How good are X10 and RS wireless security systems?
Tom Gerace
Shack, and Magnavox. The X10 models were top-rated, along with the RS
model in Consumer Reports.
Of particular interest is the X10 Monitor Plus Supervised wireless
security system. It seems to be good, and connects up to ORCA monitoring
services for off-site monitoring.
Does anyone have any experience with the X10 or RS system? What about
the Magnavox system?
How good is the ORCA monitoring service? Experiences with it?
Thanks in advance.
Tom
Dave Harding
Well, Tom
All you have to do is look at this newgroup and you will notice an awful
lot of posts concerning X-10 failures. IMHO, X-10 and security are
mutually exclusive:)
Robin Mitchell
>I've become interested in the wireless security systems from X10, Radio
>Shack, and Magnavox. The X10 models were top-rated, along with the RS
>model in Consumer Reports.
>
>Of particular interest is the X10 Monitor Plus Supervised wireless
>security system. It seems to be good, and connects up to ORCA monitoring
>services for off-site monitoring.
>
>Does anyone have any experience with the X10 or RS system? What about
>the Magnavox system?
I had the older version of X-10/Radio Shack wireless system in my house for
several years and it worked like a charm. I never once had a false alarm (not
counting the times I set it off myself when it invariably worked just fine!) The
transmitters are supervised, so the system lets you know when their batteries go
dead (about once a year in my experience), and the wireless remote is a convenient
way to arm and disarm it.
While it doesn't have a monitoring interface, it will dial up to three phone
numbers and deliver a message that you record. I had it set up to call me at
work, then a friend down the hall (in case I was out of my office) and then a
neighbor. Since I never had an alarm (real or false) I don't know how well it
would have worked in a real emergency, but it provides at least some monitoring
for $0 / month.
There's only one real design problem that I noticed - the system unit itself
contains a semi-loud siren. While it might be loud enough to scare a burglar off
by itself, it's probably more likely to just lead him to it so that he can smash
it and go about his business in peace. I sorta solved that by putting one of the
plug-in auxiliary sirens at the far end of the house. It's *really* loud, at
least inside the house, and makes it hard to tell what direction the various
sounds are coming from. The only problem with this is that it doesn't start until
about 10 seconds after the control unit, so the bad guy might still be able to
nail the control unit.
(You can't just disable the control-unit sounders, because they also chime to tell
you when the unit is armed or disarmed.)
Now that I'm doing a major remodel, I'm installing hardwired sensors and a "real"
security panel. But I'd recommend the X-10 thingie in a second to anybody who
can't do that but still wants some level of security protection.
-- Robin
----------
If I'm not speaking C++, I'm not speaking for my employer.
Richard Yee
> Well, Tom
>
> All you have to do is look at this newgroup and you will notice an awful
> lot of posts concerning X-10 failures. IMHO, X-10 and security are
> mutually exclusive:)
Well, all X10 does is use your existing electrical wiring as a
communication path. If there's some barrier there, X10 won't work
properly. If you think about the huge number of people using X10, all
the "problem" posts will be just a very small portion...
There's a few different security systems from X10. There's the type
that's monitored by ORCA (have the police come to your house sooner) and
the one that just calls 4 numbers (you can have it call your cel, pager,
neighbours). Depends on how big your system is going to be and what
it's guarding...
boydk
> Dave Harding wrote:
> > Well, Tom
> >
> > All you have to do is look at this newgroup and you will notice an awful
> > lot of posts concerning X-10 failures. IMHO, X-10 and security are
> > mutually exclusive:)
>
> Well, all X10 does is use your existing electrical wiring as a
> communication path. If there's some barrier there, X10 won't work
> properly. If you think about the huge number of people using X10, all
> the "problem" posts will be just a very small portion...
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding Richard, but in fact the X10 alarm does
not use X10 wired protocol for communicating to sensor. It uses the same
radio frequencies that all those $1,000+ wireless alarms do to
communicate to the sensors. Then, when one is tripped it sounds it's
internal alarm and uses X10 signals to flash lights hooked up to X10
modules. So, IMHO you really arent -depending- on X10 with these alarms.
snip
Boyd Kneeland (all IMO)
Richard Yee
>
> Maybe I'm just misunderstanding Richard, but in fact the X10 alarm does
> not use X10 wired protocol for communicating to sensor. It uses the same
> radio frequencies that all those $1,000+ wireless alarms do to
> communicate to the sensors. Then, when one is tripped it sounds it's
> internal alarm and uses X10 signals to flash lights hooked up to X10
> modules. So, IMHO you really arent -depending- on X10 with these alarms.
> snip
> Boyd Kneeland (all IMO)
Okay... But the only problem with that that I can think of is that
there's only 256 ID codes for the sensors/remotes... The best is hard
wired, but if that's not possible, then you'll have to use wireless. If
someone really wanted to, they could "capture" the remote disarm
signals...
- Richard
Jimkoke
<bo...@wrq.com> writes:
>Maybe I'm just misunderstanding Richard, but in fact the X10 alarm does
>not use X10 wired protocol for communicating to sensor. It uses the same
>radio frequencies that all those $1,000+ wireless alarms do to
>communicate to the sensors. Then, when one is tripped it sounds it's
>internal alarm and uses X10 signals to flash lights hooked up to X10
>modules. So, IMHO you really arent -depending- on X10 with these alarms.
>snip
But you said that it uses X10 signals to flash lights. Ignoring the
internal alarm,
how good is a detection system if it does not report what it detects?
Back
to the internal alarm - how internal? Does it run off of house current?
Is it
that little beeper in the CP-290-like case? What if you lose house
current?
IMHO, it seems that although you are not relying on X10 to detect an
intrusion, you are relying on it to report the intrusion.
Brian Abernathy
: But you said that it uses X10 signals to flash lights. Ignoring the
: internal alarm,
: how good is a detection system if it does not report what it detects?
: Back
: to the internal alarm - how internal? Does it run off of house current?
I have two of these beasties. They DO use house current, but are battery
backed up. If the power fails, the transmitters still transmit to the
base (the transmitters are battery powered). The base does not rely on
the house current. If the power is off, the base unit will still sound an
alarm, even if it can't flash the lights.
: Is it
: that little beeper in the CP-290-like case? What if you lose house
: current?
: IMHO, it seems that although you are not relying on X10 to detect an
: intrusion, you are relying on it to report the intrusion.
The beeper is pretty loud. There is an optional one that is a LOT louder,
but that one relies on the X-10 flashes to set it off.
I don't know how many burglars would try cutting the power to a house that
has a burglar alarm. If they are that determined, they probably already
know more about the system than the owner.