Residential Central Lighting
Randy Banner
for central lighting control. I wanted to post it here and see if anyone
had ever tried this before, or what people's thoughts were.
My idea is to home-run each lighting fixture back to a central panel in the
basement. This panel would essentially be bank of X10 lamp or appliance
modules into which each light fixture would be wired. Wall switches would
be low-voltage switches or keypads that ran via cat5 cabling back to one or
more PICs, and to a controlling PC via a serial line. When one of the low
voltage switches was depressed, it would get scanned by the PIC, and relayed
via the serial line to the PC. The PC would consult a lookup table and send
a signal to the appropriate lamp / appliance module in the central panel and
turn the light on or off (or run a macro, or sound an alarm, or
whatever...).
The advantages of such a system are as follows:
- The PC always knows whether a light is on or off, because there is no
other way to control it
- Any switch can control any light, requiring only a software change to
implement.
- Controlling a light from several locations is no longer a problem (in our
farm house, every room has at least 3 doors!)
- I've replaced numerous X10 wall switches in my current house, but never a
plug-in module
What do y'all think?
Dave Houston
X-10 since it hadn't been invented. I'd suggest you still don't want to use
X-10 as there are more reliable systems.
There are some commercial (as well as DIY) systems that do what you want to
do with a lot more reliability and less effort on your part.
http://www.brightan.com/
http://caraca.sourceforge.net/
http://www.centralite.com/
http://www.leaxcontrols.com/index2.htm
http://www.litetouch.com/main.html
http://www.onqhome.com/jahia/Jahia/pid/202
http://www.touchplate.com/
Robert L. Bass
You might want to take a look at CentraLite before committing to an X10
based solution. For the wiring scheme you plan they have a "factory"
solution which is somewhat more elegant and definitely more robust than PLC.
Retrofitting an existing house to install CentraLite is not for the feint of
heart but since you're already planning to rewire everything with home run
cabling it may be a very attractive option.
Alarm and Home Automation System FAQ
http://www.bass-home.com/faq/masterfaq/faq.htm
Regards,
Robert
=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
2291 Pine View Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34231
877-722-8900 Sales & Tech Support
941-925-9747 Fax
941-232-0791 Wireless
Nextel Private ID - 161*21755*1
http://www.bass-home.com
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
=============================>
"Randy Banner" <ran...@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
news:L2ZMc.13723$iK.1...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Frank Olson
"Robert L. Bass" <rober...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kKidnZkPzPt...@giganews.com...
> Hi Randy,
>
> You might want to take a look at CentraLite before committing to an X10
> based solution. For the wiring scheme you plan they have a "factory"
> solution which is somewhat more elegant and definitely more robust than
PLC.
>
> Retrofitting an existing house to install CentraLite is not for the feint
of
> heart but since you're already planning to rewire everything with home run
> cabling it may be a very attractive option.
Good suggestion... and it's "faint" by the way... as you've used in "faint
of heart"... The "feint" you've mentioned here sometimes refers to an
action common to the sport of fencing (that's "fencing" with swords, not a
white picket)... :-))
Frank Olson
http://www.yoursecuritysource.com
Byron A Jeff
Randy Banner <ran...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
-We are in the process of renovating an old farm house, and I had this idea
-for central lighting control. I wanted to post it here and see if anyone
-had ever tried this before, or what people's thoughts were.
I'll have a go at it. Since you mention the PIC below I'll bring it from
a homebrewer perspective.
-
-My idea is to home-run each lighting fixture back to a central panel in the
-basement.
Cool. This means that you can decouple the lights from the switches. I'll
throw in 2 cents for my personal pet peeve: I get irratated at central room
junction boxes at my house because they are only switched hots to them. So
if you ever plan to use ceiling fans, be sure to have a separate hot for the
fan as opposed to the light kit. BTW does any electrical code gurus know if
it's OK to run a 4 wire conductor (light hot, fan hot, neutral, ground) into
a box as long as both hots are connected to the same breaker?
- This panel would essentially be bank of X10 lamp or appliance
-modules into which each light fixture would be wired.
Central wiring obviates the need for X10. You've decoupled the wiring for the
switches from the wiring for the lights. You also no longer need the house
wiring for communications, which is a dicey environment at best. Other than
the fact that X10 is cheap and plentiful, there's no other reason to continue
using it at this point.
The other issue is that appliance modules are simple relays IIRC. So no dimming
control with them. So if you wanted to be able to dim the lights, you'd have
to use lamp modules.
- Wall switches would
-be low-voltage switches or keypads that ran via cat5 cabling back to one or
-more PICs, and to a controlling PC via a serial line.
I'd consider losing the PC at this point. It brings a lot of unreliability
into the equation. Any moderately sized PIC would have no problems performing
the switching function required. Here's a Microchip AppNote that describes
using a 16F877A as an X10 controller:
But again X10 really isn't required at this point. It would be trivial to
drive a bank of relays directly. Also since you are homebrewing part of the
interface anyway, it would be easy to extend the output side of it by
having a PIC drive a optocoupler triac, such as the MOC3010, and using the
output to drive a big triac which controls the lights. I used such a setup for
my Christmas Light controller.
Point is that you can get rid of X10 completely and homebrew from switch
all the way to the fixture.
Obligatory safety warning: high voltages and dangerous currents can lead to
loss of life, limb, and property. Obviously homebrew solutions will not be
UL rated. Also according to code low voltage and high voltage wiring cannot
be placed in the same junction box without a divider. X10 doesn't try to
isolate it's low voltage circuitry from the high voltage circuitry. It simple
encases everything during normal operation.
- When one of the low
-voltage switches was depressed, it would get scanned by the PIC, and relayed
-via the serial line to the PC. The PC would consult a lookup table and send
-a signal to the appropriate lamp / appliance module in the central panel and
-turn the light on or off (or run a macro, or sound an alarm, or
-whatever...).
Again. The PC probably can be removed from the loop. So a homebrew system
would consist of a group of PICs, even possibly one per fixture and "switch"
that use a hardwired network to communicate with one another.
-
-The advantages of such a system are as follows:
-- The PC always knows whether a light is on or off, because there is no
-other way to control it
Same even if no PC is present in the system. Let's call it the "main controller"
instead. Consider that even a $20 Palm Pilot would have more than enough
horsepower to drive this puppy.
-- Any switch can control any light, requiring only a software change to
-implement.
Bingo.
-- Controlling a light from several locations is no longer a problem (in our
-farm house, every room has at least 3 doors!)
Bingo again.
-- I've replaced numerous X10 wall switches in my current house, but never a
-plug-in module
X10 can be kicked to the curb. It's best for retrofits. If you have home run
wiring, then all of your control is in one room, so you don't need X10 as
a communication media. So then you don't need X10 at all.
-
-What do y'all think?
Interesting idea. Keep us posted as to your decision.
BAJ
SQLit
"Randy Banner" <ran...@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
news:L2ZMc.13723$iK.1...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Watchkeeper, GE Low voltage panels are both solid companies that have solved
the problems your facing. Both have on board processors so they can stand
alone. Both are availble for remote use ethernet or serial. Both can be
connected to a phone and be operated remotely.
MFH...@nothydrologistnot.com
wrote in message <L2ZMc.13723$iK.1...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>:
I think it sounds like familiar, early thinking on a well-trodden trail of
thought ;-)
Randy wrote:
>-The advantages of such a system are as follows:
>-- The PC always knows whether a light is on or off, because there is no
>-other way to control it
This is not necessarily an advantage ;-).
I've dealt with the issue of how to create a lighting _dimming_ control
that physically and visibly always reflects the status (brightness) of
the lights through the use of motorized potentiometers.
Google this newsgroup
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=comp.home.automation
for the word "active knob" for some of the previous discussion (and for
"motorized potentiometer" for most of the rest). And(or) visit my web
site at www.ECOntrol.org
I designed the system so that the lights are dimmed by a conventional
USITT 0-10vdc signal from an analog potentiometer (voltage divider) that
like the motorized potentiometer on an audio receiver or preamp , can be
controlled remotely (e.g. by computer, IR) or conventionally by hand.
This interface is transgenerational and intuitively understood in most all
industrialized cultures.
A failure of the computer(s) (which only control the motors) leaves the
manual lighting system entirely intact and unperturbed.
Power failures do not cause a loss of status information.
And the physical position of all dimmer knobs always reflects both their
and system status regardless of whether they were last controlled by
hand, by computer, or via a slave switch/knob.
Motorized potentiometers can also be used for all manner of other inputs
such as setting of scenes, thermostats, occupancy status, audio, video,
drapes, and so on.
HTH ... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org
Chuck Yerkes
No knead to bee petty. Plenty of people in email and netnews get
they're words and spelling off a bit.
Its conversation, knot righting.
Jimmy Busby
I'd just like to remind everyone that our LiteJet system is now
available.
The LiteJet package includes a 24 dimmer panel with Master Control
Panel, stand-alone programmer/control, 5 - 2 Button Keypads, 6 - 4
Button Keypads, 5 - 6 Button Keypads, Realtime Astronomical clock, 2 -
RS232 ports, optional Fan Speed Controllers and Low Voltage Relay
Boards, and a selection of 112 laser engraved buttons for the keypads.
Custom keypad buttons can be ordered on top of this.
All this for $2,000 wholesale price. $3,000 suggested retail.
That's $83 per lighting load.
Jimmy Busby
CentraLite Systems, Inc.
www.centralite.com
Chuck Yerkes
Randy Banner wrote:
> We are in the process of renovating an old farm house, and I had this idea
> for central lighting control. I wanted to post it here and see if anyone
> had ever tried this before, or what people's thoughts were.
>
> My idea is to home-run each lighting fixture back to a central panel in the
> basement.
The biggest issues are these:
1) we presume that you're house will not be destroyed when you leave.
Therefore, you're building a house that, like houses of 1900, will
be around for a long time. This is why most good builders tend to
be conservative - they are building parts of neighborhoods and
communities for generations to come. Building that "oddball house"
isn't usually to the owner or sellers advantage.
Running networking (CAT5) and COAX is *just* starting to catch on,
even though cable had made it to well over half the population by
the mid 80s (and there will always be a last 10% or 5% that takes
forever). Now that it's well understood and useful to people, it's
becoming built in. (and yet, CAT5 is "enough" for most needs for
the next 10 years. Companies like verizon are *just* starting to
talk about "fiber to the house" - at 100Mb/s. Good CAT5 can run
10 times that.
2) Running each wire for each fixture back to a house-central location
is costly, bulky (how big a path do you need for 30 romex cables that
aren't in every other house?) and uncommon.
Uncommon becomes a danger because it makes inspectors uncomfortable.
That's never good.
Unnumbered, I'll toss in that you crank up noise (electrically) by
running 30 60Hz paths across your house rather than, say 6.
And I'd be happier with 6 or 8 15AMP long pulls, broken out to lights
at the room than I would be with 30 pulls carrying 3-6 amps (but wired
correctly for 15).
> What do y'all think?
I think you're skipping alternatives that could get you to the same
goals less cost and, potentially more reliability or at least, less
disasterous failure.
I think if you look at a room (or a pair of rooms as you look at a plan)
and do indeed "home run" the wires to a central place, you can have a win.
But in my version, there will be serveral "home run" locations through
the house.
By distributing the layout and control points, you save money, labor
(lots of money) and inspection denials or at least attention from
inspectors.
Let's take a living room:
Mine has 4 overhead fixtures and a couple sconces. I'll skip that, for
room lighting and design, when the room is usually occupied, we use
lamps, not the fixtures because they are more pleasant, light the
contents better, where fixtures light the space better. We have
cathedral ceilings and that may account for difference.
Were these 2 sets of overheads and 2 sconces wired to a central location
*IN*THE*ROOM, I'd have a central point of control for that room.
In fact, they are. There is a bank of switch which controls all the
lights in the room, one of the outlets, and the hall light.
Were *I* designing it, I might make the shared livingroom/dining room
wall a point where all the lighting wires come together.
I might put the relays/triacs/control ciruits THERE.
I'd throw in the remote part (and this would be a 1gang sized device)
that connects to a well understood Molex (eg) connector that contains
the low voltage side. This would end up connected to the support chips
around a microprocessor (PIC, Amtel, what have you - BUT REPLACABLE
later, easily) that handled the control.
Another cable would go off to where each the "switch banks" for each
room where to present the control.
This might be a couple gangs of familiar switches (soft horizontal
rocker switches can fit 4 to a gang. With LEDs).
This also might be a switch (or group of switches) in a gang with
an extra gang box for the control circuit.
Another control cable would be centrally run from a dry, cool control
room. Into, say, something like an alarm panel. This is "central
control". more on that in a sec.
My 4 bedrooms/bath upstairs could survive quite nicely with 2 or 3
central locations like this, the downstairs - I'd do living/dining room
and entryway/kitchen for another 2. Perhaps a "misc" for outside stuff
which is incidentally all run into the garage ANYWAY.
Frankly, wired right, the AC wiring side can glom into 2 gangs and be
presented neatly into another 2gang space with one half for high voltage
and the other for low/control voltage. So we're talking 8"x8" max.
What you get is a wiring diagram that doesn't deviate TOO much from
what we're had for 60-70 years. That's a big plus, really.
What you also get is local control of local lights. A control device
gone bad will take out 2 rooms, not a house.
The more passive, the better - eg. wall switch throws a relay or triac
and the control computer just observes. or control computer throws
relay/triac and then stops acting. Dimming takes place in the triac
circuit, not the control circuit. Easier to replace/fix, easier to
debug. (and honestly, this circuit is a chunk of the X10 stuff without
the ugly "control over AC" stuff that is the cause of the pain of X10).
You get the "PC" control (though my STRONG view is that smart
controllers are more appliances and less general purpose PCs running
general purpose OSs). But the actual control is distributed.
Rather than putting all your lighting controls in a basement (and good
luck with the extra wiring to make a switch in the bedroom turn on a
light in the bedroom when all wires take a 100' path downstairs), you're
controls are distributed with only a slight modification to "normal
house" wiring.
A light switch in teh bedroom runs over short wires to control the bulb
in the bedroom.
The variation is that the "control" circuits you're adding are between
switch and light. And they're in the bedroom, not in the basement.
In the WORST case, when you move, you pull your control stuff and wire
Light Switch to OverHead Bulb using a wirenut. Just like 99% of houses.
In the Best case, you have the control you want be distribution to aid
reliability and you run CAT5 with serial or ethernet down to Central
Control. If it's RS-485, you can run one or more chains (say, the
upstairs in chained together with CAT5) and goes down.
EXTRA: by distributing intelligence, you may as well ALSO have
inputs for sensors. A/D might be light, temp, etc. IO might be
door open/closed. Windows open/closed. Water on bathroom floor,
etc. You might slip a temp sensor outside in the bedroom -under
the eaves. These are presented on a screw down strip by the control
module.
Central Control:
There are several single board computers out there with more than
enough smarts for this. Hell, I ran an large green house with a
1MHz Apple // and it was mainly idle.
I'd go for really simple reliability here. NOT a PC, but something to
which the PC can connect. It maintains the state of each device it
knows about, it maintains a schedule of events. It takes in events
(someone turned on the dining room light) without acting. Or it can
maintain a state of TRIGGERS on events: If it's 5PM in the summer and
the livingroom light is on for an hour, my damn kid left it on again.
More, the state of all devices via SNMP and a built in web server can
show you them. Or you can get fancy on the PC and show them. But the
central computer doesn't have to be that smart. A couple Serial (232 or
485) and/or ethernet ports to the modules and a way to talk to Mr PC.
It fits in an alarm panel.
Easier inspection.
More common wiring.
Upgradable in 20 years.
Not scary to buyers.
Robert L. Bass
>
The gentleman will never stop trying to find something -- anything -- in my
posts with which to disagree. If he wasn't so malicious it would be
humorous.
Robert L. Bass
I'm still impressed with CentraLite's products. If you have some time this
week please give me a call.
Alarm and Home Automation System FAQ
http://www.bass-home.com/faq/masterfaq/faq.htm
Regards,
Robert
=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
2291 Pine View Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34231
877-722-8900 Sales & Tech Support
941-925-9747 Fax
941-232-0791 Wireless
Nextel Private ID - 161*21755*1
http://www.bass-home.com
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
=============================>
> I noticed a reference to our lighting control system.
Jimmy Busby
Jimmy Busby
Robert L. Bass
>> back to a central panel in the basement.
>
> The biggest issues are these:
> 1) we presume that you're house will not be destroyed when you leave.
> Therefore, you're building a house that, like houses of 1900, will
> be around for a long time. This is why most good builders tend to
> be conservative - they are building parts of neighborhoods and
> communities for generations to come.
Most of the builders I've met were far more concerned with immediate costs
than neighborhoods or generations to come. :^)
> 2) Running each wire for each fixture back to a
> house-central location is costly, bulky (how big
> a path do you need for 30 romex cables that
> aren't in every other house?) and uncommon.
With large, automated homes such wiring schemes are becoming a bit more
common lately. Although it will never be the dominant method we can still
expect to see more as HA interest grows.
> Uncommon becomes a danger because it makes
> inspectors uncomfortable.
I disagree. If the job is done right -- neat, workmanlike and code
compliant -- the inspector should be fine with it. Make certain that
anything you connect to power bears the UL sticker and that it is installed
in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.
> Unnumbered, I'll toss in that you crank up noise
> (electrically) by running 30 60Hz paths across
> your house rather than, say 6.
For a given level of energy consumption the amount of EMI generated is the
same, regardless how many cables are used to distribute it. In fact, if the
gentleman is able to reduce usage through automation his home will have
less -- not more -- electrical noise.
> And I'd be happier with 6 or 8 15AMP long pulls,
> broken out to lights at the room than I would be
> with 30 pulls carrying 3-6 amps (but wired correctly
> for 15).
On new construction I prefer a separate run to each fixture or outlet. That
will afford maximum flexibility.
E. Lee Dickinson
"Robert L. Bass" <rober...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Make certain that
> anything you connect to power bears the UL sticker
Hmm... good advice! Where can I get some? Do they make a stamp, or just
stickers? I guess stickers aren't bad. So long as it's not decals. I hate
decals. :)
Nah. Good advice. If the inspector is uncomfortble with something, showing
that it's rated, listed, and to code can go a long way towards making him
more at ease.
Frank Olson
It *is* humorous, Robert... You're a "laff-riot"...
Frank Olson
http://www.yoursecuritysource.com
Andrew Gabriel
I've done something similar to what you describe in two houses now.
In place of your PIC, I use a Comfort/Cytek HA/Alarm system. Where
possible, I use the relay outputs to drive the lamps rather than X10,
but I use X10 where I want dimmable lighting or lights plugged into
regular socket outlets (via X10 plug-in lamp or appliance modules).
Most of the programming is handled by the Comfort system. It is
linked to a PC which is also told about every switch, relay and X10
operation and can initiate them itself, but generally doesn't (the
exception being for remote operation over the internet). The PC also
logs every switch, relay, and X10 operation which can be useful, but
if the PC fails for some reason, everything continues to work in the
house.
One other thing is that I have used mains wiring for all the switches
even though they are 12V only. This would enable the system to be
easily ripped out and changed back to a regular mains switched system
without having to replace all the wiring. (For the UK, it also enables
the 12V and mains wiring to be mixed in the same building voids, since
they are both insulated for the higher rated voltage.)
--
Andrew Gabriel