Hard wired home automation systems?
Alireza Khosrowshahi
Has anyone here tried or worked with hard wired home automation
systems? From what I have heard they are more reliable, and can
actually do true two-way. Damn expensive though. I was wondering what
other advantages they might offer, and any dis-advantages? Any systems
which are worthy of consideration? And is there a guide or book on how
to hard wire home automation systems?
Thanks,
Ali
John Stephens
Alireza Khosrowshahi wrote:
>
> Has anyone here tried or worked with hard wired home automation
> systems? From what I have heard they are more reliable, and can
Hi Ali,
I don't know if I fully understand your question, since much of what
DIY'ers are doing, involves hard wired installations. Security,
hardwired IR, LANs etc. Perhaps, an exception is power line control of
lighting. Even this is hard wired, though the signal is piggy backed.
Concerning reliability, I don't think there is anything inherently
unreliable about PLC. What is required for reliable installations is
thorough testing of the transmission pathway from node 0 to each of the
locations where a PLC device will be installed. In my own home, I can
deliver 200 mV to all the rooms, except to the entertainment room where
the signal from node 0 is 100 mV. Armed with this knowledge, I can
install X10 devices anywhere with the full expectation that they will
work properly.
No matter what approach one takes, the signal transmission paths need to
be robust and thoroughly tested to insure reliable operation.
There has been a lot of discussion here about problems with the CM11A,
for example, which in my view can be rectified by setting up things such
that the CM11A is never powered up when your controller is down. To do
this, I've employed a DC powered source for operating the server
computer, capable of running up to 12 hrs during a power failure. Also,
for this, it's important to operate the CM11A without internal
batteries. finally incase of that exceedingly rare reboot, one can power
up the CM11A using an HA controller actuated relay.
In summary, it's mainly this grunt work that has to be done properly to
achieve state of the art performance.
GoJu
Like John Stephens post , I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to. I
just wanted to add that if you are talking about the security system, and
IR, I would recommend hard wiring. In my home, I wired it with whole house
video (RG6), whole house audio, whole house IR, and LAN. I used Cat 5 8
conductor wiring for phones, LAN, etc. For Video, I used RG6. For
security, I used 4 conductor (redundancy in case of wire breaks) for all of
the security. In my home, I divided the security system up into 32 zones so
I used the DSC security panel to give me this many zones (there may be other
panels that will do this as well). I wanted a hard-wired security system
because I felt it would be more reliable than PIR's. I also used
hard-wired IR beams for the drive and other interior locations (not
disclosed). In general, I just felt more comfortable with a perimeter type
security system that is hard-wired. All of the surveillance cameras use
RG6 and 4 conductor also. I wasn't sure exactly what you were asking so I
rattled.........
Alireza Khosrowshahi wrote in message
<34C1B7EE...@baghaidigital.com>...
>Has anyone here tried or worked with hard wired home automation
>systems? From what I have heard they are more reliable, and can
Alireza Khosrowshahi
Actually you guys partially touched on what I was looking for, but what I am
more interested is in automation without X-10. X-10 is hardly reliable,
especially the receivers. As for the X-10 communication protocol, it has a
lot of flaws or should I say, it doesn't have all the capabilities I am
looking for. What I am looking for is information on high end wired home
automation, which could for example use CEbus protocol/standards. Some
custom X-10 jobs can cost upwards of $3000 but I am looking for home
automation systems that are cost around $60,000 and provide features not
available with X-10, i.e. true status/polling requests, reliability, etc...
I believe Phast Corp. makes some real high end home automation
components.... stuff like that. Any ideas about those? Or even CEbus?
Thanks,
Ali
Alireza Khosrowshahi
GoJu wrote:
> Like John Stephens post , I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to. I
> just wanted to add that if you are talking about the security system, and
> IR, I would recommend hard wiring. In my home, I wired it with whole house
> video (RG6), whole house audio, whole house IR, and LAN. I used Cat 5 8
> conductor wiring for phones, LAN, etc. For Video, I used RG6. For
> security, I used 4 conductor (redundancy in case of wire breaks) for all of
> the security. In my home, I divided the security system up into 32 zones so
> I used the DSC security panel to give me this many zones (there may be other
> panels that will do this as well). I wanted a hard-wired security system
> because I felt it would be more reliable than PIR's. I also used
> hard-wired IR beams for the drive and other interior locations (not
> disclosed). In general, I just felt more comfortable with a perimeter type
> security system that is hard-wired. All of the surveillance cameras use
> RG6 and 4 conductor also. I wasn't sure exactly what you were asking so I
> rattled.........
Sounds like you have an interesting, if not complicated set up.
Congradulations. I am happy to see you hard-wired your security system. Good
choice, especially the panel. Anyway, If you look at my previous post you will
get an idea of what I am looking for. thanks.
Ali
John Stephens
Hi Ali,
It's worth noting, that the CEbus protocols include standards for power
line control devices a la X10. While it encompasses other media, one of
it's main points is that it will allow users to buy appliance/lighting
modules which can talk to each through the power line. As such, I think,
it will be the main evolutionary path for X10 based set ups. As users,
we'll be in the same situation we are now with X10; when the prices come
down, we'll be able to go out and buy a few of those components from
time to time. This is in contrast to expensive proprietary approachs
which require special wiring and one of a kind control set ups. Again, I
think the key is open systems massively employed.
Darren
Alireza Khosrowshahi <akhosr...@baghaidigital.com> wrote in article
<34C33F98...@baghaidigital.com>...
>
> Actually you guys partially touched on what I was looking for, but what I
am
> more interested is in automation without X-10. X-10 is hardly reliable,
> especially the receivers. As for the X-10 communication protocol, it has
a
> lot of flaws or should I say, it doesn't have all the capabilities I am
> looking for. What I am looking for is information on high end wired
home
> automation, which could for example use CEbus protocol/standards. Some
> custom X-10 jobs can cost upwards of $3000 but I am looking for home
> automation systems that are cost around $60,000 and provide features not
> available with X-10, i.e. true status/polling requests, reliability,
etc...
> I believe Phast Corp. makes some real high end home automation
> components.... stuff like that. Any ideas about those? Or even CEbus?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ali
>
>
Ali,
PHAST is definitely a system you should consider when looking for a high
end home automation system. We have had extensive experience with the
PHAST system and highly recommend it for those of us who are not willing to
live with the limitations/problems of X-10. Their web site is
http://www.PHAST.com where you will be able to find a dealer in your area.
If you have any problems or have any questions, please e-mail me directly
and I will be glad to assist you.
We will be featured in Electronic House and HA Pro in the near future. The
interview is scheduled for the beginning of March. Check us out. This is
the phirst PHAST home in Oklahoma. It is a pretty extensive installation
and did not come near $60,000. However, we are currently working on a
17,000 sq. ft. home in Tulsa and it is pushing 6 figures. The lady of the
house wants to control a MIDI compatible Grand Piano from any room of the
house and be able to pipe the sound to any combination of 32 audio zones.
PHAST the PHINEST on the market.
Darren
--
To send me e-mail remove "Blue." from e-mail address.
Intelligent Home Automation
601 S. Washington
Stillwater, OK 74074
Michael Nolan
Alireza Khosrowshahi <akhosr...@baghaidigital.com> writes:
>Some custom X-10 jobs can cost upwards of $3000 but I am looking for home
>automation systems that are cost around $60,000 and provide features not
>available with X-10, i.e. true status/polling requests, reliability, etc...
If you're looking for high end systems, check into Vantage and related
systems. (http://www.transera.com/vantage This may be a slightly out of date
link, but it'll get you started.).
We put in a 70 load, 30 station (200 individual buttons plus 19 PIR sensors)
Vantage system for about $30,000, but it was done as part of the initial
construction. We also have an Aegis system for perimeter control/security.
(It has a better user panel, as well as a better phone interface, and the
two systems can be interconnected somewhat, probably more than we have done.)
--
Mike Nolan
Mullen Family
Thanks for the info. I could not connect to your site, however. Is the URL
correct?
--Paul
Darren wrote:
> Alireza Khosrowshahi <akhosr...@baghaidigital.com> wrote in article
> <34C33F98...@baghaidigital.com>...
> >
> > Actually you guys partially touched on what I was looking for, but what I
> am
> > more interested is in automation without X-10. X-10 is hardly reliable,
> > especially the receivers. As for the X-10 communication protocol, it has
> a
> > lot of flaws or should I say, it doesn't have all the capabilities I am
> > looking for. What I am looking for is information on high end wired
> home
> > automation, which could for example use CEbus protocol/standards. Some
> > custom X-10 jobs can cost upwards of $3000 but I am looking for home
> > automation systems that are cost around $60,000 and provide features not
> > available with X-10, i.e. true status/polling requests, reliability,
> etc...
Mullen Family
What is there (at the vantage site) looks interesting, but the info is not
complete and there is no phone number or address to contact for additional info.
Any clues on how to get in touch with these people?
--Paul
Michael Nolan wrote:
> Alireza Khosrowshahi <akhosr...@baghaidigital.com> writes:
>
> >Some custom X-10 jobs can cost upwards of $3000 but I am looking for home
> >automation systems that are cost around $60,000 and provide features not
> >available with X-10, i.e. true status/polling requests, reliability, etc...
>
Robert L Bass
Darren wrote:
>
> PHAST the PHINEST on the market.
I will be PHisiting PHAST at the HA trade show in Orlando, PHlorida in
PHebruary. I hope to learn more about their PHine line of products.
Thanks for the information. If you have any comments about dealing
with the manufacturer that you would like to share in private, kindly
e-mail me.
Blue Skies,
Robert L Bass
========================>
Bass Home Electronics >
80 Bentwood Road >
W Hartford, CT 06107 >
alar...@BassHome.com >
http://www.BassHome.com >
860-561-9542 Voice >
860-521-2143 Fax >
========================>
Darren
Paul,
First, I am only a dealer, this is the PHAST web site, not my personal
site. However, I just clicked on the URL below and was taken directly to
the PHAST site. I don't know what the problem could be. You might try to
connect directly from your browser software.
Is anyone else having problems connecting to the http://www.PHAST.com site?
Darren
Mullen Family <mull...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<6a1c1s$k...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>...
> Thanks for the info. I could not connect to your site, however. Is the
URL
> correct?
>
> --Paul
>
> Darren wrote:
>
snip
> > PHAST the PHINEST on the market.
> >
Jim Sokoloff
John Stephens <jstep...@mindspring.com> writes:
> Alireza Khosrowshahi wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone here tried or worked with hard wired home automation
> > systems? From what I have heard they are more reliable, and can
>
> I don't know if I fully understand your question, since much of what
> DIY'ers are doing, involves hard wired installations. Security,
> hardwired IR, LANs etc. Perhaps, an exception is power line control of
> lighting. Even this is hard wired, though the signal is piggy backed.
> Concerning reliability, I don't think there is anything inherently
> unreliable about PLC.
Really? What happens when two PLC transmitters attempt to transmit at
the same time? AFAIK, PLC systems don't have collision detection or
collision avoidance algorithms.
To me, that is something "inherently unreliable" unless you can
guarantee collision avoidance by having only a single transmitter...
---Jim
Jim Sokoloff
xsylvan...@cyberhighway.net (Sylvan Butler) writes:
>
> Jim Sokoloff (soko...@tiac.net) on 21 Jan 1998 16:29:01 -0500 wrote:
> >Really? What happens when two PLC transmitters attempt to transmit at
> >the same time? AFAIK, PLC systems don't have collision detection or
> >collision avoidance algorithms.
>
> That is not a limitation of PLC but rather of some PCL transmitters.
Correct of course.
> PLC devices could be (and I thought I had heard of some ACT devices
> which were, Phil?) built with CD / CA algorithms. Probably the easiest
> is something like ethernet, listen for a clear line before
> transmitting, and listen while transmitting to detect a collision. If
> collision, wait a random amount of time and retry.
The only problem with exponential random back-off on CD is that you
quickly extend an already painfully long command time to tortuously
long. (It doesn't take too many collisions before you're looking at
commands taking several seconds to happen, and it doesn't take that
many transmitters each taking a large fraction of a second for each
tranmission before collisions are common.)
---Jim
Sylvan Butler
Jim Sokoloff (soko...@tiac.net) on 22 Jan 1998 17:21:48 -0500 wrote:
>xsylvan...@cyberhighway.net (Sylvan Butler) writes:
>> Jim Sokoloff (soko...@tiac.net) on 21 Jan 1998 16:29:01 -0500 wrote:
>> >the same time? AFAIK, PLC systems don't have collision detection or
>> >collision avoidance algorithms.
>>
>> That is not a limitation of PLC but rather of some PCL transmitters.
>Correct of course.
Or would have been, if I could type... ;)
>> PLC devices could be (and I thought I had heard of some ACT devices
>> which were, Phil?) built with CD / CA algorithms. Probably the easiest
>> is something like ethernet, listen for a clear line before
>> transmitting, and listen while transmitting to detect a collision. If
>> collision, wait a random amount of time and retry.
>The only problem with exponential random back-off on CD is that you
Of course, exponential random back-off doesn't need to happen. Just a
short random length delay. Were you perhaps thinking of a higher level
protocol (like TCP) instead of CSMA/CD?
sdb
--
Do NOT send me unsolicited commercial e-mail (UCE)!
Watch out for munged e-mail address.
User should be sylvan and host is cyberhighway.net.
Jim Sokoloff
xsylvan...@cyberhighway.net (Sylvan Butler) writes:
> Jim Sokoloff (soko...@tiac.net) on 22 Jan 1998 17:21:48 -0500 wrote:
> >xsylvan...@cyberhighway.net (Sylvan Butler) writes:
> >> PLC devices could be (and I thought I had heard of some ACT devices
> >> which were, Phil?) built with CD / CA algorithms. Probably the easiest
> >> is something like ethernet, listen for a clear line before
> >> transmitting, and listen while transmitting to detect a collision. If
> >> collision, wait a random amount of time and retry.
>
> >The only problem with exponential random back-off on CD is that you
>
> Of course, exponential random back-off doesn't need to happen. Just a
> short random length delay. Were you perhaps thinking of a higher level
> protocol (like TCP) instead of CSMA/CD?
Of course it has to be exponential. Otherwise it cannot scale with
increasing numbers of transmitters. Suppose you design it to be able
to back off for a random 1-50 bit times, and assume each transaction
would take 10 bit times. Further suppose you have twenty transmitters
wanting to send a transmission. It's very unlikely that those
transmitters will ever be able to complete their transmissions if each
one only backs off 1-50 cycles rather than backing off an
exponentially increasing amount of time. CSMA/CD as implemented in
Ethernet is random exponential backoff.
---Jim
Sylvan Butler
Jim Sokoloff (soko...@tiac.net) on 24 Jan 1998 19:27:00 -0500 wrote:
>Of course it has to be exponential. Otherwise it cannot scale with
>increasing numbers of transmitters. Suppose you design it to be able
1) That argument also holds for exponential, just at a different limit
2) One solution, used by ethernet, is to limit the number of xmiters
Jim Sokoloff
xsylvan...@cyberhighway.net (Sylvan Butler) writes:
> Jim Sokoloff (soko...@tiac.net) on 24 Jan 1998 19:27:00 -0500 wrote:
> >Of course it has to be exponential. Otherwise it cannot scale with
> >increasing numbers of transmitters. Suppose you design it to be able
>
> 1) That argument also holds for exponential, just at a different limit
Yes, but random exponential backoff works at much more useful numbers
of transmitters than random static backoff. :-) So my argument that it
"has to be exponential" is only a slight overstatement of the problem.
> 2) One solution, used by ethernet, is to limit the number of xmiters
Of course, but might as well design the limit to be high enough to be
useful... Particularly when more two-way devices are designed to
permit truly useful automation.
Right now, the average X-10 install probably has only a few handfuls
of transmitters at most. And they "get away with" no CD/CA
algorithm. That has clear reliability implications. The next logical
step is CD using random static backoff. That is reliable, but breaks
down fairly quickly, especially given the long transactions/low
bandwidth of X-10 signalling.
Slightly off topic, does Ethenet (by specification) limit the number
of transmitters? I know there is a cable length and hub/repeater
limit, but within those limits, I didn't think there was a limit on
the number of transmitters per se. (And if limited only by those
factors, a single Ethernet using a 3-level deep tree of 48 port hubs
can support roughly 48^3 transmitters, which is certainly more
intelligent devices that any house is likely to have :-)
---Jim
Sylvan Butler
Jim Sokoloff (soko...@tiac.net) on 25 Jan 1998 16:37:39 -0500 wrote:
>Slightly off topic, does Ethenet (by specification) limit the number
>of transmitters? I know there is a cable length and hub/repeater
It does. I don't remember the numbers per segment, but as "ethernet"
changed to "thinnet" and then to 10bT it has persisted. From the
ethernet FAQ (the last paragraph is the most relevent):
gopher://mojo.ots.utexas.edu.:70/00/netinfo/ethernet/ethernet-faq/ethernet-faq
==========
Then there are limitations on the number of repeaters and cable
segments allowed between any two stations on the network. There
are two different ways of looking at the same rules:
1. The Ethernet way:
A remote repeater pair (with an intermediate point-to-point
link) is counted as a single repeater (IEEE calls it two
repeaters). You cannot put any stations on the point to point
link (by definition!), and there can be two repeaters in the
path between any pair of stations. This seems simpler to me
than the IEEE terminology, and is equivalent.
2. The IEEE way:
There may be no more than five (5) repeated segments, nor more
than four (4) repeaters between any two Ethernet stations; and
of the five cable segments, only three (3) may be populated.
This is referred to as the "5-4-3" rule (5 segments, 4
repeaters, 3 populated segments).
It can really get messy when you start cascading through 10BaseT
hubs, which are repeaters unto themselves. Just try to remember,
that any possible path between two network devices on an
unbridged/unrouted network cannot pass through more than 4
repeaters or hubs, nor more than 3 populated cable segments.
Finally, 10Base2 is limited to a maximum of 30 network devices per
unrepeated network segment with a minimum distance of 0.5m (1.5ft)
between T-connectors. 10Base5 is limited to a maximum of 100
network devices per unrepeated segment, with a minimum distance of
2.5m (8.2ft) between taps/T's (usually indicated by a marker
stamped on the cable itself every 2.5m). 10BaseT and 10BaseF are
star-wired, so there is no minimum distance requirement between
devices, since devices cannot be connected serially. You can
install up to the Ethernet maximum of 1024 stations per network
with both 10BaseT and 10BaseF.
==========
(In practice these rules are violated, but that can cause some funky
problems. For reliability, follow them.)
And to tie it back to HA: 1024 nodes might be limiting in some homes...
The solution is, of course, to subnet. Perhaps a "lights" net, an
"outlets" net, or perhaps "upstairs", "downstairs", and "outside".