I have a couple of fluorescent lights in my basement that I'd like
to control by motion sensor (lights on and off), but also be able
to disable the motion sensors by a switch and have a manual override
(lights on and off by switch).
I put appliance modules inline in the wiring to the lights and am
currently using Homeseer, some logic, and a dummy X10 address to
keep track of the motion sensor enable/disable status. What I don't
like about the current setup is that there's a couple-second delay
between the motion sensor detecting motion and Homeseer deciding
if it should turn on the light when I have the sensors enabled.
So, what I tried was this (A1, A2, and A3 represent appliance modules
wired inline with different X10 addresses):
+---A1--------+
120VAC------| |------light
+---A2---A3---+
The A1 is to be able to turn on the switch regardless of the motion
sensor. The A2 is the motion sensor override, and the A3 is the
switch controlled directly by the motion sensor (motion sensor also
set to code A3). So, the operation would be as follows (from a
palm pad or whatever):
A1 : user controlled, will turn light on regardless of motion sensor,
will turn light off if motion sensor is disabled
A2 : user controlled, will enable/disable motion sensor from
controlling light
A3 : motion sensor controlled, will turn on/off only if A2 is on.
The normal mode would be: (A1 off, A2 on) so that the motion sensor
(A3) handles the lights, but in some cases I want to override the motion
sensor (thus the A1 and A2 switches).
When I tried this, I would get some relay latching that I didn't want.
For example, if A2 was on and the motion sensor turned on A3, A1
would latch on (power on both sides of the relay apparently closed it).
The same would happen if A2 was on and I turned on A1. A3 would latch
and would not allow me to turn off A2. It simply didn't work.
Like I said, I've got one switch in place and Homeseer works to handle
it all with logic and dummy X10 addresses, but I'd like the instantaneous
action of actual switches in this case.
Any ideas on how to do the above without the inadvertent latching?
Any kind of "AC diode"?
Thanks,
Ryan
--
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: Ryan Maas Apex, NC :: "Working is for chumps." ::
:: maas @ pagesz . net :: -- Jill Johnson ::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Maas <ma...@nina.pagesz.net> wrote in message
news:slrn7v1l1...@nina.pagesz.net...
--
Return address hacked to prevent SPAM.
To reply remove X, NoSpam, & Not
Support anti-Spam legislation.
Join the fight http://www.cauce.org/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
That would be another programming solution, right? I have
a programming solution, but it introduces a couple second
delay when the motion sensors are enabled. The appeal of
the mechanical solution is that it's more instantaneous.
I verified individually that each modified module still works and
no longer has the ability to sense a current demand. Still, when
put together in the setup described, I get the same results -
switches latching when there's current on each side of it and not
wanting to unlatch.
Back to my programming solution with a delay, unless anyone has
another suggestion.
Ryan
--
George
Maas <ma...@nina.pagesz.net> wrote in message
news:slrn7vd35...@nina.pagesz.net...