
which is the predominant use of X-10 as far as I know.
So it is much more than simply "care[ing] to
put in some effort" in most cases.
... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org
Marc_F_Hult
<kurt_dot_delaney@rm_this_hp.com> wrote in message
<KQhbh.2954$ad7....@news.cpqcorp.net>:
This was my experience in the last house I rebuilt and sold eight years ago.
Poor tactile feel of X-10 switches and ambiguity of position compared to 79
cent toggle switches was by itself sufficient reason to remove.
The local electrician hired by the new owner also cut off the CAT5 jacks and
daisy-chained the wire together jist like he was taught in the 1960's. He
thought he was doing me a favor by sending me the gruesomely chopped jacks
with wire still attached like heads on a platter. (I would rather not have
known ...)
... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org
Jeff Volp
news:jlhrm2ld0vta1b0qr...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:41:51 GMT, "Jeff Volp" <Jeff...@msn.com> wrote in
> message <3NYah.115414$Fi1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
>
> >X10 can be a cost-effective and very reliable system for those who care
to
> >put in some effort.
> >
> >Actually, it is probably better that retail channels drop it because that
> >will get rid of many of the impulse buyers who are disappointed when it
> >doesn't work 100% right out of the box. You know the ones - their VCRs
> >flashed 12:00 for years until manufacturers included automatic clock
> >setting.
>
> This is a not an apt comparison in my opinion. A person does not need an
> electrician to program a VCR, but in most jurisdictions in the US, a
person
> must either have the knowledge, manual skills, tools *and* authorization
to
> do electrical AC work themselves, or hire a licensed electrician who may
> also need to be bonded and(or) show proof of paying fees/taxes in the
local
> jurisdiction.
>
> What proportion of folks are competent enough to accurately construct a
> schematic diagram of their home's AC wiring and then reconfigure the main
> entrance panel to put all X-10 on one phase safely and in accordance with
> codes?
That was exactly my point. The folks who can't do that are the ones most
likely to walk into the local Radio Shack and pick up that gee wiz
automation kit consisting of a controller and a few plug-in modules. Then
they plug it in as shown on the box, and it doesn't work. So they either
take it back to the store or rant here and elsewhere that X10 is junk.
Those that buy from the more respected automaton channels like Worthington
or SmartHome probably have some clue as to what they are doing.
Jeff
Jack Ak
"Kurt Delaney" <kurt_dot_delaney@rm_this_hp.com> wrote in message news:KQhbh.2954$ad7....@news.cpqcorp.net...
I sold my primary residence in the last couple of months. X10 wall switches were
installed in many rooms. The new owner can remove them if he wishes.
The wall switches have no visible external X10 identification. It's doubtful
the new owner realizes they are X10 switches.
I left a Socket Rocket on the front porch light and a Motion Sensor above the
front door sending P1 code to the single transceiver left in the house.
No electrician is needed to stop using and to remove these items.
In the thirty-three years we owned the house we experienced more wearout failures
with conventional switches and receptacles than X10 devices.
Some homeowners know how to replace wall switches and receptacles, and some don't.
Do you have some evidence that X10 devices will reduce the value of the home,
or is that simple speculation? Our house sold at the listing price during the first
"open house". The home inspectors never mentioned the X10 devices in their reports.
We paid for one inspection and the buyer paid for one. How do you know what
"most" home inspectors will flag as a liability?
Jeff Volp
> message <3NYah.115414$Fi1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
>
> construction, was a different situation than a retrofit to existing
housing
> which is the predominant use of X-10 as far as I know.
>
> So it is much more than simply "care[ing] to
> put in some effort" in most cases.
Actually, the only things we had the contractor do in preparation for X10
installation were to bring neutral into all boxes, and use metal boxes where
I planned to install dimmer switches. That special electronic circuit was
originally planned to be powered by a huge UPS in case of rolling blackouts.
The same result for X10 can be achieved with a few 5A plug-in filters
scattered around the house.
I re-wired the panel and did all X10 installation after we moved in, so it
really was a retrofit. I even installed that big X10 blocking filter over
the neutral myself after checking that it was OK with the inspector.
Jeff
Robert Green
<stuff snipped>
> RadioRA works well now. Will it run into problems as more RF devices move
> into our homes? Only time will tell...
The RF world's already pretty crowded in the average high-tech home and it's
only going to get worse as there's less policing and more polluting of the
airwaves. The choices aren't pretty if you become saturated in RF from an
unknown source. (Radio direction finders, FCC complaints and copper-clad
walls come to mind.)
If your RF devices are labelled, as many are, "must accept harmful
interference" then your options are limited again. Is it likely RadioRA
will get knocked out by some unknown EMI? Well, it may end up in 30 years
that the airwaves become as troublesome to RadioRA as the powerlines have
become to X-10.
It's hard to design techology that survives 30 years in any enviroment and
in that respect, X-10 has certainly succeeded. Yes, it took the XTB to
bring it into the 21st century for me, but the bottom line is that it DID do
it. It's unreasonable to assume any engineering design can deal with severe
environmental or paradigm shifts unless it's as simple as a stone pyramid -
which is not really simple, but simpler than dual-core CPU!
In the case of X-10 overcoming increasingly noisier power lines, it took
some retrofitting, but it was by and large transparent - except to the bank
account! Would they have done X-10 differently with 30 years' hindsight?
Maybe. But let's remember how radical an idea the PIC was when X-10 was
born. I think they did a damn good job for the price point they were trying
to reach!
--
Bobby G.
Marc_F_Hult
message <vbkbh.119991$Fi1....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
Jeff,
I'm confident that we are in complete agreement with the basic facts
including the reality that some X-10 components *are* unreliable/junk
compared to their non-automated generic counterparts (the SR-227 comes to
mind).
My broader point (as usual) is that when we post here, the effect is to make
a recommendation and that it is helpful to simultaneously provide the
boundaries/limitations/circumstances/parameters over which the
recommendations pertain in a non-hyperbolic way. This is part of why I
suggest that a first step in making an X-10 system dependable is to develop
a circuit diagram for the home's AC wiring. This provides a
higher-than-usual threshold for the decision to install X-10 and presumably
w/should result in a higher proportion of 'successful' installations.
Keep up the nifty work!
Thanks ... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org
Robert Green
> > "The stuff's just junk and nobody in their right mind should waste any
> time
> > or money on it."
> >
> > I have used X10 since 1981 (+100 modules in the house currently), am
still
> > happy with it, and by latest account I am still in my right mind.
> >
> > Just because YOU couldn't get it to work, does not mean it is junk.
>
> And just because you're willing to fool with it doesn't mean it's not.
Easy there, guys. The truth obviously lies somewhere between.
> I've used this stuff for decades. X10 devices regardless of vendor, time
> and again, can't stand up to use, don't operate in expected fashion and
> can't interoperate with other normal UL-approved devices. They're just
not
> worth the aggravation.
Not worth it to you, but worth it to me as it frees dollars for other
pursuits. You have a lower tolerance for misbehavior, mechanical or
otherwise, than most people. Just ask the Vendettistas from ASA. (-:
That's neither bad nor good, it's just personal preference.
Of course I'd like it if the world hadn't changed and made powerlines so
unfriendly to X-10 but Jeff Volp's XTB solved the number one issue that I
readily agree absolutely plagues X-10 -- poor signal propagation. Stock
X-10 doesn't cut it anymore - but XTB enhanced X-10 does. In my situation,
I just love the fact that I can buy RF load controllers for just a few
dollars and then break them apart and use them in custom applications like
wireless monitors that tell me when the dogs have moved out through the pet
door into the yard. Loads of hobbyist mods that even my fact fingers can
accomplish, too. X-10 serves more than just to turn lights on and off. I
actually like to experiment with it and modify it as needed.
--
Bobby G.
Robert Green
<stuff snipped>
> My time and satisfaction is worth something. The time/money wasted on X10
> has no doubt been considerably more than the cost of RadioRA gear.
Other people have different ways of calculating their personal time. It's
only a guess, but I'll bet there was at least a *little* positive learning
experience with X-10. After all, you're able to now discriminate between
ultra-reliable HA gear and less reliable stuff.
>> Like I said, I'm not at all worried about recovering the costs.
> Again, a personal decision that's valid for you, but perhaps for me. In
any
> event, it seems moot. RA can be yanked upon leaving as easily as X-10,
> or am I mistaken?
> I like how these work, that makes it worth the expense.
Having dealt with mission critical planning, I'll just say that if someone's
life or marriage were depending on it, I'd go for ultra reliable. Right now
it's more important for me to not overspend on HA since it's not anything
the wife's really interested in. With the bump in heating and car costs
this year, there will be some questions as to what is a luxury item and
what's not at year's end.
You'll be happy to know that the next project is to design a CCTV and alarm
system that will help prevent my wife's rescued dogs from digging out under
the chain link fence and earning us a $75 ticket. This has very high SAF
and simple Ratshack remote thermometers have already won a lot of approval
in terms of making sure the dogs are always comfortable.
Although X-10 makes plenty of wireless camera gear, switchers, etc. the
quality of their video stuff was SO abysmal the last times I checked
compared to the slightly more expensive but vastly superior KTC and ProVideo
gear that it's a no brainer.
For me, the interference from microwave ovens, the poor resolution, the
poorer light sensitivity, poor color saturation and poor, often plastic,
optics make them worthless. I don't even think I would use them for
anything except a rapid deployment situation until I could get wired cameras
in. While I can tolerate an occasional switch misfire (and that's really
about the worse thing X-10 does) I *cannot* stand poor video quality.
That's my Waterloo. You have yours and everyone else here has theirs.
> > I also understand that there's a 32/64 device limit, well
> > under the 256 that X-10 offers.
>
> Yeah right, two hundred and fifty six pieces of shit that don't work is
not
> my idea of an advantage. I dare you to get that many working in a
residence
> anyway. The signal collisions would make it nearly impossible to use it
> without driving your spouse insane.
That's not true, Bill. Having that many codes and my new Control-linc Maxis
all housecode consoles (AHC) I can use the extra codes as macro addresses to
queue specific actions, etc. We only have two motion controlled lights and
they work quite well. That many codes allows me to set up enumeration
schemas that make sense and are easily mnemonicized. B for basement, C for
Christmas lights, D for dog kennels, A for attic, G for garage, O for
outside lights, F for fans, H for heaters. The combo of an XTB and the
Smarthome AHC Maxi-linc have given me incredible flexibility, especially
with built in macros that can span multiple housecodes. I can now have
commands that turn off whole sections of the house for easy evening
close-downs.
> Yeah, in theory I'd like more device addresses. In practice, however,
I've
> found I don't need more. Since I run all my gear through a PC I could
just
> add another RS232 interface and a repeater. Not as "easy" as X10 but at
> least I'd KNOW they'd work.
Definitely not as easy to do and certainly lots more expensive. The best
part of the XTB/Control Linc Maxi combo is that it's autonomous. No PC, no
CM11As. I can program ten macros of sophisticated nature, issuing "ALL OFF"
commands across multiple housecodes and lots, lots more. No other protocol
has anywhere NEAR the options and variations of controllers and modules than
X-10 and that's very important to me.
> > More importantly, RF is *always* subject to interference.
>
> Oh that's bullshit. X10 is even WORSE for being susceptible to
> interference. I've got all sorts of RF polluting crap here at the house
and
> have NEVER, EVER had an interference problem with RadioRA. Not once. And
> I've had plenty of RF issues with things IR-RF remote repeaters (besides
the
> shitty powermid abominations of course).
As I said, it's probably not likely, but who's to say the RF world won't
have changed out from under the RA designers the way the powerline changed
out from under the X-10 designers? Only time will tell.
> > I suppose you can
> > Faradize your house to keep out EMI from some nearby government
> transmitter
> > but that would be a bitch.
>
> This is a 50's era brick on block construction house in the DC metro area.
> It's ALREADY a faraday cage. Damn near kills cell phone coverage just by
> walking indoors. Outside RF is the LEAST of my worries!
I live in the same sort of house not too far away and agree - it take
special care to get RF *into* the house. (-:
> > Easier to filter the powerline as it comes into
> > the house than the entire radio spectrum as it pours through the walls.
>
> Outside interference isn't what plagues most single homes with X10's
crappy
> protocol. It's the other devices already inside the house that X10 can't
> interoperate with.
And that's where Jeff's XTB shines. It compensates for the very real
limitation that you have identified. Without it I would be quite willing,
as you are, to declare X-10 basically unworkable in the modern age.
> > More importantly to me, X-10 is really a dual protocol, using both RF
and
> > PLC. That gives me a fast fallback position if the local AF base begins
> > transmitting a signal that ends up jamming the RF. Not likely, but not
> > impossible either.
>
> X10's RF "sucks less" than their powerline crap, I'll give you that. But
> barring use of someone else's RF transceiver even that's a pain in the ass
> to get working reliably.
The RF protocol allows me to put $5 credit card controllers in a lot of
different places so I never have to get up to turn on a nearby light, etc.
Actually, with the XTB, at least in my Faraday cage from WWII, RF has become
the dicier of the dual protocols.
> > Yes. It's all crap. Anyone reading this should box all their X-10
stuff
> up
> > and sell it on Ebay before the bottom falls out completely. Palmpads,
> > Stickaswitches and their larger AAA powered cousins, appliance modules -
> > sell them now before it's too late. No reserve price either. (But drop
> me
> > a line if you do!) (/sarcasm off)
>
> Had I the patience to put up with shipping all the crap I'd sell 'em on
> fleabay. Meanwhile they're just gathering dust. I really don't feel like
> inflicting their pain on someone else.
Dude, we must live within a dozen miles of each other. Box it up and I'll
come by can get it and sign a release than I know the horror I am inflicting
on myself. If you've got stuff I really need, I'll even write you or your
favorite charity a check for it.
We clearly have very different lifestyles and spouses. My house is almost
completely lit by antique floor and table lamps. My wife has gotten very
used to the "jiggle the switch" local control - but even more importantly
has learned to control the lamps just via X-10 so that they are always in a
remotely responsive state. Despite her protestations that HA is for me
only, my logs show me that when I am away, the "ALL LIGHTS ON" command gets
triggered at least once, and often many more times so I know she uses it.
To that end I mount either Stickaswitches or credit card controllers near
the lamp and velcroed out of sight so she can sit at the desk and turn on
the light. That arrangement tends to negate complaints about the wall
switches. We hardly ever use the overheads to which most wall switches
connect. We use all push button switches now, which she likes better than
the older-style paddle.
> > But it's really a case of "to each his own." Reliability is important
to
> > you. Not breaking the budget is important to me. Not putting lots of
> money
> > into a house we'll be selling soon is also important to me. X-10 lets
me
> do
> > a lot of things for very little money. Not perfectly, but quite well
> enough
> > to suit my tastes.
>
> I'm always boggled by the number of people that will go to such lengths to
> defend the absolutely shitty performance of the X10 gear. It JUST DOESN'T
> WORK. Sure, tweak it endlessly and don't add any new devices and you MAY
be
> able to get it stabilized. It's not a matter of not being perfect, hell,
> even I'd put up with some degree of issues. But without having reliable
> 2-way or status tracking it's just impossible to get it all working in a
> manner that doesn't constantly call attention to itself as being a
> clusterfuck. This is not conducive to garnering spousal respect.
Again, it depends on lifestyles and a lot of other things. I've had no real
need for status requests. Nice to have but not required. My ears are my
status request monitors- I can hear the relays clicking throughout the
house. (-:
> Of course now with the recent news that Control4 is going to start pimping
> their stuff through BestBuy it might be interesting to see how the price
> points adjust again...
It's going to be an interesting few years, for sure, and my hunch is that
someone's already investing in HA technology that will be as orphaned as
thoroughly as the PC Jr and the microchannel bus users of a decade or so
ago. The question is, which "superior" HA technology of today will become
tomorrow's Betamax?
--
Bobby G.
Robert Green
<stuff snipped>
> The folks who can't do that are the ones most
> likely to walk into the local Radio Shack and pick up that gee wiz
> automation kit consisting of a controller and a few plug-in modules. Then
> they plug it in as shown on the box, and it doesn't work. So they either
> take it back to the store or rant here and elsewhere that X10 is junk.
I think the failure mode was even more insidious than that. People got an
Activehome kit with a couple of modules. Maybe they bought a few more
appliance and lamp modules at the same time. Or maybe one of those X10.com
nearly free starter kits. Everything probably ran fine for a while since
the fewer X-10 transmitters, the less overall signal sucking. Also, in the
beginning, people are likely to keep all the stuff close together as they
deploy it. Now the original stuff's out of warranty and they want to add
more.
They buy a floodlight module, or try to control a CF on the porch or
something else happens that makes them realize the more units they own, the
worse the overall performance of the system. Of course, now it's too late
to return the original kit so they write letters to Sears, IBM, Ratshack and
whomever else sold these kits to complain and eventually, the big players
drop out. X-10 simply does not "scale up" well, partly because each new
device added tends to degrade the system performance. End users have no way
of knowing that when they "buy into" the system but they are always unhappy
about it when they hear they have to get an electrician to install a bridge
and or a repeater.
--
Bobby G.
Bill Kearney
Maxis
> all housecode consoles (AHC) I can use the extra codes as macro addresses
to
> queue specific actions, etc.
And how much extra are these devices? The point is the underlying
technology, not to mention it's shitty implementation, is so worthless that
it can't even handle queueing or collisions reliably. You have to cobble on
other devices to make up for it.
> As I said, it's probably not likely, but who's to say the RF world won't
> have changed out from under the RA designers the way the powerline changed
> out from under the X-10 designers? Only time will tell.
X10 was shite when it was first shipped. Powerline noise has plagued it
from the BEGINNING. This is not some new 21st century phenomenon.
> I live in the same sort of house not too far away and agree - it take
> special care to get RF *into* the house. (-:
Yeah, damnedest thing isn't it? Don't need to head to a fallout shelter!
> And that's where Jeff's XTB shines. It compensates for the very real
> limitation that you have identified. Without it I would be quite willing,
> as you are, to declare X-10 basically unworkable in the modern age.
My point is, and as a warning to newbies, that without cobbling up such
workarounds there's no way to use X10 reliably.
> > X10's RF "sucks less" than their powerline crap, I'll give you that.
But
> > barring use of someone else's RF transceiver even that's a pain in the
ass
> > to get working reliably.
>
> The RF protocol allows me to put $5 credit card controllers in a lot of
> different places so I never have to get up to turn on a nearby light, etc.
> Actually, with the XTB, at least in my Faraday cage from WWII, RF has
become
> the dicier of the dual protocols.
Yes, the X10 RF is susceptible to noise. My X10 RF receivers can't be near
the equipment rack. My RadioRA repeater, however, is right in the middle of
it. So much for that argument.
> > Had I the patience to put up with shipping all the crap I'd sell 'em on
> > fleabay. Meanwhile they're just gathering dust. I really don't feel
like
> > inflicting their pain on someone else.
>
> Dude, we must live within a dozen miles of each other. Box it up and I'll
> come by can get it and sign a release than I know the horror I am
inflicting
> on myself. If you've got stuff I really need, I'll even write you or your
> favorite charity a check for it.
Heh. There ought to be a Metro-area HA get together.
> We clearly have very different lifestyles and spouses. My house is almost
> completely lit by antique floor and table lamps. My wife has gotten very
> used to the "jiggle the switch" local control - but even more importantly
> has learned to control the lamps just via X-10 so that they are always in
a
> remotely responsive state.
Mine's gotten quite used to the table dimmers for RadioRA and really likes
them. Hated the spotty behavior of the stick-a-switches and palmpads.
> Despite her protestations that HA is for me
> only, my logs show me that when I am away, the "ALL LIGHTS ON" command
gets
> triggered at least once, and often many more times so I know she uses it.
Likewise, other than using the scenes on some switches most HA goes unused
by anyone other than me. But given the new Harmony remote I've picked up
that might change. Being able to integrate HA stuff into it's "activities"
might change things "some".
> To that end I mount either Stickaswitches or credit card controllers near
> the lamp and velcroed out of sight so she can sit at the desk and turn on
> the light. That arrangement tends to negate complaints about the wall
> switches. We hardly ever use the overheads to which most wall switches
> connect. We use all push button switches now, which she likes better than
> the older-style paddle.
Oy, the push-buttons are worse than the paddles. But I'll agree they suck
less than than the X10 paddles.
> It's going to be an interesting few years, for sure, and my hunch is that
> someone's already investing in HA technology that will be as orphaned as
> thoroughly as the PC Jr and the microchannel bus users of a decade or so
> ago. The question is, which "superior" HA technology of today will become
> tomorrow's Betamax?
Well, in the three decades of consumer grade HA that holy grail's been
promised many times. I'm not holding my breath on that happening anytime
soon. But with the push Control4 is making to big box stores it might get
more interesting.
-Bill Kearney
Bill Kearney
> the average home buyer sees this stuff as an unknown, and most home
> inspectors will flag it as a liability. Which, IMHO, is correct.
I agree. The RadioRA switches have proven quite reliable (from my arguably
small sample though). And their operation is indistinguishable from regular
switches. I'd consider removing them, of course, but probably wouldn't have
to bother.
Bill Kearney
Yes, by all means!
Bill Kearney
> interference" then your options are limited again. Is it likely RadioRA
> will get knocked out by some unknown EMI? Well, it may end up in 30 years
> that the airwaves become as troublesome to RadioRA as the powerlines have
> become to X-10.
Again, I call bullshit, and now FUD. I've got my RadioRA repeater smack in
the middle of an equipment room that's rife with RF noise. It's been
completely reliable. This is a room that even an X10 mouseremote and a
RadioShack RF-IR repeater (not a powermid) won't work reliably. I have to
put them 12' away and run wire to them. So much for sowing fear,
uncertainty and doubt...
> In the case of X-10 overcoming increasingly noisier power lines, it took
> some retrofitting, but it was by and large transparent - except to the
bank
> account! Would they have done X-10 differently with 30 years' hindsight?
The point is these days junk like X10 has no place. Cobbling up band-aids
on it and dealing with utterly horrible inconsistencies in manufacturing
quality makes it far too aggravating to put up with any longer.
Bill Kearney
> Can't get something to work? Just throw money at it. Can't be bothered
to
> understand how it works.
Ah no, just someone who's learned the power of not wasting money on a fool's
errand. This of course, after having wasted said money on the X10 fool's
errand. I've been a developer for quite a while so I'm more than familiar
with how X10 works. How it's supposed to work and the nightmares of how
it's crappy components don't.
So please, when you ASSuME...
> Remember, X10 was developed 30 years ago in a different environment. It
> worked then out of the box. The environment has changed, and now it takes
> some planning. But X10 still works, and can work 100%. The WAF is
> important, and she is my best indicator of any X10 problem. We only had
one
> cranky module on a compact fluorescent light before adding the XTB. It
> missed its OFF command every few months. Now everything works 100%.
Having to play games with being careful about CF bulbs, PC power supplies,
UPSes and the like is not my idea of useful ways to spend my time. Or
watching out for any new devices possibly conflicting. Or dealing with
filters. Or rewiring a breaker panel. None of which have been necessary
with RadioRA gear.
> RadioRA works well now. Will it run into problems as more RF devices move
> into our homes? Only time will tell...
It's been out for, what, a decade? Continues to work great. I've got
plenty of other RF remote devices (x10 rf, zwave, IR repeaters, microwaves,
wifi, cordless phones) and NONE of them interfere with the rock-solid
reliable operation I'm getting out of the RadioRA devices. Given FCC
regulations of airwaves I'm a lot more confident that'll continue.
I'm no saying RadioRA is the end-all, be-all solution. I'm simply saying
X10 is junk and Radio Shaft dropping it is a good sign for helping clean up
the ongoing stain it's put on the residential automation market. Here's
hoping MORE sales channels make likewise intelligent decisions to abandon
X10.
-Bill Kearney
Robert Green
<stuff snipped>
> I've been a developer for quite a while so I'm more than familiar
> with how X10 works.
Then you'll know this is the age-old legacy system debate aka the "grumpy
old man" syndrome. "We *like* it like that!" Somewhere in the bowels of
some naval station, for, airbase or national guard HQ is an application
still running on one of the million Zenith 8088 DOS PC's the government
bought back in the 80's. I've seen it happen. As everyone else phases in
new machines, it creates a vast supply of spare parts for ancient PC's and
there's always someone, somewhere, for some reason, be it an oddball ISA
board or some other unique peripheral, that's keeping an old PC on life
support.
I have a friend who's got an old ATT two line Compuphone hooked up to a
Gateway 286 running WIN31 AND having to remap dates since the software
crapped out WAY before the millenium, datewise. But he loves that phone
because it logs all his calls, in and out and has lots of nice features for
speed dialing (and reprogramming sets of keys from the PC, not the phone
keyboard) and has a sound quality unmatched by most modern phones for both
handset and speakerphone.
I find it interesting because although brand new technologies have arrived
in HA, none have succeeded as well as something like the CD did in
completely revising the baseline of the industry. Here in HA, it's the
simple, cheap yet powerful, nearly invisible, almost universal protocol that
will probably win. (-: I always expected it to be Zigbee, and never
expected it to be X-10. I'm just surprised and happy that X-10's lasted
this long.
--
Bobby G.
Robert Green
> > That's not true, Bill. Having that many codes and my new Control-linc
> Maxis
> > all housecode consoles (AHC) I can use the extra codes as macro
addresses
> to
> > queue specific actions, etc.
>
> And how much extra are these devices? The point is the underlying
> technology, not to mention it's shitty implementation, is so worthless
that
> it can't even handle queueing or collisions reliably. You have to cobble
on
> other devices to make up for it.
There aren't many collisions in a two-person household. It's basically a
non-issue for us, although I'd be quite willing to agree it wouldn't be
acceptable for others. I like the option of having 256 possible addresses
for real devices, virtual ones and things that might come along in the
future. It's pretty strange that Lutron limited itself to 32 loads without
addition equipment. After all, 30 years ago X-10 had decided that 16 was
enough - and provided for 256 total codes just in case. While X-10 only
recently begun to address all-housecode devices (long after guys like Dave
and Dan did the pioneering work) they still provide pretty easy,
off-the-shelf control of all 256 addresses. That's important to me and puts
a big plus on the side of X-10.
> > As I said, it's probably not likely, but who's to say the RF world won't
> > have changed out from under the RA designers the way the powerline
changed
> > out from under the X-10 designers? Only time will tell.
>
> X10 was shite when it was first shipped. Powerline noise has plagued it
> from the BEGINNING. This is not some new 21st century phenomenon.
Powerline noise really wasn't any sort of issue for me until the advent of
switching power supplies, PC equipment and surge protectors. That occurred
from around 1985 on. I had a problem was with an APC UPS that was my first
"black hole." Up until then, I had remarkable success using X-10 and their
wireless, eight button belt clip controller, the precursors to the RR-501's
from RatShack and Maxicontrollers that are still in use today.
> > I live in the same sort of house not too far away and agree - it take
> > special care to get RF *into* the house. (-:
>
> Yeah, damnedest thing isn't it? Don't need to head to a fallout shelter!
>
> > And that's where Jeff's XTB shines. It compensates for the very real
> > limitation that you have identified. Without it I would be quite
willing,
> > as you are, to declare X-10 basically unworkable in the modern age.
>
> My point is, and as a warning to newbies, that without cobbling up such
> workarounds there's no way to use X10 reliably.
That's reasonable. But it should also be pretty easy to understand why lots
of folks like me who have dealt with X-10's admitted many foibles resist the
characterization of "total shiite" since it does work for them. I might
still recommend it to newbies just to get their feet wet in HA at very low
cost or if their need was very limited (turning on a porch light from the
bedroom, for example). I'd be reluctant to recommend any current protocol
because I think that there will be soon big losers in that arena, and
perhaps sooner than later.
> > > X10's RF "sucks less" than their powerline crap, I'll give you that.
> But
> > > barring use of someone else's RF transceiver even that's a pain in the
> ass
> > > to get working reliably.
> >
> > The RF protocol allows me to put $5 credit card controllers in a lot of
> > different places so I never have to get up to turn on a nearby light,
etc.
> > Actually, with the XTB, at least in my Faraday cage from WWII, RF has
> become
> > the dicier of the dual protocols.
>
> Yes, the X10 RF is susceptible to noise. My X10 RF receivers can't be
near
> the equipment rack. My RadioRA repeater, however, is right in the middle
of
> it. So much for that argument.
Dude, I've admitted the probabilities are quite small but the physics are
this: if someone fires up a powerful enough transmitter on the same
frequency as RadioRA near enough to your house, it's hasta la vista baby. I
won't bother looking up the articles about the people whose radio-based
garage door openers got wiped out by a new Air Force radio system - I've
posted it twice before.
While I have no doubt that RA uses far more sophisticated signalling
technology than X-10 and is likely to be much more resistant to EMI, (it
should be at 100 times the cost!) my understanding is that the low-powered
RF used by HA devices can be made non-functional if the RF interference on
the band in use is strong enough. I've lived close to a 50KW AM station.
You can hear the radio in your teeth if you're unlucky - I had it coming out
of every speaker, phonelines and intercom whether powered or not.
Strong RF is like shouting in a hurricane. There's too much noise to be
heard.
But again, I agree it's highly unlikely. Lutron's probably designed it to
resist most interference generated in today's environment, just like X-10
was designed to cope with most of the issues that were present on the
powerline in 1980's.
The future? Well, that's always in doubt.
We use a lot of Maxi and Minicontrollers - the buttons on those are not
nearly as bad as they are on the RF gear.
> > Despite her protestations that HA is for me
> > only, my logs show me that when I am away, the "ALL LIGHTS ON" command
> gets
> > triggered at least once, and often many more times so I know she uses
it.
>
> Likewise, other than using the scenes on some switches most HA goes unused
> by anyone other than me. But given the new Harmony remote I've picked up
> that might change. Being able to integrate HA stuff into it's
"activities"
> might change things "some".
Changing remotes is about the lowest SAF thing I can do around here, other
than blowing my nose in the curtains. I hope it works better for you than
it did for me. I suppose I should mosey over to Ebay and put my OFA remote
up for sale. The rating was: Too big, too heavy, too poorly balanced, too
complicated. I liked it, though!
> > To that end I mount either Stickaswitches or credit card controllers
near
> > the lamp and velcroed out of sight so she can sit at the desk and turn
on
> > the light. That arrangement tends to negate complaints about the wall
> > switches. We hardly ever use the overheads to which most wall switches
> > connect. We use all push button switches now, which she likes better
than
> > the older-style paddle.
>
> Oy, the push-buttons are worse than the paddles. But I'll agree they suck
> less than than the X10 paddles.
The paddles seemed to confuse too many people - although they always seemed
to get the light on because default human behavior *is* to jiggle the switch
if it doesn't come on right away. The big issue with them is that when the
paddle's down, they won't respond to remote commands.
> > It's going to be an interesting few years, for sure, and my hunch is
that
> > someone's already investing in HA technology that will be as orphaned as
> > thoroughly as the PC Jr and the microchannel bus users of a decade or so
> > ago. The question is, which "superior" HA technology of today will
become
> > tomorrow's Betamax?
>
> Well, in the three decades of consumer grade HA that holy grail's been
> promised many times. I'm not holding my breath on that happening anytime
> soon. But with the push Control4 is making to big box stores it might get
> more interesting.
I fully expect to move to something else in the future when the protocol
wars have shaken out. As I've said elsewhere, what will drive that decision
will be appliances that come from the manufacturer with some sort of
*standard* control ability built into them (not just RS-232 or some
proprietary BS). Until then, I'm very happy that Jeff''s made it possible
to wait out the protocol wars to see if a clear winner emerges.
--
Bobby G.
Jeff Volp
>
> Hallelujah! If more retail channels abandon that abomination we'll all be
> better off. X10 is shite.
There is an interesting thread over in CocoonTech reporting noise problems
with UPB. That was supposed to be one of the successors to X10.
It seems that no matter what one develops, there will be someone else out
there developing something to screw it up.
Jeff
AZ Nomad
>"Bill Kearney" <wkear...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bL-
><stuff snipped>
>> I've been a developer for quite a while so I'm more than familiar
>> with how X10 works.
>Then you'll know this is the age-old legacy system debate aka the "grumpy
>old man" syndrome. "We *like* it like that!" Somewhere in the bowels of
>some naval station, for, airbase or national guard HQ is an application
>still running on one of the million Zenith 8088 DOS PC's the government
>bought back in the 80's. I've seen it happen. As everyone else phases in
>new machines, it creates a vast supply of spare parts for ancient PC's and
if only X10 were that sophisticated.
A paper-tape app running on a 4kword PDP-8 might be a better comparison.
Bill Kearney
> non-issue for us, although I'd be quite willing to agree it wouldn't be
> acceptable for others. I like the option of having 256 possible addresses
> for real devices, virtual ones and things that might come along in the
> future.
Motion sensors swamp X10 quite rapidly. But seeing as how the sensors
themselves are crap anyway that's only adding to the disaster.
> It's pretty strange that Lutron limited itself to 32 loads without
> addition equipment.
Yep, no argument there.
> That's important to me and puts
> a big plus on the side of X-10.
Again, unreliable control of ANY number of devices is useless.
> Powerline noise really wasn't any sort of issue for me until the advent of
> switching power supplies, PC equipment and surge protectors. That
occurred
> from around 1985 on. I had a problem was with an APC UPS that was my
first
> "black hole." Up until then, I had remarkable success using X-10 and
their
> wireless, eight button belt clip controller, the precursors to the
RR-501's
> from RatShack and Maxicontrollers that are still in use today.
Technology marches on, it's time X10 was left behind.
> > My point is, and as a warning to newbies, that without cobbling up such
> > workarounds there's no way to use X10 reliably.
>
> That's reasonable. But it should also be pretty easy to understand why
lots
> of folks like me who have dealt with X-10's admitted many foibles resist
the
> characterization of "total shiite" since it does work for them. I might
> still recommend it to newbies just to get their feet wet in HA at very low
> cost or if their need was very limited (turning on a porch light from the
> bedroom, for example). I'd be reluctant to recommend any current protocol
> because I think that there will be soon big losers in that arena, and
> perhaps sooner than later.
I won't even recommend X10 just as a test for newbies. It runs afoul of so
many disasters, so quickly, that it's not fair to aggravate them.
> Dude, I've admitted the probabilities are quite small but the physics are
> this: if someone fires up a powerful enough transmitter on the same
> frequency as RadioRA near enough to your house, it's hasta la vista baby.
And if I light off a thermonuclear bomb we're all fucked, so what's your
point?
You're arguing that it MIGHT be possible for an RF-based system to suffer
interference, as if that somehow countered the fact that an X10 system WILL
SUFFER interference. How is this comparable?
> I
> won't bother looking up the articles about the people whose radio-based
> garage door openers got wiped out by a new Air Force radio system - I've
> posted it twice before.
Find an article discussing how something was DEMONSTRATED to interfere with
currently shipping RF-based automation controls and you'd have a point.
That a military transmitter might've interferred with a crappy garage door
opener, again, does nothing to address the underlying disaster that is X10.
If you're simply trying to deflect the argument, that dog won't hunt.
> Changing remotes is about the lowest SAF thing I can do around here, other
> than blowing my nose in the curtains. I hope it works better for you than
> it did for me. I suppose I should mosey over to Ebay and put my OFA
remote
> up for sale. The rating was: Too big, too heavy, too poorly balanced,
too
> complicated. I liked it, though!
Oh yeah, there's fodder for a whole other thread, one free of the 'agree to
disagree' perspectives X10 engenders.
I'll still keep my Radioshaft 15-2117 RF remotes and let the wife use the
Harmony. I can live with, and prefer, the "device oriented" approach to
most traditional remotes. But the new "activity oriented" approach on the
new Harmony remotes is rather nice. That and their integrated help makes it
pretty painless to use (at the pain of unit cost though!)
> The paddles seemed to confuse too many people - although they always
seemed
> to get the light on because default human behavior *is* to jiggle the
switch
> if it doesn't come on right away. The big issue with them is that when
the
> paddle's down, they won't respond to remote commands.
Agreed, and this is the sort of nonsense that just drove me away from them.
> > Well, in the three decades of consumer grade HA that holy grail's been
> > promised many times. I'm not holding my breath on that happening
anytime
> > soon. But with the push Control4 is making to big box stores it might
get
> > more interesting.
>
> I fully expect to move to something else in the future when the protocol
> wars have shaken out. As I've said elsewhere, what will drive that
decision
> will be appliances that come from the manufacturer with some sort of
> *standard* control ability built into them (not just RS-232 or some
> proprietary BS).
Interestingly the Harmony remotes use Z-wave. No interfacing is indicated
to go directly to other z-wave devices however. It's just for the remote to
base station interconnect.
> Until then, I'm very happy that Jeff''s made it possible
> to wait out the protocol wars to see if a clear winner emerges.
Yes, he's done an excellent job with that.
-Bill
Robert Green
> > There aren't many collisions in a two-person household. It's basically
a
> > non-issue for us, although I'd be quite willing to agree it wouldn't be
> > acceptable for others. I like the option of having 256 possible
addresses
> > for real devices, virtual ones and things that might come along in the
> > future.
>
> Motion sensors swamp X10 quite rapidly. But seeing as how the sensors
> themselves are crap anyway that's only adding to the disaster.
With only one Hawkeye motion sensor in the basement and another one on the
first floor using X-10, it's never been a problem for me other than the
occasional "fail to fire" or a turn off before the occupant has finished
their business. We can live with that. I'll agree it's NOT OK to use
more than one per area, and maybe even more than one per floor - and maybe
even less with more than two occupants. For us, it works out just fine.
Even better was the fact I didn't have to string cable, rig power supplies
or do anything like what it took to set up the PIR that watches the front
door (where I want 100% reliability).
> > It's pretty strange that Lutron limited itself to 32 loads without
> > addition equipment.
>
> Yep, no argument there.
>
> > That's important to me and puts
> > a big plus on the side of X-10.
>
> Again, unreliable control of ANY number of devices is useless.
Again, that's your take on the matter. It's reliable enough for me, albeit
only because of Jeff Volp's XTB. I assume by others who have replied that
it's reliable enough for them, too. I get tremendous flexibility from
having 256 codes. Having only 32 would be a backwards step for me.
> > Powerline noise really wasn't any sort of issue for me until the advent
of
> > switching power supplies, PC equipment and surge protectors. That
> occurred
> > from around 1985 on. I had a problem was with an APC UPS that was my
> first
> > "black hole." Up until then, I had remarkable success using X-10 and
> their
> > wireless, eight button belt clip controller, the precursors to the
> RR-501's
> > from RatShack and Maxicontrollers that are still in use today.
>
> Technology marches on, it's time X10 was left behind.
And saying that, you believe that LutronRA is immune from the same problems
that hobbled X-10? Do they have a lock on how many RF devices are going to
appear in the average house 30 years from now? I doubt it. They are going
to be vulnerable to the same issues that X-10 faced - namely more and more
interference from other devices on their chosen transmission medium. Tell
us your FCC ID number. That way we can look up who else has access to that
frequency and what the potential for future trouble might be. Again, to
fairly compare, we need a crystal ball to see what Lutron will be up against
in RF interference 30 years from now.
> > > My point is, and as a warning to newbies, that without cobbling up
such
> > > workarounds there's no way to use X10 reliably.
> >
> > That's reasonable. But it should also be pretty easy to understand why
> lots
> > of folks like me who have dealt with X-10's admitted many foibles resist
> the
> > characterization of "total shiite" since it does work for them. I might
> > still recommend it to newbies just to get their feet wet in HA at very
low
> > cost or if their need was very limited (turning on a porch light from
the
> > bedroom, for example). I'd be reluctant to recommend any current
protocol
> > because I think that there will be soon big losers in that arena, and
> > perhaps sooner than later.
>
> I won't even recommend X10 just as a test for newbies. It runs afoul of
so
> many disasters, so quickly, that it's not fair to aggravate them.
Yeah, it would be better to recommend one of the new standards so they could
suddenly find themselves stranded when they discovered they've chosen the
BetaMax of the HA world, whatever that turns out to be. Not! X-10 allows
an entry into HA that is very cheap, very well documented and very easy to
turn around and resell. I surely would NEVER recommend a $200 per load
option like RA to a newbie who knew nothing about HA.
> > Dude, I've admitted the probabilities are quite small but the physics
are
> > this: if someone fires up a powerful enough transmitter on the same
> > frequency as RadioRA near enough to your house, it's hasta la vista
baby.
>
> And if I light off a thermonuclear bomb we're all fucked, so what's your
> point?
>
> You're arguing that it MIGHT be possible for an RF-based system to suffer
> interference, as if that somehow countered the fact that an X10 system
WILL
> SUFFER interference. How is this comparable?
It's comparable because you bought a NEW system designed to CURRENT levels
of RF saturation. When X-10 was new, it was designed to accommodate the
then CURRENT level of powerline interference. Now, thirty years later, that
design wasn't good enough because all sort of new plug-in technologies have
appeared. Even current home automation users are being swamped by sudden
changes in the RF environment affecting both car keyfobs and garage door
openers, the "automation" that most people are familiar with. What protects
you and RadioRA from RF interference that hasn't come on-line yet?
> > I
> > won't bother looking up the articles about the people whose radio-based
> > garage door openers got wiped out by a new Air Force radio system - I've
> > posted it twice before.
>
> Find an article discussing how something was DEMONSTRATED to interfere
with
> currently shipping RF-based automation controls and you'd have a point.
> That a military transmitter might've interferred with a crappy garage door
> opener, again, does nothing to address the underlying disaster that is
X10.
For God's sake, Bill, if you are really trying to convince me that opening
garage doors remotely ISN'T part of home automation, then this is a futile
discussion. From my POV garage door and car door lock openers are one of
the primary entry points of the general public into the world of home
automation.
Here's an excerpt from an article from today's (!) NY Times on the subject
of RF interference and HA. I didn't have to go looking for it - it hit me
right in the nose. RF interference is clearly VERY disturbing to the people
it affects, and that number might be as great as 50 million:
In Colorado, Air Force Test Threatens a Glory of Homeownership
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: December 3, 2006
DENVER, Dec. 2 (AP) — A test last week of a new communication system that
would be used in times of national emergency hit hundreds of Coloradans
right where they live.
When a secretive Air Force installation in Colorado Springs began testing
the radio signal, it knocked out remote control garage door openers around
the area. The communication system, intended to reach first responders, uses
the same frequency as an estimated 50 million garage door openers.
Capt. Tracy Giles of the 21st Space Wing said Air Force officials were
trying to figure out how to resolve the problem. “They have turned it off to
be good neighbors,” he said.
. . .
Technically, the Air Force has the right to the frequency, which it began
using nearly three years ago at some bases. Signals have also interfered
with garage doors in other areas.
. . .
(for the entire article please visit: (registration required )-:))
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/03/us/03garage.html
If such a transmitter, working on your frequency, began broadcasting in the
DC area, I think you would be SOL if you lived near enough to be affected.
I'm sure that Lutron's got some sort of error detection protocol, but would
it be enough to resist a powerful transmitter that began broadcasting
nearby? I think you would be especially SOL if no one but RadioRA users
were affected. The AF backed off in the above case because of the sheer
number of people affected. How many RA users are there compared to garage
door opener users? 1 to 1000? 1 to 10,000? My guess is that if a
government transmitter knocked out the few RadioRA installations around,
you'd be out of luck unless Dick Cheney happened to be using RA, too.
What's the likelihood of the feds setting up a new radio net at the seat of
the Federal government? The answer to that would bother me if I had an
RF-only HA system.
What will be the impact of devices like this:
http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/22/aircable-offers-up-28-mile-bluetooth-rang
e-extender/
that allege to extend Bluetooth a whopping 28 miles on your setup? What
I've been trying to say all along is that there's no guarantee the RF band
your device uses won't get eaten up at some time in the future, legally or
illegally or even by sunspots. Both X-10 and Lutron, by necessity, designed
to the environment that existed at the time of design. Get back to me in 30
years to tell me how well Lutron coped with the future. Until then, the two
technologies really can't be fairly compared.
--
Bobby G.
Dave Houston
>And saying that, you believe that LutronRA is immune from the same problems
>that hobbled X-10? Do they have a lock on how many RF devices are going to
>appear in the average house 30 years from now? I doubt it. They are going
>to be vulnerable to the same issues that X-10 faced - namely more and more
>interference from other devices on their chosen transmission medium. Tell
>us your FCC ID number. That way we can look up who else has access to that
>frequency and what the potential for future trouble might be. Again, to
>fairly compare, we need a crystal ball to see what Lutron will be up against
>in RF interference 30 years from now.
IIRC they use 418MHz ASK which is shared with all the Powermids (and similar
IR extenders), Philips Pronto (and similar RF-capable touchscreen remotes),
etc. so the potential for interference is there. However, any such device
that is following FCC rules on radiated power will have very limited range
so, as a practical matter, it's only on-site devices that might cause
problems.
Unfortunately, RadioRA uses a very long and complex code which makes it
difficult to use directly with something like the Pronto.
http://davehouston.net
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/roZetta/
roZetta-...@yahoogroups.com
Jeff Volp
> That a military transmitter might've interferred with a crappy garage door
> opener, again, does nothing to address the underlying disaster that is
X10.
So in your assessment of the situation, garage door openers used reliably by
millions of people are crappy because the military chose to use the same
frequency for some of their equipment. What if the military chose to use
the RadioRa frequency? If that caused interference, would that put RadioRa
into the crappy arena too? Regardless of what frequency a system uses, I
can design another system using that frequency that will render it useless.
Back east a local radio station with a very strong signal was often blocked
for hours at a time. The FCC said that happens in an industrial area, and
were not at all interested in pursuing the issue.
The basic problem that is we design with the information available at the
time. Unfortunately, in this technology driven environment, things change.
Some of us choose to deal with change by working the problems.
Jeff
Robert Green
<stuff snipped>
> The basic problem that is we design with the information available at the
> time. Unfortunately, in this technology driven environment, things
change.
> Some of us choose to deal with change by working the problems.
Think of the technologies of the early 80's and what little there is left of
it. Silver based photography, records, cassettes and more all went the way
of the dodo. X-10 has remained, as has the venerable floppy disk, but even
that will disappear with the newest MS OS, Vista Finally, the need to
insert a floppy with drivers for specialized controllers will disappear and
so will the floppy.
X-10 has remained because it's offered an awful lot of bang for the buck,
especially when measured by cost. X-10's expense is quite low both in terms
of both purchase and years of life gotten from each piece of equipment.
Yes, I'm spending a bit to compensate for X-10's numerous issues, but those
issues are compensible, and lots of problems in this world aren't, no matter
how much money you throw at them. Having seen both kinds of problems, I
prefer the ones that can be solved.
I'm both happy that there's something available to help extend X-10's life
and that I can directly compensate the guy who invented it at the same time.
It's important that people be rewarded for their ideas and there seem to be
less and less opportunities for that in the increasingly faceless corporate
world of ours.
--
Bobby G.
Robert Green
news:4572d5d7....@nntp.fuse.net...
The same frequency as Powermids? How ironic. I thought the issue in RF
interference is whether the radiated power of the interfering transmitter
was equal to or greater than that of the 'legitmate' transmitter as measured
at the receiver.
The rest of the article talked about a range around the transmitter of about
10 miles that was affected by the new AF radio system. As someone who still
hears the occasional trucker coming through my stereo speakers, not all
transmitters play by FCC rules. (-:
> Unfortunately, RadioRA uses a very long and complex code which makes it
> difficult to use directly with something like the Pronto.
Maybe it's very long because it's got tremendous redundancy and resistance
to any one part of the transmission being garbled. Maybe.
--
Bobby G.
Dave Houston
>"Dave Houston" <nob...@whocares.com> wrote in message
>news:4572d5d7....@nntp.fuse.net...
>
>> Unfortunately, RadioRA uses a very long and complex code which makes it
>> difficult to use directly with something like the Pronto.
>
>Maybe it's very long because it's got tremendous redundancy and resistance
>to any one part of the transmission being garbled. Maybe.
No, I think it's long and complex because that "makes it difficult to use
directly with something like the Pronto" and you have to buy their remote or
use their IR to RF bridge. ;-)
Bill Kearney
the
> DC area, I think you would be SOL if you lived near enough to be
affected.
Yes, and as the saying goes "and if monkeys flew out of your butt..."
"Anything" is possible, not everything is likely. Meanwhile X10 fucks up
every single day.
> Until then, the two
> technologies really can't be fairly compared.
Of course not, X10 stinks, it did then and it still does now, even more so.
Jeff Volp
>
> "Anything" is possible, not everything is likely. Meanwhile X10 fucks up
> every single day.
Certainly true for those who don't understand how to make it work right.
Many things need periodic maintanance to keep them running. Your car might
not last too long without an oil change. Use the wrong transmission fluid,
and you are in a world of trouble.
> Of course not, X10 stinks, it did then and it still does now, even more
so.
There have been a few interesting threads over on Cocoontech regarding
problems with other systems. Only a hardwired system can be guaranteed to
be virtually 100% reliable (assuming power is available). Everything else
is at the mercy of other devices communicating over the same medium.
Jeff
Robert L Bass
> to be virtually 100% reliable (assuming power
> is available). Everything else is at the mercy
> of other devices communicating over the
> same medium.
I think that is the point, Jeff. While X10 certainly can be made to work with enough tweaking, filtering, etc., it is a medium that
is prone to problems. Even experienced users frequently start lengthy threads here about problems with lost signals, failed
components and stuff turning on/off for no apparent reason.
No doubt you're able to successfully maintain your X10 stuff. But most people, even most DIYers I know, just don't want to put up
with the quirky behavior of X10. The goal in designing a system is to make it work "out of the box" and continue to function,
regardless what new PC's, UPS's or other gear one acquires down the road. In this respect, IMO X10 fails miserably. I don't use it
and I won't recommend it to customers.
--
Regards,
Robert L Bass
=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
941-866-1100
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34233
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
=============================>
Jeff Volp
news:i7mdnal2Lfxsr-nY...@comcast.com...
> > Only a hardwired system can be guaranteed
> > to be virtually 100% reliable (assuming power
> > is available). Everything else is at the mercy
> > of other devices communicating over the
> > same medium.
>
> I think that is the point, Jeff. While X10 certainly can be made to
> work with enough tweaking, filtering, etc., it is a medium that
> is prone to problems. Even experienced users frequently start
> lengthy threads here about problems with lost signals, failed
> components and stuff turning on/off for no apparent reason.
Back before I really understood X10, I would have agreed with you. There
was a time when I was tweaking to make it work. Back then everybody was
talking about interference and how noise sources had to be filtered. Well
it turns out that the major problem for X10 isn't from noise sources, but
"signal suckers". They are usually devices with a simple capacitor across
their power input to meet the FCC conducted radiation standard. Those
manufacturers don't care if their devices corrupt other signals on the line.
They just use the cheapest fix possible to meet FCC regulations.
The most important thing I did to increase reliability was to get an Elk
ESM1 signal level meter. Then I could really see the major problem was low
signal levels, not noise. It can take some time to go through the house to
identify and isolate those signal suckers. The important thing is to
provide decent signal levels throughout the house. Unfortunately, an
inexpensive X10 transmitter can't provide the drive necessary for a larger
house, and some type of booster may be required.
Yes, there are noise sources too. Prime candidates are compact fluorescent
bulbs, and "wireless" intercoms such as baby monitors. I reported elsewhere
that 4 generic (cheap) CF bulbs radiated enough noise to cause problem.
However, that is easily solved with a $25 filter.
> No doubt you're able to successfully maintain your X10 stuff. But
> most people, even most DIYers I know, just don't want to put up
> with the quirky behavior of X10. The goal in designing a system is
> to make it work "out of the box" and continue to function,
> regardless what new PC's, UPS's or other gear one acquires down
> the road. In this respect, IMO X10 fails miserably. I don't use it
> and I won't recommend it to customers.
When you buy a car, you understand it needs oil changes and periodic
maintenance. Some of them don't even work perfectly "out of the box", and
have to visit the dealer several times to get their quirks ironed out. So
if one accepts this from a $20,000 item, why bitch endlessly when one has to
do some maintenance to keep X10 running? Provide a decent signal level,
and it works fine.
Jeff
Robert L Bass
> needs oil changes and periodic maintenance.
> Some of them don't even work perfectly
> "out of the box", and have to visit the
> dealer several times to get their quirks
> ironed out.
This is where we disagree, Jeff. I've purchased three new cars and two new motorcycles in the past three years. All of them
require periodic oil changes (something I choose not to DIY). None of them required any tweaking "out of the box" to be able to use
them. In fact, if I had to make changes to other things or buy a piece of test equipment just to make a given car work, I'd never
buy that make again. I expect that what I buy and/or install will work without having to modify the rest of the house.
> So if one accepts this from a $20,000 item...
Ah, but I don't. I bought an Odyssey van last year. It has satellite radio, a touchscreen GPS navigation system and lots of other
cool stuff. I expect it all to work first time and to give little or no trouble for the three year period that I normally keep a
new car. If I had to bring it in for service several times in the first month I'd have been sorely disappointed in the product.
The same applies to HA products I sell to DIYers. I expect the client to be able to use them by simply following the directions
and/or discussing them with me. If a product failed to function repeatedly (as most X10 stuff does) I'd feel obligated to issue a
refund. Like most retailers, I don't like issuing refunds if I can avoid it. I also don't like having to deal with problems from
cheaply made, unreliable products. As such, I simply can't recommend X10.
> why bitch endlessly when one has to
> do some maintenance to keep X10 running?
> Provide a decent signal level, and it
> works fine.
Part of the problem is that many X10 transmitters simply don't provide a strong enough signal. The other, as you have often said,
is that other normal pieces of household equipment can absorb the X10 signal. This means that any X10 system can fail later due to
users plugging in a new PC or whatever. To me that's just not acceptable. You've been working with X10 a long time and are able to
fix these problems as they arise so I can understand your position. For me and for many of my DIY customer though, this amounts to
a lifetime of whack-a-mole service issues.
sylvan butler
>> needs oil changes and periodic maintenance.
>> Some of them don't even work perfectly
>> "out of the box", and have to visit the
>> dealer several times to get their quirks
>> ironed out.
>
> This is where we disagree, Jeff. I've purchased three new cars and
> two new motorcycles in the past three years. All of them require
> periodic oil changes (something I choose not to DIY). None of them
> required any tweaking "out of the box" to be able to use
No warranty fixes or corrections? Any dealer-prep items either before
or after you took delivery of the vehicle?
(and if you say 'no', it means you don't understand the role of a car
dealer very well)
>> So if one accepts this from a $20,000 item...
>
> Ah, but I don't. I bought an Odyssey van last year. It has satellite
> radio, a touchscreen GPS navigation system and lots of other
So having priced Odyssey's in late 2004 / early 2005, I know yours was
closer to $40,000 than $20,000. Stripped down they didn't even get down
to $20,000 sticker, but perhaps if you could find a bare model the
dealer might take a loss just to get rid of the low-end inventory.
Further, your Honda is reputed to be one of the brands with the fewest
number of post-delivery issues. Many people have a different
experience, even with premium brands like Jaguar or Mercedes.
Comparing the purchase experience of a > $30,000 vehicle (with
its associated dealer setup and delivery) to a mail-order or Radio Shack
provided system for well under $300 you should have different
expectations.
With that said, my X10 system is misbehaving, and yes, it is
frustrating! :) However, at my price point it is X10 or nothing, so
X10 it is. And I have corresponding expectations.
IMHO X10 does themselves a disservice by hiding the troubleshooting
information and even the official documentation of potential problems
behind their "Pro" site.
sdb
--
Wanted: Omnibook 800 & accessories, cheap, working or not
sdbuse1 on mailhost bigfoot.com
Robert L Bass
"sylvan butler" <ZsdbUse1+...@Zbigfoot.Zcom.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrnen9f9d.qm6.Z...@sdba64.internal...
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 13:08:33 -0500, Robert L Bass <rober...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> needs oil changes and periodic maintenance.
>>> Some of them don't even work perfectly
>>> "out of the box", and have to visit the
>>> dealer several times to get their quirks
>>> ironed out.
>>
>> This is where we disagree, Jeff. I've purchased three new cars and
>> two new motorcycles in the past three years. All of them require
>> periodic oil changes (something I choose not to DIY). None of them
>> required any tweaking "out of the box" to be able to use
>
> No warranty fixes or corrections? Any dealer-prep items either before
> or after you took delivery of the vehicle?
Nope. Other than to install a security syystem in the Fiat, the only times I've brought any of them in were for standard service --
oil chancge, etc. Oh, there was one thing. I brought the Odyseey in for oil, etc., recently and was informed that there was a
service bulletin on the brakes. They said they were wearing unevenly or too fast (I forget which) so Honda replaced them at no
charge but there was no apparent problem from our perspective.
> (and if you say 'no', it means you don't
> understand the role of a car dealer very well)
Or possibly I just bought a few good cars. :^)
>>> So if one accepts this from a $20,000 item...
>>
>> Ah, but I don't. I bought an Odyssey van last year. It has satellite
>> radio, a touchscreen GPS navigation system and lots of other
>
> So having priced Odyssey's in late 2004 / early 2005, I know yours was
> closer to $40,000 than $20,000. Stripped down they didn't even get down
> to $20,000 sticker, but perhaps if you could find a bare model the
> dealer might take a loss just to get rid of the low-end inventory.
How would that apply to the discussion at hand?
> Further, your Honda is reputed to be one of the brands with the fewest
> number of post-delivery issues. Many people have a different
> experience, even with premium brands like Jaguar or Mercedes.
Why would I want a Mercedes?
> Comparing the purchase experience of a > $30,000 vehicle (with
> its associated dealer setup and delivery) to a mail-order or Radio Shack
> provided system for well under $300 you should have different
> expectations.
You bumped it up to $20,000. However, the Camry cost something like $25,000. There were no problems at all with the Camry either.
> With that said, my X10 system is misbehaving, and yes, it is
> frustrating! :)
Bingo! I can understand your willingness to deal with X10's problems and failures. You know how to do it and you've made the
decision to maintain it. My point is that most users just don't want the hassle.
> However, at my price point it is X10 or nothing, so
> X10 it is. And I have corresponding expectations.
Only you can make that decision. You're the user and it's your pocketbook. It kind of parallels my use of VoIP when I go to
Brazil. The service isn't as good (yet) as POTS, but it's much more affordable and it offers services like call transfer to/from
the USA. I put up with it because it's the only way to get what I want within budget. However, I don't recommend it for most folks
because it's quirky and sometimes unreliable.
> IMHO X10 does themselves a disservice by
> hiding the troubleshooting information and
> even the official documentation of potential
> problems behind their "Pro" site.
That's probably a marketing decision. If people knew in advance what they were getting into, many would buy something else.
Bill Kearney
> > "Anything" is possible, not everything is likely. Meanwhile X10 fucks
up
> > every single day.
>
> Certainly true for those who don't understand how to make it work right.
>
> Many things need periodic maintanance to keep them running. Your car
might
> not last too long without an oil change. Use the wrong transmission
fluid,
> and you are in a world of trouble.
And I continue to be amazed by how steadfastly some folks will cling to
defending what's clearly a defective product.
That you're willing to play whack-a-mole with X10, and that YOU HAD TO in
order to get it to work, makes it clear it's not a solution for the masses.
> > Of course not, X10 stinks, it did then and it still does now, even more
> so.
>
> There have been a few interesting threads over on Cocoontech regarding
> problems with other systems. Only a hardwired system can be guaranteed to
> be virtually 100% reliable (assuming power is available). Everything else
> is at the mercy of other devices communicating over the same medium.
Again, claiming something else is /possibly/ worse doesn't make X10
'better'.
X10's dead, and rightly so.
Joerg
> "Joerg" <notthis...@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message news:r0%
>
> <stuff snipped>
>
>>Ours still flashes 12:00 after an outage. X10 let us down here: We
>>bought the X10 universal remote and on the picture it had a "Menu"
>>button in the lower left. When I unpacked it I discovered that it had a
>>"Guide" button in that space and no menu button. Hence we cannot program
>>the clock or anything else at all except by unplugging again and holding
>>some magic buttons on the VCR itself. Its original remote had died.
>
>
> Is it *really* their fault? If you're talking about one of their learning
> Universal remotes, it *could* learn the code you're missing in all
> probability, but your original died. Which of the many X-10 remotes are you
> talking about?
>
It's the UR19A. Their fault? Well, when the glossy ad says there is a
menu button and then when the product arrives there is no menu button,
ahem ...
>
>>Tried dozens of VCR codes in the booklet and none turns that useless
>>guide button into menu mode :-(
>
>
> If it's a learning remote, maybe there's someone that can lend you an
> original remote just for learning purposes if you list the exact make and
> model of the gear you want to control.
>
> I just had a situation where I couldn't get my X-10 learning remote to learn
> the codes to control my Sony DVD jukebox. It was a real bummer because up
> until that acquisition, the X-10 remote was able to learn any command it
> didn't have embedded in its ROM. Dave Houston helped me out tremendously by
> suggesting that I use as short a teaching press as possible because (IIRC)
> Sony used atypically short codes. This was in direct contravention to the
> advice I had gotten about programming my Ocelot, but lo and behold, I was
> able to teach my X-10 remote to control the basic functions of the jukebox.
> For some things, we still need the original remotes, but it's very nice to
> have a remote that controls all the lights, the AV gear and the CCTV and can
> perform 95 per cent of the work that needs doing. Very nice. Thanks Dave!
>
This VCR is quite old, 8-9 years. But we have learned to live with the
problem. When the clock lags too much we pull the power cord and
re-program the clock by hand an hour or so later.
>
>>>How many of the "new and better" systems will still be around 30 years
>
> from
>
>>>now?
>>>
>>
>>Good point. "New and better" is not only about technology, they also
>>need to understand marketing. So far I don't see that happen.
>
>
> Dude. They ramped up sales at X10.com using popunders, popovers, popups,
> popouts and spam at a rate that kept breaking records. I'm not saying those
> were *good* tactics but they certainly moved the product. ...
I am not so sure about that. Pretty much all the more geeky people I
know were turned off by those ads. To the point where some of them
didn't go back there.
> ... And now I can
> benefit from all of the 2 for 1 vouchers X10.com used to give away. Those
> vouchers caused people to buy far more gear than they ever needed (that's
> the hallmark of effective marketing - selling snow to Eskimos). I liked
> the vouchers, personally, and I know a LOT of people here bought lots of
> gear with vouchers. The popup crap I could live without and did, as soon as
> I got a popup blocker.
>
Hmm, maybe I missed something then. Got no vouchers :-(
> To get X-10 to work reliably in the new world, you need filters, you need a
> meter and you need a signal booster like Jeff's XTB. That's really a small
> cost to protect for what some is a fairly large investment in X-10 gear.
> IIRC, there was a comment here a while back that claimed over 5 million X-10
> devices are in use. If true, it's going to be a while before any other HA
> technology reaches that number.
>
That number might include all the ones that were sold. I bet most of
them are laying around in a dusty box somewhere in the garage ;-)
IBM, RCA and many others got out of X10. From what I've heard the number
of complaints reached suffocating levels. Sure, you and I and most folks
on this NG know how to make it work. But John Doe doesn't. Neither does
the neighborhood electrician. Let's face it, Jeff's XTB is probably the
best thing that happened to X10 since sliced bread. But you cannot buy
it in a store or electrician's supply house.
--
Regards, Joerg
Joerg
> Joerg <notthis...@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Ours still flashes 12:00 after an outage. X10 let us down here: We
>>bought the X10 universal remote and on the picture it had a "Menu"
>>button in the lower left. When I unpacked it I discovered that it had a
>>"Guide" button in that space and no menu button. Hence we cannot program
>>the clock or anything else at all except by unplugging again and holding
>>some magic buttons on the VCR itself. Its original remote had died.
>>
>>Tried dozens of VCR codes in the booklet and none turns that useless
>>guide button into menu mode :-(
>
>
> Take a learning remote programmed to your VCR to a store that sells
> VCRs made by the same manufacturer as your old one. Get permission to
> see if the new ones respond to your remote. If they do then teach your
> remote the Menu function from their remote.
>
Most stores around here don't have the remotes in the showroom. Probably
they have a way of "vanishing" when nobody is looking. Seems like some
don't even have VCRs enaymore.
I could most likely get a better universal remote at Walmart, one that
does have a menu button. I was just very surprised that the X10 remote
didn't have that. It's kind of important.
Jeff Volp
>
> And I continue to be amazed by how steadfastly some folks will cling to
> defending what's clearly a defective product.
And I am amazed by people like yourself who continue to trash an inexpensive
solution to home automation just because some people can't learn how to make
it work properly. As bitter as you are about X10, apparently you are one of
them.
Most of us don't have the resources to spend $100 per load to automate our
houses. Some people drive used cars and others may drive a new Lexus.
Usually the choice is dictated by economic factors. X10 may not have Lexus
status, but like my used car, it gets the job done.
Since you have stated many times that X10 is a defective product, I would
like to know exactly what you think is defective (in technical terms).
Considering what X10 modules must cost to manufacture, I'm impressed that
they work so well. How many other electronic devices can be bought for a
few bucks and last for decades?
> X10's dead, and rightly so.
The X10 protocol will probably outlast many of the new kids on the block.
None of the other candidates have the rich selection of multi-sourced
devices that are available for X10.
Jeff
Robert Green
Jeff > and >>Robert L Bass wrote
<stuff snipped>
> > Even experienced users frequently start
> > lengthy threads here about problems with lost signals, failed
> > components and stuff turning on/off for no apparent reason.
>
> Back before I really understood X10, I would have agreed with you. There
> was a time when I was tweaking to make it work.
I think Robert's point is that an X-10 setup is in a constant state of
tweaking. To that end, anyone highly concerned with tech support or SAF
should be aware of its potential for problems.
> Back then everybody was
> talking about interference and how noise sources had to be filtered. Well
> it turns out that the major problem for X10 isn't from noise sources, but
> "signal suckers".
Respectfully disagree. The "major problem" for X-10 is actually a
constellation of problems that arise from slow transmission speed, primitive
error detection and poor signal strength. If it was faster, there would be
fewer collisions, if there was better error detection, you'd know when a
targeted device failed to operate and if the signal strength was greater, it
wouldn't be so easily knocked out by a noisy CFL or a signal-sucking UPS.
> They are usually devices with a simple capacitor across
> their power input to meet the FCC conducted radiation standard. Those
> manufacturers don't care if their devices corrupt other signals on the
line.
> They just use the cheapest fix possible to meet FCC regulations.
>
> The most important thing I did to increase reliability was to get an Elk
> ESM1 signal level meter. Then I could really see the major problem was
low
> signal levels, not noise. It can take some time to go through the house
to
> identify and isolate those signal suckers. The important thing is to
> provide decent signal levels throughout the house. Unfortunately, an
> inexpensive X10 transmitter can't provide the drive necessary for a larger
> house, and some type of booster may be required.
While I agree a meter is an important thing to have (so much so that I
bought the Elk and the Monterey) the need for it troubles me. It's one of
the things that makes me classify X-10 as "it works if you know the
secrets." Using X-10 successfully means analyzing *every* stinkin' piece
of equipment you buy with the X-10 meter to make sure it's not a black
holer. That's a damn bother. I must confess I haven't bothered doing it
since I've implemented the XTB's if only because I am curious to see when
they'll become overpowered by signal suckers and noise.
> Yes, there are noise sources too. Prime candidates are compact
fluorescent
> bulbs, and "wireless" intercoms such as baby monitors. I reported
elsewhere
> that 4 generic (cheap) CF bulbs radiated enough noise to cause problem.
> However, that is easily solved with a $25 filter.
I bit the bullet and bought 10 for a quantity discount. I think they came
out to about $175. Add that to the cost of meters and the XTB and it adds
up
to money I wish I didn't have to spend, but I am glad that I did because the
alternative was spending an awful *lot* more money on a new system. Since I
want that to be hardwired, it's going to wait for the next house which will
be built with HA in mind from the ground up.
> > No doubt you're able to successfully maintain your X10 stuff. But
> > most people, even most DIYers I know, just don't want to put up
> > with the quirky behavior of X10. The goal in designing a system is
> > to make it work "out of the box" and continue to function,
> > regardless what new PC's, UPS's or other gear one acquires down
> > the road. In this respect, IMO X10 fails miserably. I don't use it
> > and I won't recommend it to customers.
>
> When you buy a car, you understand it needs oil changes and periodic
> maintenance. Some of them don't even work perfectly "out of the box", and
> have to visit the dealer several times to get their quirks ironed out. So
> if one accepts this from a $20,000 item, why bitch endlessly when one has
to
> do some maintenance to keep X10 running? Provide a decent signal level,
> and it works fine.
I'm not sure of the correct analogy, but I don't think the car one fits.
X-10 has lots of issues that have to be worked around, and they range from
the trivial to the serious. I'd say one of the worst "features" is how many
things turn themselves on after the right kind of power blip. It's
infrequent enough to be lived with, and it's possible to work around
(inconveniently by plugging one appliance module into another and using two
ON commands to get it to work), but it's BAD. There are many others.
They're not enough to make me stop using X-10, but they do make me wish
there weren't as many problems.
--
Bobby G.
Robert Green
> Ah, but I don't. I bought an Odyssey van last year. It has satellite
radio, a touchscreen GPS navigation system and lots of other
> cool stuff. I expect it all to work first time and to give little or no
trouble for the three year period that I normally keep a
> new car. If I had to bring it in for service several times in the first
month I'd have been sorely disappointed in the product.
Ironically, the JD Powers customer satisfaction levels for a number of high
and medium end cars has fallen noticeably for the first time in years and
the blame seems to fall on all the new electronics that are crammed into
vehicles nowadays. Having encountered a Beemer with "I" drive, I can
understand it. It should have been called the "I yi yi!" drive because of
its non-intuitive nature. A single control stalk was supposed to control
all of the onboard electronics. NOT!
--
Bobby G.
Robert Green
<stuff snipped>
> With that said, my X10 system is misbehaving, and yes, it is
> frustrating! :) However, at my price point it is X10 or nothing, so
> X10 it is. And I have corresponding expectations.
That sums it up nicely. I put up with a lot to save a lot. As long as X-10
problems are still solvable, I am willing to do the work (and have the
tools) to troubleshoot them. The benefits outweigh the frustration. If I
had some sort of X-10 RF meter that worked the way the ESM1 or the Monterey
did, I would consider my troubleshooting toolkit complete.
> IMHO X10 does themselves a disservice by hiding the troubleshooting
> information and even the official documentation of potential problems
> behind their "Pro" site.
I don't know of many manufacturers who market their products any other way!
--
Bobby G.
Bill Kearney
> "Bill Kearney" <wkear...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c6OdnVvP6uybCujY...@speakeasy.net...
> >
> > And I continue to be amazed by how steadfastly some folks will cling to
> > defending what's clearly a defective product.
>
> And I am amazed by people like yourself who continue to trash an
inexpensive
> solution to home automation just because some people can't learn how to
make
> it work properly. As bitter as you are about X10, apparently you are one
of
> them.
Hey, I'm just glad to hear yet another retailer is abandoning sales of
X10-based products. Things like light switches shouldn't have to be
"configured" in the horrible ways X10 requires.
> Since you have stated many times that X10 is a defective product, I would
> like to know exactly what you think is defective (in technical terms).
Crappy build quality and inferior components ring any bells? To say nothing
of horrible user experience (switch gear) and miserably bad software.
> Considering what X10 modules must cost to manufacture, I'm impressed that
> they work so well. How many other electronic devices can be bought for a
> few bucks and last for decades?
Yeah, good, fast, cheap... pick two. X10 doesn't even hit two of the
points. That it's inexpensive doesn't mean it's not crap.
> > X10's dead, and rightly so.
>
> The X10 protocol will probably outlast many of the new kids on the block.
> None of the other candidates have the rich selection of multi-sourced
> devices that are available for X10.
Ha, "rich selection" and home automation, now THERE'S a pipe dream.
Seeing as how you're peddling a "solution" to the X10 problems it's rather
disingenuous to believe any opinions you're spouting here.
Robert Green
> Robert Green wrote:
>
> > "Joerg" <notthis...@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
news:r0%
> >
> > <stuff snipped>
> >
> >>Ours still flashes 12:00 after an outage. X10 let us down here: We
> >>bought the X10 universal remote and on the picture it had a "Menu"
> >>button in the lower left. When I unpacked it I discovered that it had a
> >>"Guide" button in that space and no menu button. Hence we cannot program
> >>the clock or anything else at all except by unplugging again and holding
> >>some magic buttons on the VCR itself. Its original remote had died.
> >
> >
> > Is it *really* their fault? If you're talking about one of their
learning
> > Universal remotes, it *could* learn the code you're missing in all
> > probability, but your original died. Which of the many X-10 remotes are
you
> > talking about?
> >
>
> It's the UR19A. Their fault? Well, when the glossy ad says there is a
> menu button and then when the product arrives there is no menu button,
> ahem ...
There were a number of mislabelled and mismatched remotes and promotion
material. I bought one recently on Ebay that was completely erroneoud.
IIRC, that remote was one of the cheapest and least functional remotes ever
made. They also had the worst RF range, although that might have just been
a production issue that could have been fixed by tuning. I think the UR19A
was also made before the widespread advent of DVD players. Worst of all,
it's not able to learn commands from other remotes. They made a number of
different remotes, all with their own different strengths but having a
learning function is a basic necessity, IMHO, to solve just the problem you
are facing.
> This VCR is quite old, 8-9 years. But we have learned to live with the
> problem. When the clock lags too much we pull the power cord and
> re-program the clock by hand an hour or so later.
In the world of consumer electronics, that's two generations ago. I don't
even think the original maker is required to provide spare parts for more
than 5 years, although many do.
> >>Good point. "New and better" is not only about technology, they also
> >>need to understand marketing. So far I don't see that happen.
> >
> >
> > Dude. They ramped up sales at X10.com using popunders, popovers,
popups,
> > popouts and spam at a rate that kept breaking records. I'm not saying
those
> > were *good* tactics but they certainly moved the product. ...
>
>
> I am not so sure about that. Pretty much all the more geeky people I
> know were turned off by those ads. To the point where some of them
> didn't go back there.
IIRC, they went from sales of 2 million dollars per year to 20 million
dollars as a result of that campaign. You and I may have hated it, but it
made them, at one point, one of the fastest growing companies on the
Internet.
> > ... And now I can
> > benefit from all of the 2 for 1 vouchers X10.com used to give away.
Those
> > vouchers caused people to buy far more gear than they ever needed
(that's
> > the hallmark of effective marketing - selling snow to Eskimos). I
liked
> > the vouchers, personally, and I know a LOT of people here bought lots of
> > gear with vouchers. The popup crap I could live without and did, as
soon as
> > I got a popup blocker.
> >
>
> Hmm, maybe I missed something then. Got no vouchers :-(
Vouchers were flooding the Internet in the 2000-2001 time frame, IIRC. They
provided some pretty signficant discounts and the more you bought, the more
vouchers and deals you got. I have about 20 Hawkeyes because for a while,
you could get them for $3 or so, or even for free. If you had a work
address, a business address and a neighbor you could really acquire a lot of
equipment. It must have been cost effective because they made an *awful*
lot of money. I don't recall being able to break it down across product
lines: it may easily be that they sold more X-10 cams to voyeurs than the
home automation equipment.
> > To get X-10 to work reliably in the new world, you need filters, you
need a
> > meter and you need a signal booster like Jeff's XTB. That's really a
small
> > cost to protect for what some is a fairly large investment in X-10 gear.
> > IIRC, there was a comment here a while back that claimed over 5 million
X-10
> > devices are in use. If true, it's going to be a while before any other
HA
> > technology reaches that number.
> >
>
> That number might include all the ones that were sold. I bet most of
> them are laying around in a dusty box somewhere in the garage ;-)
Manufacturers love to sell products that are never used because they don't
have to spend a dime supporting them!
> IBM, RCA and many others got out of X10. From what I've heard the number
> of complaints reached suffocating levels. Sure, you and I and most folks
> on this NG know how to make it work. But John Doe doesn't. Neither does
> the neighborhood electrician. Let's face it, Jeff's XTB is probably the
> best thing that happened to X10 since sliced bread. But you cannot buy
> it in a store or electrician's supply house.
But you *can* buy it. I just bought 4 more because they make X-10 so much
more reliable. Does it solve *all* my X-10 problems? No, but I never
expected it to. What it does is sharply reduce the chances of something
being left on in the house after I send an ALL OFF command, and that's one
of the primary reasons I use X-10.
--
Bobby G.
Jeff Volp
>
> > Since you have stated many times that X10 is a defective product, I
would
> > like to know exactly what you think is defective (in technical terms).
>
> Crappy build quality and inferior components ring any bells? To say
nothing
> of horrible user experience (switch gear) and miserably bad software.
Ah, now I understand. You are arguing the X10 company, not the X10
protocol. I agree you get what you pay for in quality from X10. But what
do you expect in a device that has to be made for a few bucks? I never
liked the spongy mechanical feel to their wall switches. While those worked
fine for almost two decades at our last house, we upgraded to Leviton here.
I can't comment on there recent software, but I was involved with their beta
test on the CM14A (precursor to the CM15A). Usually all identified bugs
were resolved in a timely manner. The only continuing problem for me was
the serial interface. Everything else, including RF and macros, did what it
should, and I continued to use that unit for a couple of years after the
Beta test ended.
> > Considering what X10 modules must cost to manufacture, I'm impressed
that
> > they work so well. How many other electronic devices can be bought for
a
> > few bucks and last for decades?
>
> Yeah, good, fast, cheap... pick two. X10 doesn't even hit two of the
> points. That it's inexpensive doesn't mean it's not crap.
Lets face it, X10 is after the low end market. If you want "quality" X10
products, go with a company like Leviton.
> Seeing as how you're peddling a "solution" to the X10 problems it's rather
> disingenuous to believe any opinions you're spouting here.
Most of my posts have been directed at helping increase the reliability of
their X10 systems. I always suggest identifying and isolating problem
devices first. Usually 100% reliability can be achieved that way. I often
have reported that I had virtually 100% reliability myself before adding the
XTB. I offer that unit as an alternative to the repeaters that many people
use in larger houses. And it is being offered barely above the cost of the
components themselves, especially in kit form.
Bottom line is that X10 (the protocol) is getting a raw deal from people
like yourself. The AC power distribution in a typical home is a very
complex problem. There are different ideas on how best to deal with that,
but as yet I don't see any clear winner. RF can work fine on a clear
channel, but I certainly have enough experience with that medium to know its
limitations.
In summary, X10 CAN offer a lot of bang for the buck for people willing to
learn how to use it properly.
Jeff
Jeff Volp
news:1KqdnQBQ6pgYDOvY...@rcn.net...
>
> I think Robert's point is that an X-10 setup is in a constant state of
> tweaking. To that end, anyone highly concerned with tech support or SAF
> should be aware of its potential for problems.
I know. My wife reports whenever anything technical is amiss.
> > Back then everybody was
> > talking about interference and how noise sources had to be filtered.
Well
> > it turns out that the major problem for X10 isn't from noise sources,
but
> > "signal suckers".
>
> Respectfully disagree. The "major problem" for X-10 is actually a
> constellation of problems that arise from slow transmission speed,
primitive
> error detection and poor signal strength. If it was faster, there would
be
> fewer collisions, if there was better error detection, you'd know when a
> targeted device failed to operate and if the signal strength was greater,
it
> wouldn't be so easily knocked out by a noisy CFL or a signal-sucking UPS.
I guess it depends on how one uses X10. Here we have no problem with X10
speed. I don't think I have ever seen a collision except for the ones
purposely induced while testing. We have one controller that pretty much
does everything. We do have palmpads and wired remotes in case we need
something out of the ordinary, but that may average just a few commands a
day.
I investigated the CFL issue while testing the XTB-II. As reported earlier,
a set of 4 unfiltered generic (cheap) CF bulbs produced enough noise when
beating together that they almost mimicked a X10 transmission. A couple of
times they morphed one X10 command into another. If a device that could do
this was developed for the military, it would be called a jammer. So people
bring these "jammers" into their homes and complain that it causes problems
for X10. Maybe the complaint should be directed toward the CF manufacturers
so they don't radiate so much crap. We do have CF bulbs from well-known
companies that cause no problem at all, so it can be done.
X10 did produce two-way modules that can provide a status acknowledge. I
understand they don't sell nearly as well as the cheap receive only modules.
So cost remains the biggest driver in X10 sales.
> While I agree a meter is an important thing to have (so much so that I
> bought the Elk and the Monterey) the need for it troubles me. It's one of
> the things that makes me classify X-10 as "it works if you know the
> secrets." Using X-10 successfully means analyzing *every* stinkin' piece
> of equipment you buy with the X-10 meter to make sure it's not a black
> holer. That's a damn bother. I must confess I haven't bothered doing it
> since I've implemented the XTB's if only because I am curious to see when
> they'll become overpowered by signal suckers and noise.
People bitch that X10 is garbage. If you take a step backward and look at
the big picture, most of the electronic stuff isn't much better. Our Sony
XBR TV blew up its HV supply under warranty. Then all the larger components
on the main circuit board had to be resoldered because of circular cracks
that caused intermittents as people walked through the room. Then the tuner
failed. Now the sound board has some intermittent. And Sony isn't a cheap
brand.
Lets face it, most manufacturers make things as cheaply as possible. In
today's world volume sales go to the lowest priced items. If you can price
it a buck lower by leaving out the line filter, then maybe you will get a
much larger piece of the pie. And that is X10's problem.
Jeff
Marc_F_Hult
message <HbBdh.437249$QZ1....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
>Ah, now I understand. You are arguing the X10 company, not the X10
>protocol. I agree you get what you pay for in quality from X10.
"X10" (no hyphen) does denote the company X10 Wireless Technology, Inc. aka
X10.com
But was Pico's experiment # 10 first dubbed "X10" or was it "X-10" (with
hyphen) as I've assumed and written for years? I've seen different early
accounts/punctuation.
... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org
Joerg
I bought this one at X10.com so I was hoping that it would be the real
thing. Learning remotes are nice but they don't do you any good when the
original remote broke. That was the reason I bought this one, tacked it
on to an X10 order.
You may be right with the tuning. I found that almost all of the X10
modules I bought where not receiving on 120kHz but seriously de-tuned.
Or probably not tuned at all in production. Might be the same with the
RF parts.
>
>>This VCR is quite old, 8-9 years. But we have learned to live with the
>>problem. When the clock lags too much we pull the power cord and
>>re-program the clock by hand an hour or so later.
>
>
> In the world of consumer electronics, that's two generations ago. I don't
> even think the original maker is required to provide spare parts for more
> than 5 years, although many do.
>
They better do or their reputation sinks to junk status. But they often
charge so much for spare parts that it makes no sense.
>
>
>>>>Good point. "New and better" is not only about technology, they also
>>>>need to understand marketing. So far I don't see that happen.
>>>
>>>
>>>Dude. They ramped up sales at X10.com using popunders, popovers,
>
> popups,
>
>>>popouts and spam at a rate that kept breaking records. I'm not saying
>
> those
>
>>>were *good* tactics but they certainly moved the product. ...
>>
>>
>>I am not so sure about that. Pretty much all the more geeky people I
>>know were turned off by those ads. To the point where some of them
>>didn't go back there.
>
>
> IIRC, they went from sales of 2 million dollars per year to 20 million
> dollars as a result of that campaign. You and I may have hated it, but it
> made them, at one point, one of the fastest growing companies on the
> Internet.
>
Did they release those numbers? I wonder if they can sustain that with
such cheesy advertising.
>
>
>>> ... And now I can
>>>benefit from all of the 2 for 1 vouchers X10.com used to give away.
>
> Those
>
>>>vouchers caused people to buy far more gear than they ever needed
>
> (that's
>
>>>the hallmark of effective marketing - selling snow to Eskimos). I
>
> liked
>
>>>the vouchers, personally, and I know a LOT of people here bought lots of
>>>gear with vouchers. The popup crap I could live without and did, as
>
> soon as
>
>>>I got a popup blocker.
>>>
>>
>>Hmm, maybe I missed something then. Got no vouchers :-(
>
>
> Vouchers were flooding the Internet in the 2000-2001 time frame, IIRC. They
> provided some pretty signficant discounts and the more you bought, the more
> vouchers and deals you got. I have about 20 Hawkeyes because for a while,
> you could get them for $3 or so, or even for free. If you had a work
> address, a business address and a neighbor you could really acquire a lot of
> equipment. It must have been cost effective because they made an *awful*
> lot of money. I don't recall being able to break it down across product
> lines: it may easily be that they sold more X-10 cams to voyeurs than the
> home automation equipment.
>
>
They also had some nice specials. Like a bunch of appliance modules for
a good discount. Not that's gone, the package deals contain too much
fluff stuff that I don't need. Don't need another keychain remote that
doesn't work for us anyway. And certainly not another UR19A ;-)
>
>>>To get X-10 to work reliably in the new world, you need filters, you
>
> need a
>
>>>meter and you need a signal booster like Jeff's XTB. That's really a
>
> small
>
>>>cost to protect for what some is a fairly large investment in X-10 gear.
>>>IIRC, there was a comment here a while back that claimed over 5 million
>
> X-10
>
>>>devices are in use. If true, it's going to be a while before any other
>
> HA
>
>>>technology reaches that number.
>>>
>>
>>That number might include all the ones that were sold. I bet most of
>>them are laying around in a dusty box somewhere in the garage ;-)
>
>
> Manufacturers love to sell products that are never used because they don't
> have to spend a dime supporting them!
>
Oh yeah, they do love that!
>
>>IBM, RCA and many others got out of X10. From what I've heard the number
>>of complaints reached suffocating levels. Sure, you and I and most folks
>>on this NG know how to make it work. But John Doe doesn't. Neither does
>>the neighborhood electrician. Let's face it, Jeff's XTB is probably the
>>best thing that happened to X10 since sliced bread. But you cannot buy
>>it in a store or electrician's supply house.
>
>
> But you *can* buy it. I just bought 4 more because they make X-10 so much
> more reliable. Does it solve *all* my X-10 problems? No, but I never
> expected it to. What it does is sharply reduce the chances of something
> being left on in the house after I send an ALL OFF command, and that's one
> of the primary reasons I use X-10.
>
This device needs to be available via X10.com and other channels. It
could give X10 a real boost. The common perception among geeky folks
around here is that X10 is unreliable. Well, the way it's sold through
the existing channels (without XTB) it is IMHO unreliable.
Hooper
X-10 maintains their Community Forum at http://www.x10community.com/forums
and to their credit does not censor it, as many manufacturers would.
As to be expected there's a lot of X-10 bashing, but also a wealth of
information and troubleshooting help posted there by users.
Marc_F_Hult
<notthis...@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
<AQidh.369$Gr2...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>:
>IBM, RCA and many others got out of X10. From what I've heard the number
>of complaints reached suffocating levels. Sure, you and I and most folks
>on this NG know how to make it work. But John Doe doesn't. Neither does
>the neighborhood electrician. Let's face it, Jeff's XTB is probably the
>best thing that happened to X10 since sliced bread. But you cannot buy
>it in a store or electrician's supply house.
To give credit where credit is also due, ACT's www.act-solutions.com A10
technology and products also post-date sliced bread and although
distribution was initially limited to trained and knowledgeable suppliers,
at least some products are available from retail outlets. I have also
purchased from ACT directly.
In particular, the TI103 RS-232 --> Powerline transmitter
http://www.act-solutions.com/pdfs/PCCSpecs/ti103_spec.pdf has a form-factor
and transformer that is very similar to Jeff's subsequent XTB. They also
both increase available current and output voltage compared to X10's
transmitters.
My non-authoritative understanding is that ACT is also leaving the X-10
arena.
(FWIW, I will be parting with both my TI103 and XTB in the near future
through an electronic 'porch sale'. )
... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org
Robert Green
> "Robert Green" <ROBERT_G...@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
> news:1KqdnQBQ6pgYDOvY...@rcn.net...
> >
> > I think Robert's point is that an X-10 setup is in a constant state of
> > tweaking. To that end, anyone highly concerned with tech support or SAF
> > should be aware of its potential for problems.
>
> I know. My wife reports whenever anything technical is amiss.
I know what you mean. X-10's been a help in that they really do have a lot
of technical information on their products as well as step-by-step stuff for
non-techies. Ever since the "stuck Palmpad button" when I was away and
out-of-touch I've had to leave pretty specific troubleshooting
documentation. In that case, she got by because most of the lamps she uses
are operable by local control and that's the only thing that worked. A
stuck RF transmitter button (now that it's hooked to the XTB turbocharger)
crippled almost every X-10 device in the house. Of course this happened on
a critical day for her. It's also happened to me when I least needed it and
for a while, it looked like we were going back to the land of the 99 cent
dumb snap switches again. There's hardly anything you can do that would
make an entire house-full of simple manual toggle switches misbehave as
badly as X-10 did that day.
Experiences like that make it easy to see where Bill K's opinion is coming
from. Those are the situations where the Monterey is worth its weight in
polonium. It displayed a steady stream of P1 ON's (along with collisions
and other junk) that enable me to at least figure out what transmitter it
was. Even though I disabled the P housecode transceiver, the continuous
transmission of the RF knocked out all RF controllers like the remotes, the
stickaswitches and lots of other stuff. Now I have a "executive summary"
document that tries to explain how to detect such a problem with the
Monterey and what things to disable and in what order to attempt to get
things working. What I'd really like is a handheld RF detector that I could
wave around the room that would beep when it encountered a stream of X-10 RF
with some degree of directionality.
> > > Back then everybody was
> > > talking about interference and how noise sources had to be filtered.
> Well
> > > it turns out that the major problem for X10 isn't from noise sources,
> but
> > > "signal suckers".
> >
> > Respectfully disagree. The "major problem" for X-10 is actually a
> > constellation of problems that arise from slow transmission speed,
> primitive
> > error detection and poor signal strength. If it was faster, there would
> be
> > fewer collisions, if there was better error detection, you'd know when a
> > targeted device failed to operate and if the signal strength was
greater,
> it
> > wouldn't be so easily knocked out by a noisy CFL or a signal-sucking
UPS.
>
> I guess it depends on how one uses X10.
Very wise words. I think that one sentence explains how as many people seem
to love X10 as hate it. If you don't use multiple Hawkeyes, you probably
won't see many collisions but if you have more than one and they're near
each other, trouble awaits. The equation is also dependent on the number of
people moving around at any one time. I find their greatest use is as a
guardian. Put one in a drawer that shouldn't be opened and it will leave a
record in Activehome of exactly when it was opened.
> Here we have no problem with X10
> speed. I don't think I have ever seen a collision except for the ones
> purposely induced while testing. We have one controller that pretty much
> does everything.
The "controller-centric" is very well-suited to the XTB but it's only one of
many, many possible X-10 configurations. I had given up on the CM11A and
the TW-523 that comes with the Ocelot because they had become so unreliable
without a signal boost. I am slowly redesigning the system to bring those
devices back on line.
> We do have palmpads and wired remotes in case we need
> something out of the ordinary, but that may average just a few commands a
> day.
Our setup and use patterns are almost completely the opposite so it's easy
to see how one man's X-10 glass may be half full and another's broken in
bits on the floor!
> I investigated the CFL issue while testing the XTB-II. As reported
earlier,
> a set of 4 unfiltered generic (cheap) CF bulbs produced enough noise when
> beating together that they almost mimicked a X10 transmission. A couple
of
> times they morphed one X10 command into another. If a device that could
do
> this was developed for the military, it would be called a jammer. So
people
> bring these "jammers" into their homes and complain that it causes
problems
> for X10.
It's such a problem for the military that they have come up with schemes to
broadcast highly compressed packets at the ionization trails of meteors to
bounce directly to a remote receiver because such directed transmission are
hard to jam.
> Maybe the complaint should be directed toward the CF manufacturers
> so they don't radiate so much crap. We do have CF bulbs from well-known
> companies that cause no problem at all, so it can be done.
That turned into a bigger issue than I thought when I labelled CF bulbs for
use in certain sockets only. That seemed a little extreme to SWMBO. Things
became even worse when I went back and bought the same brand of GE CF bulbs,
the same model number, the same everything except a few digits on the inkjet
lot numbers. The second batch was noisy as hell and jammed the X10 signal
where the first batch did not. That's when I bought the big box of filters
and put them on all lamps that could accommodate a CF bulb.
One would hope that manufacturers of switching power supplies and CF bulbs
would have gotten enough bad feedback from angry X-10 users to induce them
to change their designs. But in a world where a 1 cent price difference
matters so deeply to the bean counters, I suspect they won't make CFL's and
switching power supplies more X-10 friendly unless they can also make it
cheaper at the same time.
> X10 did produce two-way modules that can provide a status acknowledge. I
> understand they don't sell nearly as well as the cheap receive only
modules.
> So cost remains the biggest driver in X10 sales.
That's one conclusion you can draw. Another is that they're basically
useless because they tell you the state of the switch, not of the load!
> > While I agree a meter is an important thing to have (so much so that I
> > bought the Elk and the Monterey) the need for it troubles me. It's one
of
> > the things that makes me classify X-10 as "it works if you know the
> > secrets." Using X-10 successfully means analyzing *every* stinkin'
piece
> > of equipment you buy with the X-10 meter to make sure it's not a black
> > holer. That's a damn bother. I must confess I haven't bothered doing
it
> > since I've implemented the XTB's if only because I am curious to see
when
> > they'll become overpowered by signal suckers and noise.
>
> People bitch that X10 is garbage. If you take a step backward and look at
> the big picture, most of the electronic stuff isn't much better. Our Sony
> XBR TV blew up its HV supply under warranty. Then all the larger
components
> on the main circuit board had to be resoldered because of circular cracks
> that caused intermittents as people walked through the room. Then the
tuner
> failed. Now the sound board has some intermittent. And Sony isn't a
cheap
> brand.
I've owned Sony's since their first 6 transistor shirt pocket radio. Their
quality peaked around the time of the TC55 portable cassette recorder.
Built like a Sherman tank, I still see reporters shoving it in people's
faces on TV. It was downhill from there. What can you expect from a
company that paid Michael Jackson 1 BILLION dollars (since reneged upon) and
who invented the portable music device but let Apple and the Ipod stomp it
in the marketplace? Losers!
> Lets face it, most manufacturers make things as cheaply as possible. In
> today's world volume sales go to the lowest priced items. If you can
price
> it a buck lower by leaving out the line filter, then maybe you will get a
> much larger piece of the pie. And that is X10's problem.
One of them, anyway. (-:
--
Bobby G.
Robert L Bass
> and medium end cars has fallen noticeably for the first time in years and
> the blame seems to fall on all the new electronics that are crammed into
> vehicles nowadays. Having encountered a Beemer with "I" drive, I can
> understand it. It should have been called the "I yi yi!" drive because of
> its non-intuitive nature. A single control stalk was supposed to control
> all of the onboard electronics. NOT!
Ah, yes. The ultimate driving machine. Not! My brother has had a couple of BMW's. They were the worst cars he ever owned. Every
time *anything* goes wrong it's a $1,000 repair and unfortunately, something is *always* going wrong.
Joerg
> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:25:36 GMT, Joerg
> <notthis...@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
> <AQidh.369$Gr2...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>:
>
>
>>IBM, RCA and many others got out of X10. From what I've heard the number
>>of complaints reached suffocating levels. Sure, you and I and most folks
>>on this NG know how to make it work. But John Doe doesn't. Neither does
>>the neighborhood electrician. Let's face it, Jeff's XTB is probably the
>>best thing that happened to X10 since sliced bread. But you cannot buy
>>it in a store or electrician's supply house.
>
>
> To give credit where credit is also due, ACT's www.act-solutions.com A10
> technology and products also post-date sliced bread and although
> distribution was initially limited to trained and knowledgeable suppliers,
That's usually a recipe for failure in the marketplace.
> at least some products are available from retail outlets. I have also
> purchased from ACT directly.
>
> In particular, the TI103 RS-232 --> Powerline transmitter
> http://www.act-solutions.com/pdfs/PCCSpecs/ti103_spec.pdf has a form-factor
> and transformer that is very similar to Jeff's subsequent XTB. They also
> both increase available current and output voltage compared to X10's
> transmitters.
>
But from what I can see that's not the same. It requires a PC with RS232
(which "modern" PCs don't have anymore) that has to be always on. Not
something most people would want. Also, this one doesn't boost the RF
transceiver's powerline signal.
> My non-authoritative understanding is that ACT is also leaving the X-10
> arena.
>
Let us know when they start the fire sale.
> (FWIW, I will be parting with both my TI103 and XTB in the near future
> through an electronic 'porch sale'. )
>
Will there be coffee and bagels at the porch sale?
Marc_F_Hult
<notthis...@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
<s2Fdh.27005$wP1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>:
>Marc_F_Hult wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:25:36 GMT, Joerg
>> <notthis...@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
>> <AQidh.369$Gr2...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>:
>> In particular, the TI103 RS-232 --> Powerline transmitter
>> http://www.act-solutions.com/pdfs/PCCSpecs/ti103_spec.pdf has a
>> form-factor
>> and transformer that is very similar to Jeff's subsequent XTB. They also
>> both increase available current and output voltage compared to X10's
>> transmitters.
>
>But from what I can see that's not the same. It requires a PC with RS232
>(which "modern" PCs don't have anymore) that has to be always on. Not
>something most people would want.
Had ACT decided to stay with X-10, it would have been easy to provide a USB
or TTL version. As is, they provide four different versions for 110 or 230,
single-phase or three phase 50 or 60 hz.
www.act-solutions.com/PCCSpecFrame.htm
Point is that an X-10 transmitter with a much stiffer power supply and
higher output voltage (designed by folks trying to make X-10 work in real
environments, including industrial and commercial locations, instead of
pushing the cheapest product possible) has been available for years.
Of course USB -->RS-RS232 converters are cheap and not functionally bigger
or less convenient than a USB cable. So availability or not of a USB version
is at best a 3rd-order consideration IME.
And RS-232 is *far* from dead in HA and AV applications. RS-232 is more
prevalent than ever in high audio in part because it is better suited than
USB in most/many cases.
My thermostats use RS-232-->RS-485 (as best I know, there are *no* USB
thermostats) my audio matrix mixers are RS-232-->485, the interface to my
security system is RS-232, the Elk is RS-232, the IR controller is RS-232,
and on and on. The only device I can think of that might be USB is the
INSTEON controller and I have both RS-232 and USB versions with the RS
version the one in actual use because I can plug it in next to the entrance
panel which is too far from the HA PC for un-aided USB.
>Also, this one doesn't boost the RF transceiver's powerline signal.
Ok, I'll bite ;-) How does an XTB "boost the RF transceivers powerline
signal" when it is used between an TW523 or CM11a and the PL in a way that
TI102 family of devices don't ?
>> (FWIW, I will be parting with both my TI103 and XTB in the near future
>> through an electronic 'porch sale'. )
>>
>
>Will there be coffee and bagels at the porch sale?
I don't cook bagels, but coffee and home-baked bread are available --
assuming that your transporter is compatible with RS-232802(MING).
... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org
Joerg
> On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 19:42:16 GMT, Joerg
> <notthis...@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
> <s2Fdh.27005$wP1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>:
>
>
>>Marc_F_Hult wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:25:36 GMT, Joerg
>>><notthis...@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
>>><AQidh.369$Gr2...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>:
>
>
>>>In particular, the TI103 RS-232 --> Powerline transmitter
>>>http://www.act-solutions.com/pdfs/PCCSpecs/ti103_spec.pdf has a
>>>form-factor
>>>and transformer that is very similar to Jeff's subsequent XTB. They also
>>>both increase available current and output voltage compared to X10's
>>>transmitters.
>>
>>But from what I can see that's not the same. It requires a PC with RS232
>>(which "modern" PCs don't have anymore) that has to be always on. Not
>>something most people would want.
>
>
> Had ACT decided to stay with X-10, it would have been easy to provide a USB
> or TTL version. As is, they provide four different versions for 110 or 230,
> single-phase or three phase 50 or 60 hz.
> www.act-solutions.com/PCCSpecFrame.htm
>
Do you know why they are leaving X10? Too many "it don't work all the
time" complaints?
> Point is that an X-10 transmitter with a much stiffer power supply and
> higher output voltage (designed by folks trying to make X-10 work in real
> environments, including industrial and commercial locations, instead of
> pushing the cheapest product possible) has been available for years.
>
> Of course USB -->RS-RS232 converters are cheap and not functionally bigger
> or less convenient than a USB cable. So availability or not of a USB version
> is at best a 3rd-order consideration IME.
>
For you and me, yes. For the casual hobby user, no. These converters are
usually north of $50 which is past the pain threshold of a typical home
user for stuff that's needed "just to make it work". They are also not
available in local stores, those only offer USB-Parallel and even they
might vanish soon.
> And RS-232 is *far* from dead in HA and AV applications. RS-232 is more
> prevalent than ever in high audio in part because it is better suited than
> USB in most/many cases.
>
Agree. Unfortunately the PC industry doesn't :-(
> My thermostats use RS-232-->RS-485 (as best I know, there are *no* USB
> thermostats) my audio matrix mixers are RS-232-->485, the interface to my
> security system is RS-232, the Elk is RS-232, the IR controller is RS-232,
> and on and on. The only device I can think of that might be USB is the
> INSTEON controller and I have both RS-232 and USB versions with the RS
> version the one in actual use because I can plug it in next to the entrance
> panel which is too far from the HA PC for un-aided USB.
>
>
>>Also, this one doesn't boost the RF transceiver's powerline signal.
>
>
> Ok, I'll bite ;-) How does an XTB "boost the RF transceivers powerline
> signal" when it is used between an TW523 or CM11a and the PL in a way that
> TI102 family of devices don't ?
>
The transceiver would need to be plugged into the XTB receptacle, not
into the powerline side.
>
>>>(FWIW, I will be parting with both my TI103 and XTB in the near future
>>>through an electronic 'porch sale'. )
>>>
>>
>>Will there be coffee and bagels at the porch sale?
>
>
> I don't cook bagels, but coffee and home-baked bread are available --
> assuming that your transporter is compatible with RS-232802(MING).
>
Ok, maybe a beer then :-)
Charles Sullivan
> Marc_F_Hult wrote:
>>> Of course USB -->RS-RS232 converters are cheap and not functionally bigger
>> or less convenient than a USB cable. So availability or not of a USB version
>> is at best a 3rd-order consideration IME.
>>
>
> For you and me, yes. For the casual hobby user, no. These converters are
> usually north of $50 which is past the pain threshold of a typical home
> user for stuff that's needed "just to make it work". They are also not
> available in local stores, those only offer USB-Parallel and even they
> might vanish soon.
Single port USB->RS232 adapters typically run $10-$20 online. Granted,
some local stores like CompUSA and BestBuy may sell "branded" units like
Belkin (bleah) at 3X-5X higher prices.
Charles Sullivan
> "Jeff Volp" <Jeff...@msn.com> wrote in message
>> X10 did produce two-way modules that can provide a status acknowledge.
>> I understand they don't sell nearly as well as the cheap receive only
> modules.
>> So cost remains the biggest driver in X10 sales.
>
> That's one conclusion you can draw. Another is that they're basically
> useless because they tell you the state of the switch, not of the load!
Yes and no.
The LM14A 2-way lamp module reports the brightness level
setting and whether or not the lamp is actually connected.
The information is contained in the Extended Code Status Ack.
The AM14A Appliance Module is supposed to report whether of not
the load is connected, but is buggy and (almost) always reports
that the load is connected when it's not.
Joerg
Last time I was at Best Buy they said they don't have that :-(
Dave Houston
>Maybe the complaint should be directed toward the CF manufacturers
>so they don't radiate so much crap. We do have CF bulbs from well-known
>companies that cause no problem at all, so it can be done.
And Wallmart and others import cheap CFLs made in China by manufacturers who
neither know nor care about such niceties as FCC requirements (not that most
FCC commissioners give a fig about technical issues these days).
http://davehouston.net
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/roZetta/
roZetta-...@yahoogroups.com
Dave Houston
>Single port USB->RS232 adapters typically run $10-$20 online. Granted,
>some local stores like CompUSA and BestBuy may sell "branded" units like
>Belkin (bleah) at 3X-5X higher prices.
Which makes it uneconomical to add an FTDI or SiliconLabs USB-serial chip
internally to embedded devices. It costs nearly as much as the external
adapter.
Dan Lanciani
| The AM14A Appliance Module is supposed to report whether of not
| the load is connected, but is buggy and (almost) always reports
| that the load is connected when it's not.
You know that the AM14A can determine whether the load is connected
only when the relay is off, right?
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
Joerg
> Charles Sullivan <cwsu...@triad.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Single port USB->RS232 adapters typically run $10-$20 online. Granted,
>>some local stores like CompUSA and BestBuy may sell "branded" units like
>>Belkin (bleah) at 3X-5X higher prices.
>
>
> Which makes it uneconomical to add an FTDI or SiliconLabs USB-serial chip
> internally to embedded devices. It costs nearly as much as the external
> adapter.
>
Not really:
http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folders/print/tusb3410.html
Street prices are usually higher than TI's budgetary but I found that
directly negotiating with TI gets it back down to what they claimed.
Even at qties of only a few thousand.
Joerg
> Charles Sullivan <cwsu...@triad.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Single port USB->RS232 adapters typically run $10-$20 online. Granted,
>>some local stores like CompUSA and BestBuy may sell "branded" units like
>>Belkin (bleah) at 3X-5X higher prices.
>
>
> Which makes it uneconomical to add an FTDI or SiliconLabs USB-serial chip
> internally to embedded devices. It costs nearly as much as the external
> adapter.
>
>
I forgot to mention the one with 8052 core on board:
http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folders/print/tusb3210.html
Bill Kearney
> >some local stores like CompUSA and BestBuy may sell "branded" units like
> >Belkin (bleah) at 3X-5X higher prices.
>
> Which makes it uneconomical to add an FTDI or SiliconLabs USB-serial chip
> internally to embedded devices. It costs nearly as much as the external
> adapter.
Well, also consider that keeping a device based on RS-232 avoids having to
make two units. Just ship one, using serial, and make sure it plays well
with various USB-serial adapters. Yeah, it's nice when a unit has a direct
USB port on it but I can understand why some vendors might not want to
bother. I run most of my serial gear off Edgeport multi-port usb-serial
adapters and they work great. Saves a lot of hassles having just one USB
port and driver on the PC and not a bunch of cheesy fleabay purchased
adapters with conflicting drivers.
-Bill Kearney
Bill Kearney
> protocol. I agree you get what you pay for in quality from X10. But what
> do you expect in a device that has to be made for a few bucks? I never
> liked the spongy mechanical feel to their wall switches. While those
worked
> fine for almost two decades at our last house, we upgraded to Leviton
here.
Well, partially. It's true that better made devices utilizing the X10
scheme tend to "suck less" than the retail and online crap that X10 has
peddled to the public. But it still doesn't change the fact that modern
residences are *going* to have devices present that *will* induce failures
in even those better made devices. Thus the partial aspect of the
criticism. Better made gear faced with modern setups still makes it a bad
idea to continue bothering with X10. At least a bad enough idea that I'd
strongly caution anyone attempting HA to just avoid X10 entirely.
> I can't comment on there recent software
Yeah, and as long as you don't use X10's software or X10's own interfaces
you're less likely to see most of the problems. Again, a winning point on
losing more retail channels peddling the crappy stuff. Still, only "less
worse" not anywhere near enough to "better" to make it something advisable
for novice users to attempt.
> Lets face it, X10 is after the low end market. If you want "quality" X10
> products, go with a company like Leviton.
Well, stretching it to "quality" isn't something I agree with.
> > Seeing as how you're peddling a "solution" to the X10 problems it's
rather
> > disingenuous to believe any opinions you're spouting here.
>
> Most of my posts have been directed at helping increase the reliability of
> their X10 systems.
Ok, fair point and you've done an GREAT job of that. You do see my point
however.
> Bottom line is that X10 (the protocol) is getting a raw deal from people
> like yourself.
If it's going to go into a modern residential environment it should be able
to deal with it. It's not a matter of people like me being the problem!
> In summary, X10 CAN offer a lot of bang for the buck for people willing to
> learn how to use it properly.
It's my opinion that as it stands today anything based on X10 has no place
being sold in the retail channel. And that RadioShack's dropping them is a
good thing. That's not the same as saying X10's worth the aggravation.
But hey, a thread full of debate's always a good thing!
-Bill Kearney
Dave Houston
It's possible to support both but that adds the cost of the adapter to all
of them adding to the cost for even those who do not need USB.
The USB chips typically cost $3-5 plus a few caps, sometimes a crystal, plus
a connector, as well as increasing board size. It adds $15-20 at retail and
adds to the support burden.
I've always found anything sold by Byterunner is reliable and can be
recommended and I usually buy and test anything I recommend. They have a
single port adapter that retails for $9.95. Since Charles Sullivan has
tested it I won't bother.
Anyone who builds it in can't count. ;-)
Joerg
> "Bill Kearney" <wkear...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Single port USB->RS232 adapters typically run $10-$20 online. Granted,
>>>>some local stores like CompUSA and BestBuy may sell "branded" units like
>>>>Belkin (bleah) at 3X-5X higher prices.
>>>
>>>Which makes it uneconomical to add an FTDI or SiliconLabs USB-serial chip
>>>internally to embedded devices. It costs nearly as much as the external
>>>adapter.
>>
>>Well, also consider that keeping a device based on RS-232 avoids having to
>>make two units. Just ship one, using serial, and make sure it plays well
>>with various USB-serial adapters. Yeah, it's nice when a unit has a direct
>>USB port on it but I can understand why some vendors might not want to
>>bother. I run most of my serial gear off Edgeport multi-port usb-serial
>>adapters and they work great. Saves a lot of hassles having just one USB
>>port and driver on the PC and not a bunch of cheesy fleabay purchased
>>adapters with conflicting drivers.
>
>
> It's possible to support both but that adds the cost of the adapter to all
> of them adding to the cost for even those who do not need USB.
>
> The USB chips typically cost $3-5 plus a few caps, sometimes a crystal, plus
> a connector, as well as increasing board size. It adds $15-20 at retail and
> adds to the support burden.
>
> http://www.mouser.com/search/Refine.aspx?Ne=1447464+254016&Ntt=*TUSB3410IVF*&Ntx=mode%2bmatchall&Mkw=TUSB3410IVF&N=1323038&Ntk=Mouser_Wildcards
>
As I mentioned before you need to negotiate that. TI lists it at
$2.25/1k. That's always my "ammo" when haggling and I usually get things
down to that level. Nobody pays retail price ;-)
If it has to be really cheap check out the Thomson ST7260 which lowers
the bar to around $1:
http://www.st.com/stonline/products/literature/ds/12096.pdf
sylvan butler
> Well, also consider that keeping a device based on RS-232 avoids having to
> make two units. Just ship one, using serial, and make sure it plays well
> with various USB-serial adapters. Yeah, it's nice when a unit has a direct
Yup. I purchased a couple of UPS's recently with serial ports for
monitoring/control. Also each came with a postcard for a free
USB<>RS232 converter. And no, it isn't some special thing. It is a
6inch cable with USB female device connector on one end and 9pin RS232
male on the other. Works great with a USR Courier ca. 1991.
> adapters and they work great. Saves a lot of hassles having just one USB
> port and driver on the PC and not a bunch of cheesy fleabay purchased
> adapters with conflicting drivers.
Definitely.
sdb
--
Wanted: Omnibook 800 & accessories, cheap, working or not
sdbuse1 on mailhost bigfoot.com
Charles Sullivan
Yes, that too, but...
What I've found is that the only time an extended status_ack from
a PLM22/AM14A module will report "no load" is:
1. Immediately after applying AC power to the module, with
nothing plugged into the module and the module initially Off.
-- or --
2. If a load is unplugged from the module while the module is in
the Off state.
Once the module has been turned on with no load connected, it
continues to report that a load _is_ connected after the module
is turned off again.
I've checked several different units and gotten the same results.
Under the circumstances, the load-reporting feature of these
appliance modules is practically worthless.
By contrast, the load-reporting of the LM14A Lamp Module seems
to be reliable.
Regards,
Charles Sullivan
Dan Lanciani
| On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 06:33:11 +0000, Dan Lanciani wrote:
|
| > In article <pan.2006.12.06....@triad.rr.com>, cwsu...@triad.rr.com (Charles Sullivan) writes:
| >
| > | The AM14A Appliance Module is supposed to report whether of not
| > | the load is connected, but is buggy and (almost) always reports
| > | that the load is connected when it's not.
| >
| > You know that the AM14A can determine whether the load is connected
| > only when the relay is off, right?
| >
| > Dan Lanciani
| > ddl@danlan.*com
|
| Yes, that too, but...
|
| What I've found is that the only time an extended status_ack from
| a PLM22/AM14A module will report "no load" is:
|
| 1. Immediately after applying AC power to the module, with
| nothing plugged into the module and the module initially Off.
| -- or --
| 2. If a load is unplugged from the module while the module is in
| the Off state.
|
| Once the module has been turned on with no load connected, it
| continues to report that a load _is_ connected after the module
| is turned off again.
That seems to explain the behavior I remember. At first I thought it
was being helpful by saving the state from off to on and was just buggy
or getting latched up later. But it sounds like it is consistent firmware
bug. :( It's too bad because I know they could do better. I coded the
load detection in my replacement RR501 firmware, and the hardware is pretty
much the same. For that matter, I guess anything that could get local control
right must also be able to do load detection when the relay is off...
| I've checked several different units and gotten the same results.
| Under the circumstances, the load-reporting feature of these
| appliance modules is practically worthless.
|
| By contrast, the load-reporting of the LM14A Lamp Module seems
| to be reliable.
I thought I also had some problem with that, but this sounds encouraging.
I'll have to do some fresh testing with the 10 LM14As I got on that last
special 2-way module sale. :)
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
Dave Houston
>That seems to explain the behavior I remember. At first I thought it
>was being helpful by saving the state from off to on and was just buggy
>or getting latched up later. But it sounds like it is consistent firmware
>bug. :( It's too bad because I know they could do better. I coded the
>load detection in my replacement RR501 firmware, and the hardware is pretty
>much the same. For that matter, I guess anything that could get local control
>right must also be able to do load detection when the relay is off...
The RR501 does even better - it reports status even when the relay has been
removed and sent to the landfill. ;)
Charles Sullivan
I've wondered what X-10's intentions are regarding the LM14A/AM14A product
lines. That big sale makes me wonder whether they are either abandoning
the products or are introducing improved models and just want to clear out
their inventory of old stock.
You may or may not have noticed that the Extended Code document formerly
named xtc798.doc on X-10's manuals page is now named xtdcode.pdf. A
cursory inspection of the differences reveals that the two formerly "don't
care" bits in the data byte for the extended code preset (0x31) command
are now described as programming a ramp rate. They're still "don't care"
for any of the LM14A units I have, so is there a "new and improved"
product in the wings or did someone at X-10 start with an obsolete file
when generating the PDF document?
I guess we'll find out sooner or later, maybe if a "does not / does too"
flamewar breaks out on this newsgroup over the capabilities of the
LM14A, but more likely if an attempt to purchase a LM14A _at list price_
from the X-10 website pops up a "Sold Out" message.
Regards,
Charles Sullivan
Dan Lanciani
| I've wondered what X-10's intentions are regarding the LM14A/AM14A product
| lines.
I just wish they would introduce a two-way wall switch with the LM14A/AM14A
command set. Nobody seems to make one that I find acceptable. Either they
have changed the commands around or they have added gratuitous ON/OFF
transmissions that cannot be disabled. ACT came very, very close with
the last version of their dimmer, though you had to set a lot of options
to get it into a fully compatible mode. But it doesn't have an input for
remote n-way switches. Their relay switch (as far as I know) never got
upgraded to the improved firmware and sends gratuitous status messages
that cannot be disabled. I actually have a beta unit that doesn't do
this (it was a bug!) and to which I added a remote input. I'm wondering
what I'll replace it with when/if it fails. :(
| That big sale makes me wonder whether they are either abandoning
| the products or are introducing improved models and just want to clear out
| their inventory of old stock.
X10 has an awful lot of inventory clearance sales (and even going-out-of-
business sales)... In any case, I don't really care that much as the
current versions work fine for me. (I don't need the load reporting for
anything I've don so far.)
| You may or may not have noticed that the Extended Code document formerly
| named xtc798.doc on X-10's manuals page is now named xtdcode.pdf. A
| cursory inspection of the differences reveals that the two formerly "don't
| care" bits in the data byte for the extended code preset (0x31) command
| are now described as programming a ramp rate. They're still "don't care"
| for any of the LM14A units I have, so is there a "new and improved"
| product in the wings or did someone at X-10 start with an obsolete file
| when generating the PDF document?
This is (at least) the second time they have done that. See:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.home.automation/msg/12a1aca862254abf
(I'm assuming those commands never got implemented either.) I think
they just keep fiddling with the command set without any specific
implementation plans.
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
Charles Sullivan
> I just wish they would introduce a two-way wall switch with the LM14A/AM14A
> command set. Nobody seems to make one that I find acceptable. Either they
> have changed the commands around or they have added gratuitous ON/OFF
> transmissions that cannot be disabled. ACT came very, very close with
> the last version of their dimmer, though you had to set a lot of options
> to get it into a fully compatible mode. But it doesn't have an input for
> remote n-way switches. Their relay switch (as far as I know) never got
> upgraded to the improved firmware and sends gratuitous status messages
> that cannot be disabled. I actually have a beta unit that doesn't do
> this (it was a bug!) and to which I added a remote input. I'm wondering
> what I'll replace it with when/if it fails. :(
I could use something like that around my place. (At least I could if
the switch boxes had neutrals, which they don't.) Load sensing would tell
me when an exterior bulb had burned out - some are not easily visible from
the house.
Regards,
Charles Sullivan
Dan Lanciani
| I could use something like that around my place. (At least I could if
| the switch boxes had neutrals, which they don't.) Load sensing would tell
| me when an exterior bulb had burned out - some are not easily visible from
| the house.
We should try to get X10 to produce a two-way wall switch that does not
require a neutral. It wouldn't need reliable load sensing because once
the bulb burned out it would stop responding to status requests and you
would know something was wrong. (I'm only half joking; I think it would
be a great product.)
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com