XTB - the Future of X10 has arrived!
Robert Green
the fundamentals of how you live and work. Recently, I had the opportunity
to help beta test fellow newsgrouper Jeff Volp’s XTB (X10 Transmit Buffer).
This is one of those “breakthrough” products.
Anyone who has an even moderately complex X-10 based system has more than
likely been sucked into the netherworld of signal attenuation.
Transmission problems are the work of a variety of demons, pixies and Orcs
that inhabit the average home’s power lines. I've wasted countless hours
tracking down X-10 signal strength issues. The XTB is like a mighty
electrical Excalibur, capable of slaying the motley army of X-10 demons with
a single slash.
What is it? Well, it’s almost like the mythical carburetor than runs on
water. If it were a rifle, you’d never miss. If it were a cell phone,
your calls would never be dropped. If it were a power drill, you’d be able
to punch through stainless steel ingots as if they were butter.
The XTB is an amplifier unlike any you’ve ever seen. It takes the
real-time output of an X-10 transmitter like a TM-751 or a CM11A and
turbo-charges it to previously unheard of levels in the X-10 world. (At
least I’ve never heard of them!) The output is so high that both my
Monterey Signal Analyzer and my ESM1 bar graph meter “pegged” out at their
maximum levels (4v for the former, 5v for the latter) at a considerable
electrical distance from the XTB.
It was fairly easy to calculate the voltage based on extrapolation. I
compared the voltage drop between point X and Y with a weak transmitter like
the CM11A. Then I repeated the readings with the XTB. Based on the
output voltage, I concluded that the signal exits the XTB at 22 to 24v.
Admittedly, it’s nowhere near as precise as an o’scope but the attenuation
ratios are fairly consistent in my house for point to point readings. If
the CM11A clocked in at 50mV at a particular receptacle, adding the XTB
would boost that reading to .25 volts, or about 5 times the original signal
strength.
Even with 10 X-10 filters deployed throughout the house, my humble abode is
an X-10 nightmare. Lots of X-10 transmitters, lots of PC and hi-tech gear,
lots of UPSs, switching power supplies and other tiny, twisting passages for
X-10 signals to get lost in. In short, a house full of X-10 demons, ready
to absorb or corrupt an X-10 signal at any time. I’ve gotten used to the
fact that my wife’s sewing room was beyond the reach of X-10. She’s
actually glad that it is. When I plugged the Maxicontroller into the XTB –
the sewing room lights flashed on and off even though they never had before.
The signal, as read by the Monterey, was a fairly low (but still very
reliable) .11 volts. But what was more peculiar is that the sewing room was
on a different phase than the Maxicontroller. So what was coupling the
phases?
I decided to check at the panel. All of the circuits on the phase opposite
the transmitter were evidencing a steady .11 volts. I turned off the
central AC breakers, expecting to see the Monterey read 0 volts. No
change. Steady .11 volt signal. I turned off the furnace. No change! I
shut down EVERY breaker in the panel except for the meter and the TM751/XTB
combo. That would surely reveal the “good” elf that was somehow coupling
the two phases of my house. But once again, there was no change.
After a flurry of emails to Jeff, it became clear what was happening. The
XTB signal was SO strong it was coupling at the pole transformer! That might
not be the case with other houses. My power pole transformer is less that
100’ away from the breaker panel.
I threw the XTB every curve I could think of, rummaging through my box of
X-10 goodies for test candidates. I tested the XTB against several flavors
of transceivers, from the RR501 to the TM751 and even the Robodog. If you’
ve got more than one transmitter, you may need more than one XTB. Unlike
Smarthome’s BoosterLincs, the XTB will only amplify signals from the
device(s) plugged into the unit’s outlet.
While you can’t plug in a vacuum cleaner into that outlet, you can plug in a
power strip and have the XTB amplify several devices plugged into that
strip. I’ve currently got a CM11A, a TM751, a TW523 and a
SmartMaxi-controller plugged into the outlet strip without any apparent
issues. I even plugged a CM11A into the XTB and then a TM751 into the CM11A
’s pass-through outlet without a glitch. I’ve also tried the Leviton All
Housecode Transceiver, the X-10 Mini Timer, Mini-controllers, and the IR543.
All worked without incident. The SmartMaxi (All Housecode Maxicontroller
from Smarthome) with its macro capability was particularly enhanced by the
XTB.
One of the nicest benefits of the XTB is that it may allow you to kiss your
active repeater goodbye. I disconnected my Leviton repeater a long time ago
because it would lock up far too frequently for reasons I could never quite
pin down. I avoided needing a repeater (or even a coupler) by using TM751’s
spread throughout the house at the very end of each circuit. This kept them
from interfering with each other, mostly, but it really created problems
using a CM11A or TW523 based controller like the Ocelot. There was no way
to insure that the output from either unit was able to reach all of the
circuit ends -- until now, that is. The XTB is certainly going to change
the way I’ve got my X-10 units deployed but it will be for the better in the
long run.
The XTB also turns out to be a very useful adjunct to my X-10 power line
meters. With the XTB plugged into an outlet about 10’ from the panel, I
see a signal everywhere in the house, which is about 1000 sq. ft. That’s
been pretty helpful in finding unusual signal suckers because I can see a
signal and calculate the attenuation whereas before the signal would be too
weak to even register on the meters.
I’m sure Jeff will fill in the pricing details and all the usual warnings.
I’m starting off with two assembled units because of my less-than-sterling
solder skills. I’ll probably even try building one of my own with a little
help from a better solderer since there are surface mount components that
have to go on the board towards the end of the assembly process. I
recommend buying at least one assembled one. If there was a program called
“This Old Circuit Board” Jeff would be one of the hosts. I showed the XTB
to a friend, asking him if he could solder one for me. His comment was “not
like that – that’s perfect!” He was floored by the how neatly Jeff had
assembled the beta. So was I.
I'll be doing more detailed testing of the units as soon as the production
models are available. Jeff told me he's made a few tweaks to enhance the
performance so it seems prudent to measure the actual production units
rather than the beta.
If you’ve got dragons and goblins in your X-10 setup and are looking for a
remarkably effective dragonslayer get yours hands on Jeff Volp’s XTB. And
even if things are running fine for now, the XTB will help keep them that
way by insuring plenty of headroom. Its output is even visible behind the
X-10 5A filter module. Signal suckers beware: Your days are numbered!
--
Bobby G. (BTW, I have no business affiliation with JV, other than as a beta
tester and deliriously happy customer.)
BruceR
Robert Green
news:iYseg.7920$9W5....@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> Great news!
I'll bet that an XTB will help you maintain your Stargate installation
running smoothly despite the issues created by having so many Insteon
devices.
--
Bobby G.
te...@terryking.us
Jeff Volp
news:1148910927.8...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Please point to more info on this..... Thanks
More information is available at:
http://jeffvolp.home.att.net/xtb_files.htm
Several of the documents are being revised and converted to HTML at this
time, but the earlier versions are still available.
Let me know if anything is unclear
Jeff
Dennis
I'm not clear as to the differencebetween the Smart home booster and
this XTB unit. They both sound like they boost the signal, but as you
pointed out the booster is not limited to only what is plugged into it.
Dennis
Jeff Volp
news:1148929620.5...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
They work in different ways. The Booster Link can be plugged in anywhere,
and monitors the line for X10 traffic. I understand it echoes any
recognized X10 command during the repeat time slot.
The XTB amplifies a signal from a X10 transmitter on a cycle by cycle basis.
So the output is just a high energy version of the input.
There is a report from a beta tester who compared the XTB with a Booster
Link installation:
http://jeffvolp.home.att.net/x10xmtbuf/xtb_test-keithwhite.htm
Best results with the XTB are obtained by locating it near the electrical
distribution panel where the load is heaviest. The heaver the load, the
harder it drives. But, it should help wherever it is plugged in.
As can be seen in his results, just moving the TW523 near the breaker panel
worked almost as well as adding 2 Booster Links to a non-optimal TW523
installation.
Jeff
Dave Houston
>They work in different ways. The Booster Link can be plugged in anywhere,
>and monitors the line for X10 traffic. I understand it echoes any
>recognized X10 command during the repeat time slot.
BoosterLinc amplifies the signal in realtime and, in cases where the signal
is only for single/split phase, creates it for the other phases. Aside from
the latter feature, the difference is that your device has a higher output.
BruceR
Robert Green
> > I'll bet that an XTB will help you maintain your Stargate installation
> I'm counting on it!
The XTB's going to allow me to keep using X-10 until "the next big thing"
emerges in HA and maybe even beyond that. Whether it's Z-Wave, Zigbee,
Insteon, UPB or something else apparently remains to be seen. I've been
less than happy with X-10 for a while now, primarily because of signal
strength issues.
The XTB has allowed me to restore a number of items that had been consigned
to the dustbin because they could not reach every part of the house even
with a repeater. (My experience with repeaters was both costly and
fruitless.) Fortunately most of the loads I want to control are on one
phase, but I'd like to be able to reach everywhere without any problems so
I've ordered a simple capacitor and more complex tuned circuit SignalLinc
passive coupler to test with the XTB. My feeling is that the .11 volt
signal that I get on the phase opposite the XTB (via street pole transformer
coupling) will jump. How much, I can't say.
The best part of all this is that the new technologies are forcing the
prices of X-10 equipment on Ebay to outrageously low levels so that I can
easily afford to be 1 level deep in spares on every item and 3 or 4 levels
deep on critical items.
In addition, I have an inside line on some new X-10 devices that I believe
will be nearly as revolutionary as the XTB, at least for some of us.
Please don't take this as an insult, Bruce, but what I want to avoid is a
system like yours that's straddling multiple technologies. I also need
something simple enough that if it fails when I am away, I can walk my wife
through some basic troubleshooting. I also stand a chance of her swapping a
bad module or having her shut down the quirky parts of the system and go to
manual control until I return. I wonder about some of the other systems I
read about. What happens when the original designer is out-of-service for
any reason? The Leviton repeater had her going into the box and flipping
breakers one too many times which is why we're repeaterless. :-)
--
Bobby G.
"BruceR" <b...@NOhawaiiSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:_SIeg.8882$9W5....@tornado.socal.rr.com...
BruceR
have waited before jumping onto the Insteon bandwagon. I'm still using
X10 in my other home and I will still use X10 for some signalling with
the Insteon using the XTB.
The reports so far have been glowing and I can't wait to get my hands
on them. The big question in my mind is, "why didn't X10 develop this
20 years ago and eliminate all the repeaters and other "fixes" and
problems that have plagued it?" It seems to me that just turning up the
volume on the signal is so elegant in its simplicity that it would have
been done before now. In any case, hats off to Jeff for doing it!
> "BruceR" <b...@NOhawaiiSPAM.com> wrote in message
>
Robert Green
<stuff snipped>
> The big question in my mind is, "why didn't X10 develop this
> 20 years ago and eliminate all the repeaters and other "fixes" and
> problems that have plagued it?"
I have two theories. One is size and cost - it costs a little more to add
the circuitry and I assume it would make all the X-10 modules larger. I
don't know how Insteon achieves higher voltage in a small package but from
some of the reports it seems they may not be doing it quite well enough to
avoid lamp flickering during a transmission. Since the XTB is a discrete
module, there's very little chance of any kind of interaction with the
transmitting device's circuitry.
The second theory is that X-10 still envisioned a world where everyone was
using X-10 and the 5 volt limit was a way to prevent interference between
adjoining houses on the same power transformer. I've been tempted to take
my Monterey next door to see how strong the signal is, but I fear that after
that test, any light that blew or device that failed next door would some
how be attributable to my X-10 devices.
I am sure that my neighbors on the left don't use X-10 and the ones on the
right that just moved in and had a houseparty bonfire that nearly burned
*my* house down - well, I'm just praying they use X-10 and never hear about
the XTB. <g>
--
Bobby G.
Dave Houston
world limit PLC amplitude to 5Vpp. Most X-10 transmitters output about 10Vpp
but all those introduced for the past 7-8 years are 5Vpp to comply with CE.
Robert Green
news:447d27d0....@nntp.fuse.net...
> One reason X-10 didn't do it may be that many regulatory agencies around
the
> world limit PLC amplitude to 5Vpp. Most X-10 transmitters output about
10Vpp
> but all those introduced for the past 7-8 years are 5Vpp to comply with
CE.
That's interesting because I have a CM11A with a date code of "4A7" (which I
believe means 1984 but could be 1994) whose output appears to be greater
than much more recent TM751's. At least that's what I thnk I am seeing
based on attenuation extrapolation since both my meters peg out at under 5
volts. The CM11A's got a revision code of PG0281M in case that's any help
in figuring out whether it's 84 or 94. I seem to recall buying it at
Egghead just before I changed jobs, which would have made it around 1985.
When testing the XTB I plugged in various transmitters to a power strip in
my PC room. Then, for each one in turn, I read the output at the far end of
the house. To my surprise, while the TM751 was outputting from .42 to 48
millivolts the CM11A clocked in at .58 to .62 millivolts. Now I realize
that there could be a number of factors that attenuate each transceiver's
output differently but it really surprised me to see since I recall having
measured it before and seeing an output that was half that of the RR501's
that I been using. I am certain I've seen lots of tables that indicate the
CM11A's relatively anemic output yet that's not what I am seeing in the real
world.
I also realize it could be just a fluke of the Monterey's measuring
circuitry as well. The numbers are too small to make sense of with the
ESM1. When the new XTB's arrive, I'm going to try to do as formal a
comparison as I can without an o'scope and may finally come 'round to buying
the USB o'scope you had suggested a while back. I've regained interest in a
lot of X-10 gear that I had to abandon because the signals just wouldn't
reach everywhere no matter how much filtering I did.
Do you think the CE limits are safety based or are they just in place to
limit interference to nearby buildings? I'm assuming interference is more
important in Europe than the US because European population density is so
much higher.
--
Bobby G.
Dave Houston
[snip]
>That's interesting because I have a CM11A with a date code of "4A7" (which I
>believe means 1984 but could be 1994) whose output appears to be greater
>than much more recent TM751's. At least that's what I thnk I am seeing
>based on attenuation extrapolation since both my meters peg out at under 5
>volts. The CM11A's got a revision code of PG0281M in case that's any help
>in figuring out whether it's 84 or 94. I seem to recall buying it at
>Egghead just before I changed jobs, which would have made it around 1985.
It could even mean 2004. I believe the CM11A was introduced in 1997 although
it may have been in beta testing a year earlier. Where did you park your
tardis in 1985?
>When testing the XTB I plugged in various transmitters to a power strip in
>my PC room. Then, for each one in turn, I read the output at the far end of
>the house. To my surprise, while the TM751 was outputting from .42 to 48
>millivolts the CM11A clocked in at .58 to .62 millivolts. Now I realize
>that there could be a number of factors that attenuate each transceiver's
>output differently but it really surprised me to see since I recall having
>measured it before and seeing an output that was half that of the RR501's
>that I been using. I am certain I've seen lots of tables that indicate the
>CM11A's relatively anemic output yet that's not what I am seeing in the real
>world.
Since you really can't measure the maximum output, you can't draw
conclusions. Different transmitters may also react differently to loading. I
have measured several CM11As (or HD11As) as well as several other
transmitters using both a scope and one of the pre-ELK ESM1 meters which was
calibrated for 10Vpp fullscale. The CM11A, CM15A, 30001 (Stanley Homelink
tramsceiver), and HCPRF (Leviton All Housecode Transceiver) output 5-6Vpp
while every other transmitter I've tested is in the 10Vpp neighborhood.
It's easy to recalibrate the ESM1. Open it up and you'll see a
potentiometer. Using an RR501 or TM751 in the same powerstrip, adjust it for
fullscale. You should then see about halfscale with a CM11A.
>I also realize it could be just a fluke of the Monterey's measuring
>circuitry as well. The numbers are too small to make sense of with the
>ESM1. When the new XTB's arrive, I'm going to try to do as formal a
>comparison as I can without an o'scope and may finally come 'round to buying
>the USB o'scope you had suggested a while back. I've regained interest in a
>lot of X-10 gear that I had to abandon because the signals just wouldn't
>reach everywhere no matter how much filtering I did.
I haven't tried to keep up with this but I think this was the best
reasonably priced USB scope a year or so back.
http://www.usb-instruments.com/oscillo_stingray.html
>Do you think the CE limits are safety based or are they just in place to
>limit interference to nearby buildings? I'm assuming interference is more
>important in Europe than the US because European population density is so
>much higher.
I spent nearly 20 years in the machine tool industry, importing capital
equipment from Europe (and elsewhere). In those pre-CEdays many of the
"safety" regulations in various European countries were intended to protect
local manufacturers from foreign competitors. I suspect there's still an
element of that in most CE rules with frequencies and limits set to maximize
inconvenience for US and Asian companies.
European power limits for wireless transmitters (e.g. Palmpad) are many,
many times greater than FCC limits so I doubt population density is a
controlling factor.
http://www.radiometrix.co.uk/apps/apnt102.htm
Remember, also, that Europe uses 230V instead of 120V.
Robert Green
> "Robert Green" <ROBERT_G...@YAH00.COM> wrote:
>
<stuff snipped>
> It could even mean 2004. I believe the CM11A was introduced in 1997
although
> it may have been in beta testing a year earlier. Where did you park your
> tardis in 1985?
My bad! I used my X-10 database instead of going back up the stairs to the
attic to look at the actual CM11A. The real date code is 7C11. One day I
decided to enter all my X-10 gear into a database and had a tendency to
overuse "set carry on" to deal with repeating data. As near as I can tell,
it got swapped with an RR501's date code and revision number. The CM11A has
no revision number or if it did, it's fallen off. I bought the 4 button
belt-clip transmitter kits that came packaged with the RR501 precursor from
Egghead in 1985.
> >When testing the XTB I plugged in various transmitters to a power strip
in
> >my PC room. Then, for each one in turn, I read the output at the far end
of
> >the house. To my surprise, while the TM751 was outputting from .42 to 48
> >millivolts the CM11A clocked in at .58 to .62 millivolts. Now I realize
> >that there could be a number of factors that attenuate each transceiver's
> >output differently but it really surprised me to see since I recall
having
> >measured it before and seeing an output that was half that of the RR501's
> >that I been using. I am certain I've seen lots of tables that indicate
the
> >CM11A's relatively anemic output yet that's not what I am seeing in the
real
> >world.
>
> Since you really can't measure the maximum output, you can't draw
> conclusions. Different transmitters may also react differently to loading.
I'm beginning to think that might be part of what I am seeing - different
performance based on the power line characteristics.
>I have measured several CM11As (or HD11As) as well as several other
> transmitters using both a scope and one of the pre-ELK ESM1 meters which
was
> calibrated for 10Vpp fullscale. The CM11A, CM15A, 30001 (Stanley Homelink
> tramsceiver), and HCPRF (Leviton All Housecode Transceiver) output 5-6Vpp
> while every other transmitter I've tested is in the 10Vpp neighborhood.
The good news is that apparently the XTB is a "great equalizer" when it
comes to variable input voltages. When I plugged each unit (the CM11A, the
HCPRF and the TM751), in turn, to the power strip plugged into the XTB the
output at the other end was the same for each transmitter, which IIRC, was
.25 volts.
> It's easy to recalibrate the ESM1. Open it up and you'll see a
> potentiometer. Using an RR501 or TM751 in the same powerstrip, adjust it
for
> fullscale. You should then see about halfscale with a CM11A.
I may try that but the reality is that I'm more interested in real world
performance in my house. To that end I was surprised that the CM11A signal
would end up being stronger at the end of a long run. I would have expected
attentuation to occur uniformly over the same circuit pathway.
> >I also realize it could be just a fluke of the Monterey's measuring
> >circuitry as well. The numbers are too small to make sense of with the
> >ESM1. When the new XTB's arrive, I'm going to try to do as formal a
> >comparison as I can without an o'scope and may finally come 'round to
buying
> >the USB o'scope you had suggested a while back. I've regained interest
in a
> >lot of X-10 gear that I had to abandon because the signals just wouldn't
> >reach everywhere no matter how much filtering I did.
>
> I haven't tried to keep up with this but I think this was the best
> reasonably priced USB scope a year or so back.
>
> http://www.usb-instruments.com/oscillo_stingray.html
Yeah - that's the one. Whether I'll be able to learn to use it to analyze
X-10 signals is another matter entirely. Right now, though, I've got an
overly full plate.
> >Do you think the CE limits are safety based or are they just in place to
> >limit interference to nearby buildings? I'm assuming interference is
more
> >important in Europe than the US because European population density is so
> >much higher.
>
> I spent nearly 20 years in the machine tool industry, importing capital
> equipment from Europe (and elsewhere). In those pre-CEdays many of the
> "safety" regulations in various European countries were intended to
protect
> local manufacturers from foreign competitors. I suspect there's still an
> element of that in most CE rules with frequencies and limits set to
maximize
> inconvenience for US and Asian companies.
>
> European power limits for wireless transmitters (e.g. Palmpad) are many,
> many times greater than FCC limits so I doubt population density is a
> controlling factor.
>
> http://www.radiometrix.co.uk/apps/apnt102.htm
>
> Remember, also, that Europe uses 230V instead of 120V.
>
Good point about the RF range. Peculiar they'd limit the output but it's
probably at the point where there's little chance of the signal propagating
to another house.
--
Bobby G.
Robert L Bass
> develop this 20 years ago and eliminate all the
> repeaters and other "fixes" and problems that
They haven't anyone on staff with Jeff Volp's skills. :^)
--
Regards,
Robert L Bass
=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34233
941-866-1100 Sales & Tech Support
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
=============================>
AZ Nomad
>Every once in a while you come across a product so useful that it changes
>the fundamentals of how you live and work. Recently, I had the opportunity
>to help beta test fellow newsgrouper Jeff Volp’s XTB (X10 Transmit Buffer).
>This is one of those “breakthrough” products.
That's like saying that you've discovered the future of the steam boiler
powered cariage.
X10 is primitive technology from the days of the 110 baud modem.
Maybe you can tell us about the future of the 110 baud modem while
you're at it.
BruceR
X10 technology's problem has never really been one of speed but of
reliability and resistance to interference from other PLC signal
generators or signal "suckers." So solving that one item can make X10
technology useful for many more years even though the days of the 110
baud modem have thankfully passed.
Robert Green
<ROBERT_G...@YAH00.COM> wrote:
<stuff snipped>
> > Jeff Volp’s XTB (X10 Transmit Buffer).
> >This is one of those “breakthrough” products.
>
> That's like saying that you've discovered the future of the steam boiler
> powered cariage.
It's funny you should draw that parallel. Here's a recent article about a
new kind of steam carriage that shows that *old* technology, properly
enhanced, can really be the way of the future:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4076811.stm
INSPIRATION ENGINE SPEC
Two stage turbine on single spool
Output: 300bhp at 12,000rpm (turbine speed) (225kw)
Output shaft gear ratio: 4:1 or 4.45:1 to twin output shafts
Differential: Epicyclic type with viscous couplings
"Steam-powered vehicles are not usually deemed as being parked at the
cutting edge of transport technology. Nor do they seem to be the type to
race across desert landscapes in a bid to smash land speed records in the
21st Century. But British design engineer Glynne Bowsher and his team have
almost finished building a super-fast vehicle reminiscent of the Batmobile.
And this car puts a new technological breath of life into what is regarded
as a traditional means of power." [article continues at URL above]
It goes on to talk about pollution and how steam engines could greatly
reduce it. Aside from carriages, steam has shown remarkable progress on the
nano-technology front. Search on "micro steam engines" in Google to find
any number of remarkable miniature steam engine stories.
So it's pretty clear that only someone with a very accurate crystal ball can
tell when a technology is *really* obsolete. Jeff's device corrects the one
fatal flaw in X-10 - its weak signal - and elegantly fixes it. The world of
X-10 using a controller outputting 20+ volts is a very different one from
the traditional world of the 5 volt transmitters, repeaters, boosters,
couplers and the myriad software techniques used to try to improve signal
reliability.
The XTB world has no borderline signals. For me, it didn't require going
into the circuit breaker panel. My unit gives me a .11 volt signal on the
*opposite* phase without coupling. Active couplers, repeaters and boosters,
by their very nature, both give and take when used in an X-10 system. You
gain signal strength, but it is often at the expense of losing
functionality, or worse, still, reliability.
I have no doubt that when the first batch of production XTB's hit the field,
the reports will make even *you* wonder if there ain't some life left in
that ol' X-10 dog, still.
> X10 is primitive technology from the days of the 110 baud modem.
> Maybe you can tell us about the future of the 110 baud modem while
> you're at it.
Does living in your world mean we have to abandon everything that's
"primitive" technology? That would mean giving up the underlying 110VAC
electrical system - that sucker's over 100 years old.
Darn if you can't take a lamp from 1940 and plug it in to a wall and it will
work. You can also plug your brand new laptop into the very same outlet and
it will work, too. You can plug either device into a outlet almost anywhere
in the country and it will work.
You can take a basic 1980 set of X-10 modules and do a pretty good job of
automating that 66 year old lamp - or a 6 year old one. The age of X-10's
"network topology" doesn't really have a lot to do with its effectiveness.
Standards are good things for the end user. X-10's issues have mostly been
with continually devolving state of the home wiring "grid" - namely the
advent of CFL's and signal sucking switching power supplies. So it seems
somewhat unjust to abandon a technology simply because of what existed (110
bps modems) when it evolved. Would we have to give up plumbing because the
concept dates back before the Roman era?
Certainly X-10 is not the fastest protocol, but what does it really matter
in a home? If you can't stand the fractions of seconds that it takes for
complex macros to execute, by all means go hardwire. Most X-10 users can
live with the current speed limit, especially at 1/10 the cost of competing,
albeit more reliable, systems. Besides, what do you need to transmit across
the powerline that needs gigabit speeds?
What I needed from X-10 and wasn't getting was reliability. Commands would
fail to execute because of a number of problems, all basically attributable
to signal strength. The XTB solved that problem and made X-10 a whole new
ball game. Try it before you knock it.
BTW, what protocol are you favoring in the four or five way race to replace
X-10? There are going to be more losers than winners 10 years from now.
The test will be when you go to sell your house with the InsteWaveUPBXXX
automation system that's gone the junkyard and they demand you rip it out
before the sale!
My guess is that 10 years from now, X-10 will still be hanging in there,
just like the national power grid. I know the XTB has greatly increased
X-10's odds of dancing on its wannabe successor's grave.
--
Bobby G.
Dave Houston
>"AZ Nomad" <azn...@PmunOgeBOX.com> wrote in message
><ROBERT_G...@YAH00.COM> wrote:
<stuff snipped>
>So it's pretty clear that only someone with a very accurate crystal ball can
>tell when a technology is *really* obsolete. Jeff's device corrects the one
>fatal flaw in X-10 - its weak signal - and elegantly fixes it.
I don't mean to be critical of Jeff's device but it is sorta like a bigger
hammer. ;)
>Darn if you can't take a lamp from 1940 and plug it in to a wall and it will
>work. You can also plug your brand new laptop into the very same outlet and
>it will work, too. You can plug either device into a outlet almost anywhere
>in the country and it will work.
But the lamp, if controlled by X10, might stop working when you plug in the
laptop. ;)
>What I needed from X-10 and wasn't getting was reliability.
>My guess is that 10 years from now, X-10 will still be hanging in there,
>just like the national power grid. I know the XTB has greatly increased
>X-10's odds of dancing on its wannabe successor's grave.
Dave Rye will love you.
http://www.x10minitimer.com/article_emerging_technologies.html
Jeff Volp
>
> But the lamp, if controlled by X10, might stop working when you plug in
the
> laptop. ;)
Simulation showed the XTB series-resonant output circuit actually drives
harder (more current) into a major signal sucker. The heavier the load, the
cleaner the waveform.
At the far end of the house I measured .1Vpp at the same outlet that powered
an APC UPS with its capacitor directly across the AC line. That's low, but
still acceptable for X10 control. That outlet is well over 100 feet
wire-wise from the XTB.
While I'm not saying that no filters are needed anymore, the XTB should help
with the "signal sucker" issue.
For those interested, I updated the assembly notes on the XTB web page last
night.
Now, I've got a date with a hot soldering iron....
Jeff
Robert Green
>
> >"AZ Nomad" <azn...@PmunOgeBOX.com> wrote in message
> ><ROBERT_G...@YAH00.COM> wrote:
>
> <stuff snipped>
>
> >So it's pretty clear that only someone with a very accurate crystal ball
can
> >tell when a technology is *really* obsolete. Jeff's device corrects the
one
> >fatal flaw in X-10 - its weak signal - and elegantly fixes it.
>
> I don't mean to be critical of Jeff's device but it is sorta like a bigger
> hammer. ;)
It may not be so much "a bigger hammer" as "finally the RIGHT sized hammer."
What percentage of Insteon's transmission success lies in their stronger
signal? IIRC (and that's a big if!) don't UPB and Insteon both boost the
voltage of the control signal beyond what stock X-10 uses? If I could bolt
a same sort of performance boost(percent boost per buck) in a carbureutor,
I'd still be driving my big, ol' comfortable gas guzzler. If a bigger
hammer is what it takes, I say "Bam Bam!"
> >Darn if you can't take a lamp from 1940 and plug it in to a wall and it
will
> >work. You can also plug your brand new laptop into the very same outlet
and
> >it will work, too. You can plug either device into a outlet almost
anywhere
> >in the country and it will work.
>
> But the lamp, if controlled by X10, might stop working when you plug in
the
> laptop. ;)
The landscape always changes and the smart DNA adapts and survives. X-10
needs care and feeding - no doubt about that. But an XTB will make any
existing X-10 network a whole lot less troublesome. I haven't run any tests
without my notorious signal suckers unmasked but I'll bet their effect is
much less noticeable on the stronger XTB signal. It's something I'll make a
note to try.
> >What I needed from X-10 and wasn't getting was reliability.
>
> >My guess is that 10 years from now, X-10 will still be hanging in there,
> >just like the national power grid. I know the XTB has greatly increased
> >X-10's odds of dancing on its wannabe successor's grave.
>
> Dave Rye will love you.
>
> http://www.x10minitimer.com/article_emerging_technologies.html
Great article. I especially agree with this part:
"All this academic talk about emerging technologies is actually quite
humorous. It doesn't matter whether it's Z-Wave, Zigbee, INSTEON, or
whatever. They are all unproven technologies. All these emerging
technologies tout how they are "better than X10." By "better" they mean
faster transmission, or more codes, or no code wheels to set, or two-way.
They all say "X10 has technical problems." These new technologies haven't
been around long enough to even know what problems they have. They won't be
better than X10, they'll just be different."
We're already seeing that!
--
Bobby G.
Robert Green
<stuff snipped>
> For those interested, I updated the assembly notes on the XTB web page
last
> night.
>
> Now, I've got a date with a hot soldering iron....
So hot you forgot the URL?
--
Bobby G.
Jeff Volp
Another one ready for testing...
I thought everyone interested would already have it bookmarked:
http://jeffvolp.home.att.net/xtb_files.htm
Jeff
Dave Houston
causes a "ringing" at the natural frequency of the system in much the same
way as a triac turning on and off. The ringing dies down after 5-10 cycles.
Insteon uses a much LOWER signal level. Their spec says "3.16 Vpp into 5
Ohms" is the minimum level. I haven't seen a maximum level spec but the
scope screenshots I made when testing the starter kit were about 5-6Vpp
IIRC.
Both get their reliability from the fact they use two-way protocols with
ACK/NAK.
Philosophically, Insteon is elegant while XTB is brute force. UPB is betwixt
and between.
I think we'll have to wait and see whether Jeff's XTB has unforseen effects.
Try roaming about with an AM radio tuned to a harmonic of 120kHz. And, I'd
like to hear from someone who tries it with a TM751 or RR501 that's prone to
the "endless dim syndrome". I think it can only exacerbate that.
And we'll have to wait and see whether Dave Rye is correct in his analysis.
I think he's whistling past the graveyard. X-10 appears to be betting the
farm on cheap and one-way. Dave's probably nearing retirement anyway. ;)
Again, don't get me wrong. If your X-10 works, I say stick with it. If
you're new to HA, look at Insteon & UPB.
The one mistake both made was in not encouraging third party software
development. There's a dearth of good low price (or free) software for
Insteon. I'm less acquainted with UPB.
Robert Green
> UPB uses a ~40V pulse they get by rapidly discharging a capacitor. This
> causes a "ringing" at the natural frequency of the system in much the same
> way as a triac turning on and off. The ringing dies down after 5-10
cycles.
You'd have to ask Jeff about how he generates his higher-than-stock X-10
pulses. There is a whopping big 25V capacitor inside the case, so I'm
assuming his method is similar. I don't see anything wrong in putting 20
volts of signal on the line if UPB puts 40. The voltage limitation in the
original spec was probably based on the assumption that in 1980, a 5 volt
signal could have very easily reached the neighbor's house. That's no
longer the case. Using an amplifier like Jeff's is really the only logical,
simple way to account for the growing issues on home power lines. It's like
the Gordian Knot that stumped the wisemen for years until Alexander came
along and cut it with his sword.
> Insteon uses a much LOWER signal level. Their spec says "3.16 Vpp into 5
> Ohms" is the minimum level. I haven't seen a maximum level spec but the
> scope screenshots I made when testing the starter kit were about 5-6Vpp
> IIRC.
OK - it uses less power but that's because each unit is a repeater and it
couples phases via RF, correct? Unfortunately, Insteon interferes with X-10
in subtle but certain ways. It's become clear that it's not a realistic
migration path, except, of course, unless the X-10 controller is boosted via
the XTB. Insteon also seemed to have inherited their "Whoops, I lost my
settings" problems from the previous generation of Smarthome modules. What
was it that Rye said: "these protocols are too new to even *know* if they
have problems yet."
> Both get their reliability from the fact they use two-way protocols with
> ACK/NAK.
Interesting enough in the article you cited Rye talks about how poorly
two-way X-10 modules sell compared to the other stuff. I'm also glad that
he mentioned how many homes use X-10. Five million. I had once calculated
two million plus users based on their most recent SEC filings but that was a
bare minimum. 5,000,000 users is a pretty impressive installed base. I
suspect that as word gets out, a lot of them will be interested in Jeff's
device because they've got significant amounts of time, programming effort
and money in X-10.
I'm also fairly certain the number of people that can afford to pull their
entire X-10 system for Insteon, the way Bruce did, is a small one. Even
Bruce had special pricing help and is unwilling to abandon the X-10 based
Stargate. David Rye sounds like he's got it pretty well scoped out. The
battle is mostly over three things: Price, price and price. I think once
the reports start to come in about the XTB, it's going to revitalize X-10
and present serious problems for some of the other protocols. Why switch if
you can address the primary weakness of the current system?
> Philosophically, Insteon is elegant while XTB is brute force. UPB is
betwixt
> and between.
Financially, Insteon and UPB are unfeasible, but the XTB fits right into the
budget. Alexander's solution used brute force and he went on to conquer
most of the known world. Sometimes, it's the right solution.
> I think we'll have to wait and see whether Jeff's XTB has unforseen
effects.
There's no doubt that something will show up but I made a point of throwing
everything I could at it. The simplicity of its design doesn't leave lots
of room for problems the way Insteon's coupling through RF but acting
through mesh networked PLC does. The more complex, the more prone to
failure.
> Try roaming about with an AM radio tuned to a harmonic of 120kHz.
I only use AM radio in the car, during blackouts and to find stuck
transmitters. Since it's mostly sitting there passively, I don't think it's
going to be an EMI nuisance, at least one that affects me.
> And, I'd like to hear from someone who tries it with a TM751
> or RR501 that's prone to the "endless dim syndrome". I think it
> can only exacerbate that.
That may be true. I did experience an issue with the Robodog, but I believe
it's defective so I didn't test it thoroughly. You have to remember that
the 20+ volt signal from the XTB falls off rapidly. You won't see more than
2 or 3 volts as you move away from it and that's well within the spec and no
more challenging than a maxicontroller on the same branch as a TM751.
Figure out a way to reliably induce the "endless dims" and I can rig up some
sort of test to see if the XTB's a problem. From what I read in Google, the
endless dim problem is still an "open issue." If it's a problem, users
might have to switch to a BX-AHT or some other transceiver.
> And we'll have to wait and see whether Dave Rye is correct in his
analysis.
> I think he's whistling past the graveyard. X-10 appears to be betting the
> farm on cheap and one-way. Dave's probably nearing retirement anyway. ;)
He's spot-on when he talks about having buried Echelon and CeBus. I'm
absolutely certain that in another five or ten years, X-10 will have another
dead protocol or two buried under it. I'm equally certain that it will
still have millions of users, happily turning lights on and off just like
they always have. The 110VAC powerlines are not likely to change for
another 20 years and maybe even 50. As for two-way, it's nice, but it's not
really necessary and it induces another set of issues related to retries and
fatal embraces. Besides, if you want two-way, X-10's got them.
> Again, don't get me wrong. If your X-10 works, I say stick with it. If
> you're new to HA, look at Insteon & UPB.
Why? Who wants to be stuck with a dead protocol. Sure, once you're all
installed and buy some spares you'll be safe from a belly-up manufacturer
for a while. But get hit by lightning that knocks out only half of your
obsolete stuff and what do you do? Take it in the shorts. Or you build an
addition or want to finish a basement. X-10's got lots of suppliers and an
aftermarket on Ebay that's flourishing. Not so for any of the other
contenders. None of them will even come close to shipping 50K units let
alone 5M. You know about economies of scale quite well and can easily guess
the advantage a company like X-10 has because of their user base.
> The one mistake both made was in not encouraging third party software
> development. There's a dearth of good low price (or free) software for
> Insteon. I'm less acquainted with UPB.
Did I mention the lack of expertise, webwise, in all the new protocols?
There's tons of X-10 information everywhere you look. Lots of it compiled
by YOU! (-: Where will you find Unix software for all this new stuff? Add
on devices like your AHT or the various pool and spa controllers? While a
lot of gear is beginning to appear for Insteon, the other protocols seem to
have very little in their lines that remotely approaches the breadth of
equipment offered in X-10. Where would I get a deal like I did today. A
nearly new RF controller that does both X-10 and all my HT for 99 cents.
I'm about as eager to switch to Insteon as I am to drill small holes in my
gas tank.
John XTB (apologies to John Henry)
John XTB said to his shaker, "Shaker, why don't you sing?"
"I'm a throwin' 20 volts from my caps on down, Just listen to that copper
wire ring!
It's good enough for me, lawd, it's good enough for me.
--
Bobby G.
Larry Moss
> Why? Who wants to be stuck with a dead protocol. Sure, once you're all
> installed and buy some spares you'll be safe from a belly-up manufacturer
> for a while. But get hit by lightning that knocks out only half of your
> obsolete stuff and what do you do? Take it in the shorts. Or you build an
> addition or want to finish a basement.
I usually just lurk here, but since no one else seems to be saying it, I
have to respond to this. This attitude is the reason Microsoft is as large
and has as much power as they do. Years ago many people in decision-making
positions knew they didn't like MS software but chose to use it simply
because of their existing market share. It made it virtually impossible
for better options to survive in the marketplace and we've all suffered.
If everyone takes that attitude now, we'll see the same thing. I'm not
looking to start a religious war here. Some people like(d) MS OSes and
apps. Some people like(d) X10. If you choose to use it because it's the
best thing for you, that's perfectly reasonable. But to choose an old
technology when other (possibly better) options exist simply because the
newer technologies haven't had an opportunity to prove themselves will
forever keep us with the old stuff and stifle progress.
I'm not saying you're wrong for sticking with what you have and adding a
new tool that solves your old problems. I agree that for you it does sound
like the right choice. Dave's comment was that new installations should
consider other options. Unless new users do that, there can't be progress.
Sure, lightening could knock out much of your system. But if you've got
that much hardware to replace, does it matter which hardware you replace
your whole system with? Especially if it's a PLC protocol. You wouldn't
be running new wire for a different network. No mess. Just the same
expense of replacing burnt equipment with the same or different stuff.
With controllers like the Elk and others that can handle multiple
protocols, or a translator like Rozetta, I don't see the problem of adding
a new addition on your house and bridging the old with the new. Ideal?
No. But I don't think taking a chance on a newer protocol is as risky as
you make it sound.
As for me, I've only been into this stuff for a year now. The need to
automate was forced on me due to a family disability. I looked at a lot,
decided I couldn't make a decision in a short time about what I wanted to
do, and dove into the cheapest starting point I could, fully intending to
toss out all the X10 stuff I bought down the road once I had time to figure
out what I really needed. Basically, X10, a Mac mini, and a homebrew
doorlock controller has been my test bed for what my family needs. In the
last year, I've learned a lot and made lots of notes, so when I build a
house in the not too distant future, I'll be able to do it right with
whatever I decide to use. I don't think it will be X10. If I decide to
stick with X10, it won't be because it's what other people already use.
--
Larry Moss, http://www.airigami.com
PO Box 23523, Rochester, NY 14692, (585) 359-8695
Airigami: The art of folding air in specially prepared latex containers.
Robert Green
> On 2006-06-04, Robert Green <ROBERT_G...@YAH00.COM> wrote:
> > Why? Who wants to be stuck with a dead protocol. Sure, once you're all
> > installed and buy some spares you'll be safe from a belly-up
manufacturer
> > for a while. But get hit by lightning that knocks out only half of your
> > obsolete stuff and what do you do? Take it in the shorts. Or you build
an
> > addition or want to finish a basement.
> I usually just lurk here, but since no one else seems to be saying it, I
> have to respond to this. This attitude is the reason Microsoft is as
large
> and has as much power as they do.
Hello, Larry! Always glad to see someone de-lurk.
I agree and disagree with your comment. (-: Microsoft is in actuality a
monopoly. Since the advent of globalization that's considered a good
thing - at least by the governments where such monopolies reside. Hence,
the US Justice Department didn't just turn a blind eye to MS's predatory
practices, it bought power shovels so they could collectively dig their
heads in the sand. MS has not fared so well abroad, where other jurists
have ruled that it is indeed a monopoly for all intents and purposes. So I
think, for that reason, right out of the gate it's not a fair comparison.
X-10's big, but it's not MS big and probably will never be.
> Years ago many people in decision-making positions knew they
> didn't like MS software but chose to use it simply
> because of their existing market share. It made it virtually
> impossible for better options to survive in the marketplace
> and we've all suffered.
Forgive me but I have to challenge that assumption only because the word
"simply" just doesn't cover the range of decisions that went into purchasing
MS software. I was one of those "many people" who made the MS decision at a
time when they might have been stoppable.
The "installed user base" effect is probably the most important in the PC
area. If you've got a lot of users, people will write software for your OS.
People will design hardware based on your OS. Documents are easier to
exchange with common platforms. Education of users is easier with a common
platform. No one ever enjoyed reformatting Wang documents for a PC or
trying to move a Ventura Publisher doc created under Gem to a Windows
system.
After MS targeted WordPerfect as profoundly as it did, the war was over.
People chose MS because they schmoozed the buyers, cared for the big
customers and because machines came with the damn stuff already on it. And
they offered standardization, even if it meant that mediocre software would
be the result.
> If everyone takes that attitude now, we'll see the same thing.
X10's not like an OS. There's a lot more room for competition in the HA
arena that there is for a new OS to take hold. I'm a fairly frugal person.
I'm not likely to abandon something I've spent a lot of time and money on
unless there's no choice. That's why X-10 makes sense for me. I also think
it makes sense for a first time buyer with no HA experience. They start up
costs are small and there's an awful lot of support resources on the net.
With Jeff's new device, the basic issues with X-10 mostly disappear. Even
when including it in the system price, HA is still cheaper using X-10.
That's one of the big reasons that X-10 has 5 million users. It delivers a
lot of bang for the buck.
> I'm not looking to start a religious war here.
Nor am I. Hopefully any further discussion by others can proceed along the
very calm and reasoned lines you've followed.
> Some people like(d) MS OSes and apps. Some people like(d)
> X10. If you choose to use it because it's the best thing for you,
> that's perfectly reasonable. But to choose an old technology
> when other (possibly better) options exist simply because the
> newer technologies haven't had an opportunity to prove
> themselves will forever keep us with the old stuff and stifle
> progress.
The best mousetrap usually wins in the long run. I think it's great that
there *are* other technologies for home automation available. I still have
high hopes the ZigBee will induce manufacturers to put limited control
modules in their appliances and products that allow for true device control
and monitoring. Unless there are "smarts" inside the air conditioners,
washing machines and stereo equipment that can respond to external queries
and events, almost every new HA technology is as equally hampered as X-10.
For that reason, I've avoided looking very closely at any other options.
I've got a lot invested in X-10 in both money and operational experience.
Jeff's device has basically recovered that investment. I was just about to
go hard-wired with everything because I was flat out sick of signal strength
issues.
In reality, Larry, I *am* going with new technology: Jeff's! That's what I
think is lost here. Jeff's taken something admittedly loaded with problems
and eliminated most of them. That makes X-10, at least IMHO, a far more
robust competitor to UPB and Insteon than it was just a month ago. He's
changed a fundamental part of the equation. I am NOT plugging plain vanilla
X-10. I am saying that it's only truly workable with an add-on like Jeff's
XTB signal booster.
> I'm not saying you're wrong for sticking with what you have and adding a
> new tool that solves your old problems. I agree that for you it does
sound
> like the right choice. Dave's comment was that new installations should
> consider other options. Unless new users do that, there can't be
progress.
New users *are* working with Insteon, Zwave, UPB and lots of others. Jeff's
new device just heats up the competition a little. If someone's going to
get into HA and can get by with only one or two controllers, I still see
X-10 as a vibrant and quite workable option with the XTB. X-10 + XTB also
gives me the bonus of having more controllers and devices in their catalog
than any other manufacturer.
There's a wide assortment of software, hardware, test tools and other
add-ons that are just not available with any of the competition. X-10 also
has a track record. They might not shutter their doors like some of the
others. I was involved in some bad HW and SW decisions. Being orphaned is
not a pleasant experience. In the worst case you lose the $ spent on the
equipment, the installation and the training. You also get to pay for
downtime, retraining, etc. Remember: before MS it was IBM that ruled
computing with an iron fisted monopoly. When the time is right, the mantle
will pass.
> Sure, lightening could knock out much of your system. But if you've got
> that much hardware to replace, does it matter which hardware you replace
> your whole system with?
Worst case scenario. "XsteoPB4WaveBee" or whomever goes out of business.
Your house takes a hit but not all the equipment is ruined. Just the
controller. Well, if there's no replacement controller, you've got to pull
the rest of the switches - probably not covered by insurance because they
are still OK - and get something else. With X-10 that wouldn't happen.
Loads of controllers from lots of different makers. Probably a dozen NIB
replacements available within days from a number of sources.
> Especially if it's a PLC protocol. You wouldn't be running new
> wire for a different network. No mess. Just the same
> expense of replacing burnt equipment with the same or different stuff.
As I said, worst case, you have to pull good stuff along with the bad
because the line went extinct.
> With controllers like the Elk and others that can handle multiple
> protocols, or a translator like Rozetta, I don't see the problem of adding
> a new addition on your house and bridging the old with the new. Ideal?
> No.
The more complex you make a system, the less reliable it becomes. That's
just the way things are. I would not want to mix protocols unless I
absolutely had to. I've had to help maintain Apple and IBM on the same
network. What absolute and utter misery THAT was.
> But I don't think taking a chance on a newer protocol is as risky as
> you make it sound.
Well, that's a perfectly viable opinion to have when you're spending your
own money. I wouldn't recommend any of the new protocols to a newbie,
still. As Dave Rye said, and I paraphrase, these new technologies all claim
immunity from the technical problems "plaguing" X-10 but in reality they are
neither old enough or well-tested enough to know whether they've got
problems all their own.
From what I've seen, from my personal experience and even from your personal
experience very few people start out with a $1000 controller and a whole
house full of automatic lights. They start out small. X-10 still is the
best and cheapest solution I've found to get people's feet wet with HA and
to get them thinking about larger and more complex systems. That's why I
still stand by my recommendation for newbies to start with X-10. Not really
because "everyone uses it" but for the benefits conferred by such a large
user base.
> As for me, I've only been into this stuff for a year now. The need to
> automate was forced on me due to a family disability. I looked at a lot,
> decided I couldn't make a decision in a short time about what I wanted to
> do, and dove into the cheapest starting point I could, fully intending to
> toss out all the X10 stuff I bought down the road once I had time to
figure
> out what I really needed.
That's a perfectly viable option. Here's where the popularity of X10 is so
useful. You can always sell that gear on EBay when you step up. There's no
other protocol that offers so many different types of controllers so
cheaply. There are at least a dozen X-10 books and 100's of X-10 related
sites to learn from. Those are among the reasons that are included in my
reasoning for advising newbies to try X-10. It's also why I take issue with
the word "simply" to describe why I'd would still give that advice.
>Basically, X10, a Mac mini, and a homebrew
> doorlock controller has been my test bed for what my family needs. In the
> last year, I've learned a lot and made lots of notes, so when I build a
> house in the not too distant future, I'll be able to do it right with
> whatever I decide to use. I don't think it will be X10.
That's indeed just the strategy I would choose for a newcomer, then and now.
Particularly because Jeff's device overcomes most of the issues they're
likely to run into, along with a few cheapo filters. His contribution means
that X-10 users can now correct X-10's fatal flaw (low power) and not
experience signals too weak to activate equipment as the system expands.
Why, exactly, would you choose another protocol, Larry?
> If I decide to stick with X10, it won't be because it's what other
> people already use.
Again, it's *so* complicated. X-10 is incredibly cheap. One of the reasons
is because so many people use it. X-10 has lots and lots of choices in
add-on equipment and software; More than any other competitor. Why?
Because so many people use it and it's been around a long time. X-10's
incredibly well covered on the net. Yes, you know the reason. There are
1,000's of X-10 items for sale on the net. Yada yada yada. So, yes, I use
it, in part because so many people use it but I also use it because it gets
the job done for 1/2 to 1/10 of what other systems would cost. Why? (-:
Thanks for sharing your views, Larry and for giving me the opportunity to
explain my reasoning in a little more (and maybe excruciating) detail!
--
Bobby G.
Larry Moss
> The "installed user base" effect is probably the most important in the PC
> area. If you've got a lot of users, people will write software for your OS.
> People will design hardware based on your OS. Documents are easier to
> exchange with common platforms. Education of users is easier with a common
> platform. No one ever enjoyed reformatting Wang documents for a PC or
> trying to move a Ventura Publisher doc created under Gem to a Windows
> system.
My turn to challenge your assumptions. I was doing computer support in the
early '90s. The common platform idea sometimes has merit, but when it came
down to it, I prefered to help people with the appropriate software for
their job. With very little truly cross-platform software, that usually
meant multiple hardware platforms as well. If all of your users are doing
the same job it's easier to have them all use the same stuff. But even
putting them on the same platform doesn't standardize the software used by
the art department and accounting, so much of the benefit is lost while
possibly adding unintentional complications.
> X10's not like an OS. There's a lot more room for competition in the HA
> arena that there is for a new OS to take hold.
But only if you're willing to try the competition. Your recommendation to
newbies is still to stick with the installed base. Then once they've
gained experience, they already have an investment in hardware that they'll
want to keep using. So how will another product line take hold?
> I'm a fairly frugal person.
> I'm not likely to abandon something I've spent a lot of time and money on
> unless there's no choice.
I'm not suggesting you abandon an installed system if a fix exists (which
it seems to). I'm just suggesting everyone stay open to alternatives for
new installations. I suppose I'm strange in that I started with a system
that I planned to yank out.
> I also think
> it makes sense for a first time buyer with no HA experience. They start up
> costs are small and there's an awful lot of support resources on the net.
The start up cost is small. That's why I started with it. But while the
resources exist, I found myself with a lot of unclear and sometimes
conflicting advice. And it took a lot of time to put all the informational
pieces together. Out of the box, X10 is unreliable. A new,
non-technically inclined HAer has to learn that you need pieces from X10,
Inc, including filters or other third party products (like Jeff's) just to
make the system work as it was originally advertised. Someone walking into
Radio Shack to buy stuff off the shelf isn't handed any of the reference
material you're referring to. They just see a display that says they can
automate their lights by plugging in these few things. You have to know
that you need that information first. I know a few people that tried X10
before, didn't get the results they expected, and then gave up on HA
without doing any research. Creating a working X10 system may be easy with
the right knowledge, but it's a confusing path for a newbie any way you
look at it. Now if X10 wants to start selling Jeff's device as part of a
starter kit, things might be different.
One thing I have to say never confused me and I wish it existed across the
board is code wheels or some other way of programming things right on the
device itself. You can set the device in your hand quickly and easily and
lookat it later and know how it's set. Like many people in this group, my
greatest concern about Insteon is the current lack of an easy way to set up
the network. (I haven't look into any of the software that's been
mentioned here the last few days to solve this.)
> In reality, Larry, I *am* going with new technology: Jeff's! That's what I
> think is lost here.
But it's a patch on an old system. Apparently a good patch, one that's
needed by a lot of people, and something I believe he deserves lots of
credit and money for. But until it's integrated into starter kits (or the
X10 devices themselves), it's still going to be applied as a bandaid. As
someone that has been following changes in the HA market for a little
while, that has read many of the online references, and has already
invested money in X10, it may well be the thing I choose to use. I think
it's going to be a hard sell to a newbie.
> Worst case scenario. "XsteoPB4WaveBee" or whomever goes out of business.
> Your house takes a hit but not all the equipment is ruined. Just the
> controller. Well, if there's no replacement controller, you've got to pull
> the rest of the switches - probably not covered by insurance because they
> are still OK - and get something else. With X-10 that wouldn't happen.
> Loads of controllers from lots of different makers. Probably a dozen NIB
> replacements available within days from a number of sources.
That worst case scenario is bad, but unlikely. It's a gamble I think I
would be willing to take. (I know you already made a distinction between
your own money and someone else's, so I already know your objection to
this.) I wouldn't install a controller that's already off the market. But
I'd be willing to take the chance that a controller that *may* die, *may*
be impossible to replace. Using your own example of ebay, when this
happens, there will either be someone else in the same positionas you that
wants to sell the old stuff or that will buy your old stuff.
> The more complex you make a system, the less reliable it becomes. That's
> just the way things are. I would not want to mix protocols unless I
> absolutely had to. I've had to help maintain Apple and IBM on the same
> network. What absolute and utter misery THAT was.
I don't see the problem here. In those old networks you needed an Apple to
talk to the IBM. Here you just need a controller to send the right signal
to each device and receive signals from those devices. The devices aren't
talking to each other. Mixing protocols on the same branch of the network
might be an issue since you can end up with one device being a signal
sucker for another. I have one server (think of it as the central
controller/bridge) in my house that understands NFS, SMB, and AFP. None of
the non-server devices that use any of those protocols care about any of
the others and there are no conflicts.
> Well, that's a perfectly viable opinion to have when you're spending your
> own money. I wouldn't recommend any of the new protocols to a newbie,
> still. As Dave Rye said, and I paraphrase, these new technologies all claim
> immunity from the technical problems "plaguing" X-10 but in reality they are
> neither old enough or well-tested enough to know whether they've got
> problems all their own.
And to paraphrase Dave Houston, "the XTB isn't old enough or well-tested
enough to know if it has problems." :-) And what if Jeff stops selling his
device for any reason? If you're dependent on his hardware to make your
whole system work, you're in the same boat as if you went with something
else.
> There's no
> other protocol that offers so many different types of controllers so
> cheaply.
This is true and disappointing. If I could get Insteon motion sensors,
that might have changed my decision to start with X10. (Actually, I don't
recall if Insteon was selling yet when I bought my first modules.)
> Why, exactly, would you choose another protocol, Larry?
Well, for one, I have the same distaste for X10 Inc as I have for MS. The
spam and pop-up/under crap they pulled early on was more than just an
irritant. I know that has nothing to do with protocol, but that distaste
has me wanting to find a decent alternative from a company that has more
user friendly business practices. I can buy smarthome modules, but I
haven't had the best of luck with them (which does have me worried about
Insteon). I didn't realize that some of the other stuff I bought was
indeed made by X10 until after I got it.
It's not really the protocol I'm deciding on anyway. It's the overall
system. Can I get the pieces I want (a plus for X10)? Is it reliable (not
just the communications, but the hardware itself)? Can I get the status
information I want (I like 2-way communication)? Will other advances in
technology potentially cause problems down the road? (I prefer wired to
wireless if I'm building new since wireless has a greater chance of outside
interferences.)
A keyless doorlock system is also important to me. No way I'd trust
security stuff to X10. But right now, I'm using X10 along with my own hard
wired keypad. Hey there's an example of mixing protocols with no
interaction between them.
Aside: One thing that really bugs me about what I have right now may be
due to X10, it may be due to MisterHouse, or it may be that I'm doing
something wrong. I'm open to any suggestions. When I walk into a room with
a motion sensor, it may take several seconds before my lights turn on. I
don't have the lights on the same code as the motion sensor. Instead, I
have MisterHouse respond to a message from the MS by turning on the
appropriate lights at the right times or otherwise logging activity. Is
this delay of a few seconds normal with X10? with other protocols? or do I
have something screwy I need to debug?
> Thanks for sharing your views, Larry and for giving me the opportunity to
> explain my reasoning in a little more (and maybe excruciating) detail!
Same here. I appreciate the discussion. I will somehow figure out what I
want to do when I build the new house.
Dave Houston
It takes about 75mS for the motion sensor to send the first copy of the RF
code. The transceiver may miss the first one(s) but will adjust its
threshold and usually capture the second or third. They come at ~108mS
intervals and most RF transmitters send 5 copies (minimum).
If you are using a transceiver, it takes it about 1/2 second to transmit a
PLC code so you should see the light in about 1 second.
How does Mr. House learn of the motion. It sounds like it's by PLC from the
transceiver so you have another 1/2 second or more delay for it to respond
(the PLC code is sent twice) and send another PLC code. 1-1/2 to 2 seconds
would not surprise me. If it's via RF or if it takes more than 2 secs, you
have a problem that needs diagnosing.
If you have multiple motion sensors and are using transceivers you may be
getting PLC collisions which can delay things. But, it really depends on the
type of transceiver. TM751s do not sense collisions so only transmit one set
of five codes. RR501s sense collisions and retransmit once the line is
clear.
Some of the toys I've designed receive RF directly (including from X-10
security devices) and then take whatever action has been defined by the
user. I've also programmed a replacement PIC for the MR26A which Jeff Volp
will offer through his online store once I get out from under developing
roZetta. You could use the modified MR26A to input the MS RF directly.
This is a case where a $50 ESM1 meter will tell you whether there is lengthy
PLC traffic.
Larry Moss <mo...@airigami.com> wrote:
[snip]
Dave Houston
comments from 2 or more authors so I'll put my brief, mostly off-topic,
comments here.
MS became a monopoly because they realized the importance of standardization
when all of their competitors were still selling "better" solutions. When
IBM went looking for an OS for their PC, the guy who created CP/M blew them
off. Businesses could buy Unix systems (at $30K per seat) for specialized
tasks, a DEC for mid-sized businesses or, for small businesses, you could
buy a Commodore PET and write your own simple apps. I was the lazy type and
bought an Osborne with a spreadsheet program. Europe may not be doing their
small businesses any favors by aiding and abetting those same MS competitors
who failed in the marketplace.
X-10 became a monopoly during the years their patent was in effect. Their
dominance (and installed base) is more a result of that than of technical
superiority.
Economists (I think the last one died recently) used to refer to "natural"
monopolies like railroads, utilities, airlines, etc. I think MS comes close
to being a natural monopoly. Most of the classic monopolies have now been
crushed but I doubt there's anyone other than Alfred Kahn who still thinks
airline deregulation has had a good outcome. Even Ken Lay probably now
regrets utility deregulation.
Jeff's device is ingenious and I hope he finds a ready market but there's no
free lunch. It may cause unforseen problems for other devices on the
powerline.
AZ Nomad
>While higher bandwidth is always welcome for broadband connections, the
>X10 technology's problem has never really been one of speed but of
>reliability and resistance to interference from other PLC signal
OH pulleze. If you 60 baud is nowhere enough bandwidth.
How's your 110 baud modem, teletype, and PDP-8?
What was good enough then is good enough now.
AZ Nomad
>"AZ Nomad" <azn...@PmunOgeBOX.com> wrote in message
><ROBERT_G...@YAH00.COM> wrote:
><stuff snipped>
>> > Jeff Volp’s XTB (X10 Transmit Buffer).
>> >This is one of those “breakthrough” products.
>>
>> That's like saying that you've discovered the future of the steam boiler
>> powered cariage.
>It's funny you should draw that parallel. Here's a recent article about a
>new kind of steam carriage that shows that *old* technology, properly
>enhanced, can really be the way of the future:
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4076811.stm
Of course. People are lining up to buy one of those wonders.
BruceR
Well, it was actually a PDP-10 but you got the rest right. Of course
there's no comparison with that to modern day computing, BUT, just how
much bandwidth is really needed to turn on a light switch? Really no
more now than 30 years ago. What's REALLY important to me is that the
light goes on or off when it should, every time. To that end I've
ripped out all my X10 stuff in favor of Insteon. It works much better
for single commands BUT, until I can run a macro error free without
inserting a bunch of delays, it's actually not as good as what I had
with X10. So if the XTB can solve the X10 signalling issues I'll
happily use the X10 feature of the Insteon switches til I have a better
controller.
Robert Green
<stuff snipped>
>> No one ever enjoyed reformatting Wang documents for a PC or
>> trying to move a Ventura Publisher doc created under Gem to a
>> Windows system.
>
> My turn to challenge your assumptions. I was doing computer
> support in the early '90s. The common platform idea sometimes
> has merit, but when it came down to it, I preferred to help people
> with the appropriate software for their job.
And, back in the 80's and even early 90's the software and hardware
landscape was dramatically different than it is today. Back then it really
was a hard decision to choose Quattro, Visicalc, Supercalc, Lotus 1-2-3 or
some other spreadsheet program. If you were a law firm tech you had to deal
with Wordstar, Wang, Wordperfect, lots of wonderful shareware apps and Word.
I remember what it was like when every major app had a different set of keys
(mostly function keys across the type with ctrl/alt "extenders)? and all
came with keyboard templates.
Support groups in large corporate IT shops went through some nightmarish
times. End users were switched from one SW app to another every year or so.
Users eventually revolted and that was part of the force driving people to
MS. You learn *one* MS package and that made learning the next that much
easier.
> With very little truly cross-platform software, that usually
> meant multiple hardware platforms as well. If all of your users are doing
> the same job it's easier to have them all use the same stuff. But even
> putting them on the same platform doesn't standardize the software used by
> the art department and accounting, so much of the benefit is lost while
> possibly adding unintentional complications.
The art and accounting departments were traditionally the last ones ported
over to a common platform and only because they were the ones likely to
already be on graphics workstations or mini-computers when the PC revolution
hit. But when their apps became old and dodgy, the next jump was invariably
away from the specialized hardware and software and towards the packages
that could "do it all." Again, this reminiscing is only relevant as it
compares to how X-10 operates.
>> X10's not like an OS. There's a lot more room for competition
>> in the HA arena that there is for a new OS to take hold.
>
> But only if you're willing to try the competition. Your
> recommendation to newbies is still to stick with the installed
> base. Then once they've gained experience, they already have an
> investment in hardware that they'll want to keep using. So how
> will another product line take hold?
The same way it always has and the same way it's working with you. People
who can't accept the shortcomings of the current big thing, seek out
something different. The "next" big thing.
I don't doubt that of the many X-10 challengers, one of them has the
potential to dethrone X-10. I think it's ZigBee because sometimes the last
entry into the game is the best. They've had an opportunity to see, debug
and improve upon the competition. Like evolution, it's a slow process.
Look how long it took Kodak to begin its death spiral. They still believed
in silver-based photography until the consumer market began to shrivel up.
Now they're scrambling to catch up.
>> I'm a fairly frugal person. I'm not likely to abandon something
>> I've spent a lot of time and money on unless there's no choice.
>
> I'm not suggesting you abandon an installed system if a fix exists (which
> it seems to). I'm just suggesting everyone stay open to alternatives for
> new installations. I suppose I'm strange in that I started with a system
> that I planned to yank out.
No. You're not strange. X10 is a perfectly acceptable "start up" option.
It's HA 101 for a lot of people who could not otherwise graduate into the
Elks, Ocelot and Omni's of the world. HA is both very simple and extremely
complex. I believe if you start someone non-technical in the extremely
complex stuff, they're doomed to failure.
Think of everything you've learned by lurking here and having X-10 to "play
with." I know when I started here I was lost - and that was with X-10! It
took a long, long time before I understood enough of what was going on to
realize I needed an X-10 meter to ever have any hope of fixing my X-10
problems. Should HA work without a meter? Yes. That's for the "next big
thing" though.
>> I also think it makes sense for a first time buyer with no HA
>> experience. They start up costs are small and there's an awful
>> lot of support resources on the net.
>
> The start up cost is small. That's why I started with it.
And that's precisely why so many other people started with it. Entry path,
migration path, exit strategy. Whether it's PC's, HA or fighting wars,
they've got remarkably similar pathways. X-10 is so large because they gave
away millions of $ of product to "seed" the market. Then, they duped some
poor guy out of his pop-under technology (there's remarkable irony there - I
want to feel sorry for the inventor of pop-unders but I just can't!). As
despicable as their techniques were (sort of like MS forcing Windows on
every new PC) they kept building market share.
> But while the resources exist, I found myself with a lot of unclear
> and sometimes conflicting advice. And it took a lot of time to put
> all the informational pieces together. Out of the box, X10 is
> unreliable.
I'll agree - with some caveats. It always seems to fairly work well for the
first light module and controller kit you buy. Especially if you are just
turning the overhead bedroom light off by a bedside minicontroller. It's
the scaling up that kills X-10 because every transmitter is also a signal
sucker. And that's where the genius of some of the new systems lies. Every
transmitter is not only a signal sucker, but a signal repeater. That little
technotrick overcomes the very serious "more is worse" problem of X-10.
Unfortunately, it makes the transition from X-10 somewhat more problematic
in some cases.
> A new, non-technically inclined HAer has to learn that you need
> pieces from X10, Inc, including filters or other third party products
> (like Jeff's) just to > make the system work as it was originally
> advertised.
Oddly enough, we're back to MS because who would have thunk you'd need a
spam filter, a virus filter, a worm filter, a firewall, spyware killers and
weekly updates to keep that "easy" MS system running? :-) The Dark Side of
the Force, to be sure.
> Someone walking into Radio Shack to buy stuff off the shelf
> isn't handed any of the reference material you're referring to.
> They just see a display that says they can automate their lights
> by plugging in these few things. You have to know
> that you need that information first. I know a few people that
> tried X10 before, didn't get the results they expected, and then
> gave up on HA without doing any research. Creating a working
> X10 system may be easy with the right knowledge, but it's a
> confusing path for a newbie any way you look at it.
There's no magic pill that makes you smart about something. Radio Shack
would sell plutonium to Osama if it were legal and they could make a buck.
The support he'd get would be the same as what an X-10 user gets: An acned
high schooler who knows the buzzwords but not the real skinny. Look at this
from the rapacious capitalist viewpoint: If you're selling the stuff like
hotcakes, you wouldn't want to queer those sales by announcing that your
produce it hard to use or unreliable. So they don't. Car companies have to
be dragged through the courts, kicking and screaming, just like drug
companies, to acknowledge what they often know to be a bad product.
It's up to responsible buyers to at least investigate what they are buying.
Type "X-10" and "reliability" in a search engine. Read and learn. You've
done that. And you've lurked long enough to feel comfortable discussing
your views. That means there was a lot of learning that you've done just by
reading along. That's the true beauty of Usenet. It's almost like the
fabled "sleep learning!"
The problem is, what you've done is not what most people want. They want
"point and shoot" and "don't bother me with the details." It's why newer
cameras are so frustrating to me. Too many "stupid people" options with
pretty icons that only get in the way of the experienced user.
> Now if X10 wants to start selling Jeff's device as part of a
> starter kit, things might be different.
They might have to consider an option like it to stay alive in the face of
increasing competition that takes aim at X-10's Achille's heel - poor signal
strength.
> One thing I have to say never confused me and I wish it existed
> across the board is code wheels or some other way of
> programming things right on the device itself. You can set the
> device in your hand quickly and easily and look at it later and
> know how it's set. Like many people in this group, my
> greatest concern about Insteon is the current lack of an easy
> way to set up > the network. (I haven't look into any of the
> software that's been mentioned here the last few days to solve
> this.)
There are lots of reasons to love code wheels. Probably more reasons to
love them than to hate them. It's a touchy problem. Codewheels can't be
set remotely, which is sometimes a problem. More importantly, codewheels
take up a lot of space compared to the tiny chips that replace them.
Codewheels expose the innards of the modules to dust and grime. But, and in
my view it's the biggest 'but' in the bunch, codewheels DON'T RESET
THEMSELVES MAGICALLY!
That's an incredible flaw in some of the Smarthome (and other) gear and it's
been reported here time and time again. They've GOT to fix that to truly
"conquer" the codewheel technology across the board. The may have to adapt
a something like Gigabyte motherboards use with dual BIOS chips. If
something's wrong with BIOS A, you can automagically boot via the backup
copy and instruct the machine to automatically copy the backup copy over the
corrupted original. Whatever they have to do, they'd better do it quick
because it's a well-known issue that scares potential buyers away. Once you
get a bad rep for something on the internet, it can follow you for years and
years as it's repeated.
> > In reality, Larry, I *am* going with new technology: Jeff's! That's
what I
> > think is lost here.
>
> But it's a patch on an old system. Apparently a good patch, one that's
> needed by a lot of people, and something I believe he deserves lots of
> credit and money for.
He's got over $200 of my money. He convinced me, at least, (well his
product did) that it would fix the problems in my X-10 setup. It's a patch,
true, but it's a patch that I believe will enable me to "wait out" the HA
protocol wars. When it comes time to upgrade, and it will, I will have
(hopefully) missed the shakeout period and the possibility of picking one of
the inevitable losers.
> But until it's integrated into starter kits (or the X10 devices
> themselves), it's still going to be applied as a bandaid. As
> someone that has been following changes in the HA market
> for a little while, that has read many of the online references,
> and has already invested money in X10, it may well be the thing
> I choose to use. I think it's going to be a hard sell to a newbie.
Yes, it's a bandaid, but it really stops the bleeding!! It *will* be a hard
sell to newbies, just as a signal strength meter usually is. They have to
come to it by their own needs, and that usually happens when they find out
their new TV has made the porch light X-10 stop working. I do believe that
Jeff will find a large market in people like Bruce R who has a huge house
and lots of X-10 devices. He's already discovered that Insteon has its
limits. I can't wait to reads his reports about the turbo-charged Stargate.
In fact, that's really where the XTB shines. It enables many controllers:
the Elk, Omni, Stargate, Ocelot, etc. that all use X-10 (among others) to
work better. Once the word gets out and the feedback comes in, I predict
Jeff will be banging these babies out by the 100's. I wish I could get a
cell phone booster that worked as well for dropped calls as the XTB does for
dropped X-10 signals.
>> Worst case scenario. "XsteoPB4WaveBee" or whomever
>> goes out of business. Your house takes a hit but not all the
>> equipment is ruined. Just the controller. Well, if there's no
>> replacement controller, you've got to pull the rest of the
>> switches - probably not covered by insurance because they
>> are still OK - and get something else. With X-10 that wouldn't
>> happen. Loads of controllers from lots of different makers.
>> Probably a dozen NIB replacements available within days
>> from a number of sources.
>
> That worst case scenario is bad, but unlikely. It's a gamble I think I
> would be willing to take. (I know you already made a distinction
> between your own money and someone else's, so I already know
> your objection to this.) I wouldn't install a controller that's already
> off the market. But I'd be willing to take the chance that a
> controller that *may* die, *may* be impossible to replace. Using
> your own example of ebay, when this happens, there will either be
> someone else in the same position as you that wants to sell the old
> stuff or that will buy your old stuff.
Sadly, what I've seen from Ebay, is that if there's no more of something
being made, the price skyrockets. Some old server CPUs cost more now then
they did new because the only other option to replacing the CPU is replacing
the server. That can end up costing outrageous amounts of money so it makes
the premium price well worth it, but I don't like being in that boat.
Insteon and some other protocols are dependent on the fortunes of one single
company. That violates the "eggs in one basket" common sense rule, at least
for me and a few others here as well.
>> The more complex you make a system, the less reliable it
>> becomes. That's just the way things are. I would not want
>> to mix protocols unless I absolutely had to. I've had to help
>> maintain Apple and IBM on the same network. What absolute
>> and utter misery THAT was.
>
> I don't see the problem here. In those old networks you needed an
> Apple to talk to the IBM. Here you just need a controller to send
> the right signal to each device and receive signals from those
> devices. The devices aren't talking to each other.
No, I'm afraid it's much more complex. I've been tracking Dave Houston's
Rozetta and Bruce R's problems getting Stargate and X-10 to coexist with
Insteon. There are some incredibly complex "gotchas" involved with making
sure the transmissions don't interfere with each other, especially with
macros. Dave could explain it in much better detail.
> Mixing protocols on the same branch of the network might be an
> issue since you can end up with one device being a signal
> sucker for another. I have one server (think of it as the central
> controller/bridge) in my house that understands NFS, SMB, and
> AFP. None of the non-server devices that use any of those
> protocols care about any of the others and there are no conflicts.
That's because there are 100's of millions of PC's and PC users and the
network topology is defined by a pretty well-defined set of standards and
technologies like the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) model. Yes, the
home wiring is a network, but it's very vague and ill-defined in many ways,
at least compared to an ethernet network. Here's where AZ Nomad has a point
about bandwidth. HA's bandwidth has typically been so low that
re-transmissions and long transmissions create issues that are not likely to
exist when packets are whizzing about at 1 gigabit per second. It's
probably X-10's second most troubling flaw and one that the XTB does little
to help. It will be the issue that eventually drives me from X-10. Unless
Jeff can solve THAT problem, too! :-)
>> Well, that's a perfectly viable opinion to have when you're
>> spending your own money. I wouldn't recommend any of the
>> new protocols to a newbie, still. As Dave Rye said, and I
>> paraphrase, these new technologies all claim immunity from
>> the technical problems "plaguing" X-10 but in reality they are
>> neither old enough or well-tested enough to know whether they've
>> got problems all their own.
> And to paraphrase Dave Houston, "the XTB isn't old enough or
> well-tested enough to know if it has problems."
Touche. But I knocked the hell out of the beta for a few weeks dredging up
X-10 equipment that even Jeff had never heard of for testing. His beta
device was the best I've ever run into it terms of "It does exactly what it
says it will do and doesn't do anything it shouldn't." I've beta tested a
lot of stuff - probably just because I write a lot - and I was impressed
enough to buy nearly half of the first production run.
:-) And what if Jeff stops selling his device for any reason?
I bought four, will probably buy more and he's made the plans, the circuit
boards and the parts list available. That's an open system dream! If I buy
a stack of printed circuit boards, I should be good for the next 50 years.
> If you're dependent on his hardware to make your
> whole system work, you're in the same boat as if you
> went with something else.
As I just noted, that's not the case with the XTB. I could build one from
scratch (assuming God touched his finger to mine and made me a perfect
solderer!). I couldn't ask for more future-proofing.
>> There's no other protocol that offers so many different types of
>> controllers so cheaply.
> This is true and disappointing. If I could get Insteon motion
> sensors, that might have changed my decision to start with X10.
> (Actually, I don't recall if Insteon was selling yet when I bought
> my first modules.)
Breadth of product line is hard to ignore. Sundowners, mini-timers, phone
responders, integrated motion sensors, cameras, repeaters, whole-house
controllers, Palmpads, keychain remotes, Supersockets, 220VAC heavy-duty
modules, in-line modules, etc. It's going to be a long time before any
competitor reaches that array of products and I predict that a few of them
never will. The worst part is that because the competition is dealing with
such a smaller market, they can never bring the price down to X-10 levels.
All the folks who were ever involved in manufacturing here can attest to the
value of economies of scale.
> > Why, exactly, would you choose another protocol, Larry?
>
> Well, for one, I have the same distaste for X10 Inc as I have for
> MS. The spam and pop-up/under crap they pulled early on was
> more than just an irritant. I know that has nothing to do with
> protocol, but that distaste has me wanting to find a decent
> alternative from a company that has more user friendly business
> practices. I can buy smarthome modules, but I haven't had the
> best of luck with them (which does have me worried about
> Insteon). I didn't realize that some of the other stuff I bought was
> indeed made by X10 until after I got it.
The "new" X-10 isn't a company that anyone can love, but they were not that
way to start. I've also had trouble with Smarthome gear. And yes, X-10
makes the majority of X-10 gear as an OEM. But it terms of support, their
website does present a lot of technical data and user forums. Newbies can
often get their questions answered there and pretty quickly and accurately
from what I can tell. That's why I would recommend it to newbies over
something newer that doesn't have the netwide support options that X-10
does.
> It's not really the protocol I'm deciding on anyway. It's the overall
> system. Can I get the pieces I want (a plus for X10)? Is it reliable (not
> just the communications, but the hardware itself)?
I have 20+ year old X-10 (actually BSR) gear that's still working (through
many a storm that's killed other electronics). In my mind, the reliability
question was settled a long time ago.
> Can I get the status information I want (I like 2-way
> communication)? Will other advances in technology potentially
> cause problems down the road? (I prefer wired to wireless if
> I'm building new since wireless has a greater chance of outside
> interferences.)
X-10 has two-way modules. They are not as useful as some other two-way
protocols, but they are there. Hardwired is always preferable to wireless
for reliability and security reasons. But it's not always the right choice.
> A keyless doorlock system is also important to me. No way
> I'd trust security stuff to X10. But right now, I'm using X10
> along with my own hard wired keypad. Hey there's an example
> of mixing protocols with no interaction between them.
No one in their right mind would use X-10 alone for security. As you've
found, you can mix technology suited for the job like a keypad into your
X-10 setup with very little consequence. And, no, it's not an example of
mixing protocols exactly because the keypad is not in contention with
anything for access to the network wiring. That's where the HA protocol
gets troublesome but I leave that explanation to the experts like Dave and
Bruce.
> Aside: One thing that really bugs me about what I have right now
> may be due to X10, it may be due to MisterHouse, or it may be
> that I'm doing something wrong. I'm open to any suggestions.
> When I walk into a room with a motion sensor, it may take several
> seconds before my lights turn on. I don't have the lights on the
> same code as the motion sensor. Instead, I have MisterHouse
> respond to a message from the MS by turning on the
> appropriate lights at the right times or otherwise logging activity. Is
> this delay of a few seconds normal with X10? with other
> protocols? or do I have something screwy I need to debug?
Dave's already given some excellent advice, BTW. I'll try to add to it if I
get a minute. It's almost time to do real work!
>> Thanks for sharing your views, Larry and for giving me the
>> opportunity to explain my reasoning in a little more (and maybe
>> excruciating) detail!
>
> Same here. I appreciate the discussion. I will somehow figure out
> what I want to do when I build the new house.
Well, despite the ever-decreasing traffic, there's still an incredibly
"knowlegdeable" brain trust here in CHA that can help you sort through the
jungle. (-:
--
Bobby G.
Robert Green
On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 03:40:05 GMT, BruceR >
>> While higher bandwidth is always welcome for broadband
>> connections, the X10 technology's problem has never really
>> been one of speed but of reliability and resistance to
>> interference from other PLC signal
>
> OH pulleze. If you 60 baud is nowhere enough bandwidth.
If me, 60 BPS plenty good bandwidth! (-: (Baud ain't the right term, BTW,
it's bits per second)
> How's your 110 baud modem, teletype, and PDP-8?
> What was good enough then is good enough now.
Here's an idea if you *really* want huge bandwith check this article out:
*PENISES HAVE HIGHER BANDWIDTH THAN CABLE MODEMS*
"The human genome is about 3,120,000,000 base pairs long, so half of that is
in each spermatozoa -- 1,560,000,000 base pairs.
Each side of these base pairs can either be an adenine-thymine or a
guanine-cytosine bond, and they can be aligned either direction, so there
are four choices. Four possibilities for a value means it can be fully
represented with two bits; 00 = guanine, 01 = cytosine, and so forth. . . .
the number of sperm in a human ejaculation to be anywhere from 50 to 500
million. Putting these together, the average amount of information per
ejaculation is 1.560*109 * 2 bits * 2.00*108, which comes out to be
6.24*1017 bits. That's about 78,000 terabytes of data!"
www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=973934
So obviously you need to look into getting a penis-based home automation
system. Nothing comes close in terms of bandwidth!
--
Bobby G.
Robert Green
> BUT, just how much bandwidth is really needed to turn on a light
> switch? Really no more now than 30 years ago.
Nomad has a point, though. If the BPS were faster, you would not likely be
experiencing some of the macro problems you are. HA transmission do need to
be faster because the time lag for X-10 has always been there and chaining
macros really makes it obvious that it's slow.
> What's REALLY important to me is that the light goes on or off
> when it should, every time. To that end I've ripped out all my X10 >
stuff in favor of Insteon. It works much better for single commands
> BUT, until I can run a macro error free without inserting a bunch
> of delays, it's actually not as good as what I had with X10.
That's a courageous admission but you're also in a rather unique situation
with the Stargate. I'm really chafing to see how the XTB performs in the
Aloha state. I think you'll be wowed.
> So if the XTB can solve the X10 signalling issues I'll
> happily use the X10 feature of the Insteon switches til I have a
> better controller.
Well, for me, the XTB arrived at a time when I had done all I could do to
make X-10 better but ran out of tools. I'm still looking to upgrade to
something better, but I don't feel as pressured as I did by X-10's previous
unreliability.
--
Bobby G.
Robert Green
<stuff snipped>
> X-10 became a monopoly during the years their patent was in
> effect. Their dominance (and installed base) is more a result
> of that than of technical superiority.
That's an interesting point. Where were Insteon, UPB and all the rest of
them back then? Would they have been stopped by patent infringement? Of
the competitors that did show up, like CeBus and Echelon, who still thrives?
Centralite's still alive. Then there's ah, um, I dunno. Centralite's still
alive. (-:
--
Bobby G.
Marc F Hult
<ROBERT_G...@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
<2PCdnZj2DZvgGRjZ...@rcn.net>:
Bobby,
Like many folks that participate in this newsgroup, your window on what is
available in HA seems to be based on what you afford/prefer/have and what is
in the air and echoes around c.h.a.
That is an exceedingly narrow subset of what goes for HA now-a-days. You
could do everything you want and more by calling up a contractor
specializing in Crestron www.crestron.com/ or www.amx.com/, enter one of
those complete HA worlds, and never think about, see or deal with _any_ of
the devices in the paragraph that you write above. None. In particular, the
hard-wired lighting manufacturer you mention is but one of perhaps a dozen.
Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org
Dave Houston
of SmartLabs (bought a few years ago by SmartHome) started.
PCS started by selling their own designs but using licensed X-10 technology.
UPB came long after the X-10 patent expired.
Marrick sold devices that interfaced with the TW523 until after the X-10
patent expired when they introduced their own PLC interface (which still
uses the X-10 protocol).
CeBus started in 1984 but used spread spectrum so that probably got around
any patent issues. In any event, it's PLC version never really worked.
Centralite, Vantage, Touchplate, LiteTouch, etc. do not use PLC so they
would not have any patent issues. Anyway, their designs predate X-10, going
back to the '50s. They address different markets as hardwiring is more
costly than PLC.
The fact that several rather large companies chose to work with X-10 (GE,
IBM, RadioShack, Magnavox, RCA, etc.) is probably evidence that they had a
strong patent.
Robert Green
<stuff snipped>
> Bobby,
>
> Like many folks that participate in this newsgroup, your window on what is
> available in HA seems to be based on what you afford/prefer/have and what
is
> in the air and echoes around c.h.a.
In the previous message you were talking about how people comment on things
they have NOT used personally, so I guess the above description of me is a
compliment!
> That is an exceedingly narrow subset of what goes for HA now-a-days.
Uh oh. Maybe I was premature in my assessment!
> You could do everything you want and more by calling up a
> contractor specializing in Crestron www.crestron.com/ or
> www.amx.com/, enter one of those complete HA worlds,
> and never think about, see or deal with _any_ of
> the devices in the paragraph that you write above.
I have a friend who does AMX for the Pentagon where they can afford to spend
$100K+ for media room automation. It ain't me babe, nor many people here
given how they've described themselves.
As Dave Rye said, X-10's success depends on three factors: price, price and
price. Without CHA I would have been another frustrated X-10 user who might
have eventually chucked it all. The problem, as I see it, is that all those
other protocols and technologies all have there own fora, so there's not
much cross-pollination anymore. There really aren't many other worldwide
forums to address HA in general except here.
> In particular, the hard-wired lighting manufacturer you mention
> is but one of perhaps a dozen.
In my limited experience, Centralite's what I have seen most often in the
hard-wired home automation world. Sure there are more but my whole point
was that X-10 has lasted while others have not. My sense is that despite
the detractors, there are still some very, very smart people here who use
X-10 daily. I'm assuming that they are price conscious people who know they
can save enough money using X-10 to take a two week vacation or to buy a new
digital radio or whatever.
X-10 stands quite alone at its price per load. Insteon may be able to
parallel it somewhat by being part of the manufacturing chain but the bottom
line when you make a million of something you can sell it cheaper than a
company that makes just 1000 or 100 units. X-10's so far along that power
curve that only an outfit like IBM, MS or GE could bring similar economies
of scale to bear.
My whole point in starting this thread was to alert the CHA community's X-10
users that there's still hope in the form of Jeff's XTB. For the folks with
huge houses and lots of "sucker" loads, the XTB will be a godsend. It's
also something I was fortunate enough to have direct experience with in the
development phase, so I feel it's incumbent upon me to share what I've
learned.
--
Bobby G.
Robert Green
<stuff snipped>
> The fact that several rather large companies chose to work with X-10 (GE,
> IBM, RadioShack, Magnavox, RCA, etc.) is probably evidence that they had a
> strong patent.
Good point. I suppose that the exit of all the above (except Ratshack)
indicates the patent was stronger than the underlying technology!
--
Bobby G.
Dave Houston
Or that the market was too small to sustain their interest.
BruceR
and I'll have them by the weekend. I ordered one assembled and one kit -
I enjoy kit building but not enough to do two.
I should point out, regarding the bandwidth/macros comments, that when I
was using only X10 my macros executed flawlwessly 99% the time. It was
the increasing number of trouble spots where X10 wouldn't penetrate that
drove me to add Insteon. Now my macros have delays because the Insteon
translator is listening to X10 signals and send ing Insteon signals. In
a macro Insteon is sending on top of the TW523's X10 signals which
causes problems.
Larry Moss
turning on, Dave Houston <nob...@whocares.com> wrote:
> You need to provide a little more information.
The motion sensor is an rms18. There are actually two. I don't think it's
ever possible for both to see me at the same time. The transceiver is an
rr501. The computer is connected to a cm11a.
I haven't figured out a good way to accurately time the delay when I walk
in the room. Right now, just looking at a watch as I enter the room, I'm
seeing about 4 seconds after I pass the first sensor before I see light.
In the MH log, I'm seeing the computer recognizing the MS and turning on
the light either the same second or the following second. The timer
resolution shown in the log is only a second. Not sure if I can get it to
show finer resolution than that, but I'm not sure that's necessary anyway.
It clearly takes less than a second between the time the computer sees the
signal on the power line and responds. Hmm, I just added something else to
the log. It was printing to the log that it was turning the light on and
then sending the command to the cm11a. So I added a print statement after
the ON command in case the delay was in executing that. What I'm generally
seeing now is MisterHouse sees the signal from the MS, reports that it's
going to turn on the light and then that it has turned on the light all
within the same second.
So, the computer/software shouldn't be the delay. Unless there's some
oddity in the cm11a driver MH is using. I suppose it's possible that the
main MH program hands the command off to a driver that then sits on it.
I'm not familiar at all with MH internals, so I don't know how it's
handling that. I'll have to post some of this to the MH mailing list if no
one here has a good answer for me.
> How does Mr. House learn of the motion. It sounds like it's by PLC from the
> transceiver
This is correct.
> so you have another 1/2 second or more delay for it to respond
> (the PLC code is sent twice) and send another PLC code. 1-1/2 to 2 seconds
> would not surprise me. If it's via RF or if it takes more than 2 secs, you
> have a problem that needs diagnosing.
How can I do this without a transceiver? It sounds like your modified
MR26A will do this, but I'm confused. (And it sounds like that isn't
available at the moment anyway.)
> This is a case where a $50 ESM1 meter will tell you whether there is lengthy
> PLC traffic.
I have an ESM1. I'll have to play with it later and see if I can find any
more clues. I've only used it so far to see if signlas were reaching their
destinations. I haven't tried watching it along with the laptop to time
stuff.
Thanks for the ideas. any more suggestions will be great. I'll play more
later.
Robert Green
> ><stuff snipped>
> >
> >> The fact that several rather large companies chose to work with X-10
(GE,
> >> IBM, RadioShack, Magnavox, RCA, etc.) is probably evidence that they
had a
> >> strong patent.
> >
> >Good point. I suppose that the exit of all the above (except Ratshack)
> >indicates the patent was stronger than the underlying technology!
>
> Or that the market was too small to sustain their interest.
I agree that was a factor, but I think there had to be more to it than that.
So *many* companies, one after the other, got in and got out that it leads
me to believe support costs and issues were more than they ever expected.
After all, X-10 doesn't tell end users that there are grave potential
problems, why should they have behaved differently towards those making OEM
deals with them.
As and end-user I profited from nearly every abandonment because stores sold
that remaindered gear at less than half price - sometimes far less.
--
Bobby G.
Robert Green
May I ask you to start again from the top to explain exactly what sort of
behavior you want or expect to see from your HW and SW? I'd just like to
get a resummation of the basic problem under a new thread heading so you can
get the maximum number of eyes reading about your problem.
--
Bobby G.
Larry Moss
> May I ask you to start again from the top to explain exactly what sort of
> behavior you want or expect to see from your HW and SW? I'd just like to
> get a resummation of the basic problem under a new thread heading so you can
> get the maximum number of eyes reading about your problem.
Sure. The basic "problem" is that when I walk into my laundry/utility room
with my arms full, I want the lights to turn on via motion sensors.
There's about a 4 second delay before the lights come on. It's not a
serious problem. I just take a few steps in the dark knowing the lights
will kick on. I'm just trying to figure out why it's taking so long. It
hasn't bothered me enough to remove the motion sensors, but I find it
somewhat irritating. I just want a faster response. I could add another
sensor at the top of the stairs so by the time I get down to the basement
the light in the other room is already on. But that isn't identifying the
source of the delay. That's just working around it, and not efficiently
since I might not be going into the utility room. (If I'm not carrying
laundry or a lot of tools, I can flip a light switch easily, so I haven't
added more motion controlled lights in other areas.)
Here are the details:
The motion sensor is an rms18. There are actually two. I don't think it's
ever possible for both to see me at the same time. The transceiver is an
rr501. The computer is connected to a cm11a.
I haven't figured out a good way to accurately time the delay when I walk
in the room. Right now, just looking at a watch as I enter the room, I'm
seeing about 4 seconds after I pass the first sensor before I see light.
In the MH log, I'm seeing the computer recognizing the MS and turning on
the light either the same second or the following second. The timer
resolution shown in the log is only a second. Not sure if I can get it to
show finer resolution than that, but I'm not sure that's necessary anyway.
It clearly takes less than a second between the time the computer sees the
signal on the power line and responds. Hmm, I just added something else to
the log. It was printing to the log that it was turning the light on and
then sending the command to the cm11a. So I added a print statement after
the ON command in case the delay was in executing that. What I'm generally
seeing now is MisterHouse sees the signal from the MS, reports that it's
going to turn on the light and then that it has turned on the light all
within the same second.
So, the computer/software shouldn't be the delay. Unless there's some
oddity in the cm11a driver MH is using. I suppose it's possible that the
main MH program hands the command off to a driver that then sits on it.
I'm not familiar at all with MH internals, so I don't know how it's
handling that. I'll have to post some of this to the MH mailing list if no
one here has a good answer for me.
--
Dave Houston
Motion sensors sometimes are slow responding to movement. The response time
is hard to determine.
IIRC, the RR501 waits until it sees the start of the next RF code before
sending to the powerline. This takes about 108mS. If the signal is a little
weak, the RR501 will use the first (or subsequent) copy (or copies) to set
its threshold. Each copy takes ~108mS.
It takes 94 half cycles of 60Hz for two PLC copies of two X-10 codes. (e.g.
A1, AON) The CM11A will wait for both copies plus ????. This takes at least
783mS.
Mr. House interprets the incoming code and sends the macro it triggers.
There's some handshaking with the CM11A before it transmits. It then takes
the same number of powerline half cycles to sent two copies of two codes.
(e.g. B1, BON)
Watching your ESM1 may give you a picture of when the delays occur.
The simplest way to speed things up is to have the RR501 turn on the light
and have Mr. House merely log the activity.
Marc F Hult
in message <4486a82e....@nntp.fuse.net>:
>Larry Moss <mo...@airigami.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2006-06-07, Robert Green <ROBERT_G...@YAH00.COM> wrote:
>>> May I ask you to start again from the top to explain exactly what sort
>>> of behavior you want or expect to see from your HW and SW? I'd just
>>> like to get a resummation of the basic problem under a new thread
>>> heading so you can get the maximum number of eyes reading about your
>>> problem.
>>
>>Sure. The basic "problem" is that when I walk into my laundry/utility
>>room with my arms full, I want the lights to turn on via motion sensors.
>>There's about a 4 second delay before the lights come on.
>The simplest way to speed things up is to have the RR501 turn on the light
>and have Mr. House merely log the activity.
If it's any consolation, the problem of accumulated delays in motion sensing
and its application to smart lighting control is not confined to X-10. Your
application is simple one, consisting in turning on a single light in
response to a single motion detector which requires minimal smarts and so
Dave's simple fix may suffice. ( Another fall-back which may be even more
dependable may be to use a switch with a built-in sensor and eschew
centralized HA altogether. )
Cyberhouse software (and ABIK, Crestron, AMX, Lutron, I think now Homeseer
and doubtless others. See eg http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6912429.html ;
http://www.patentstorm.us/class/700/277-Multiple_zones.html} has a much more
complex capability what is variously 'motion vectors' or 'lighting paths/
automated path lighting' which uses multiple motion detectors to control
multiple lights in a defined sequence and direction. This in turn places
much higher demands on the sensors, control SW and HW, and lighting system.
CyberHouse system reportedly worked fine with some combinations of hardwired
security system for the motion detectors and some hard-wired lighting
systems.
To my dismay 6-7 years ago when I first tried to implement this, Napco's
popular (among the DIY HA crowd) hard-wired security system was not 'fast
enough' owing to limitations in the speed at which sensed events are
reported over the RS-232 connection (and/or replicated on external relays).
The long-contemplated solution is to use a dedicated hard-wired controller
such as ELK M1 or homebrew PC/PIC/Atmel. In any case, X10 lighting is useful
only under very limited circumstances because of bandwidth limitations
intrinsic to the protocol - a limitation that is separate from signal
strength and reliability issues that get most of the attention.
... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org
Robert Green
<stuff snipped>
> The simplest way to speed things up is to have the RR501 turn on the light
> and have Mr. House merely log the activity.
I agree. I suspect that Larry's put all his motion detectors on an unused
housecode. Lots of people do it that way but it induces delays in getting
from detected motion to turned on light.
I've found that the only way that X-10's MDs are acceptable is to have them
directly control the load.
Is there any difference in which unit gets a command on the line more
quickly? Or do the TM751 and the RR501 activate the light directly at
pretty much the same instant?
If you mix RR501's and TM751's together, will the RR501's always fire last
because of the collision avoidance feature? That seems to be the case when
I operate both side by side on a power strip and if that's true, I can use
that behavior to figure out whether there's a TM or an RR type transceiver
buried in the Robodog without having to open it up and risk killing it. Is
there anything a DIY'er can do with some eunuch TM751's that didn't survive
their antenna enhancement experiments?
I'm about to switch over my X-10 topology from a collection of TM751's to
your BX-AHT with a centrally located antenna and an XTB turbobooster. It
wasn't practical for me to use the BX-AHT before this because of all the PLC
issues in my house. The signal just wouldn't reach everywhere from the
TW523.
Are there any X-10 motion detectors that put detected motion directly on the
powerline other than the floodlight module? Naturally they'd be powered by
line voltage. I'm tired of chasing batteries.
--
Bobby G.
Robert Green
"Larry Moss" <mo...@airigami.com> wrote in message
<stuff snipped>
> The motion sensor is an rms18. There are actually two. I don't think
it's
> ever possible for both to see me at the same time. The transceiver is an
> rr501. The computer is connected to a cm11a.
Why is the CM11A in the loop? Are you using any logic to determine what to
do *before* executing the ON LIGHT command? As Dave suggests, the best way
to do this is with a TM751 or RR501 as close to the target area and lamp
(and on the same circuit, if practical) directly driving the load. Keep the
MD to transceiver distance short, keep the load and the transceiver distance
short. That will maximize the chance the light will turn on right away.
Are you logging this activity to a printer or disk? Try turning that off
and seeing whether the delay disappears.
--
Bobby G.
Dave Houston
TM751. For someone who can solder, it's possible to put a small 1:1 SMT
isolation transformer in the antenna circuit and use an efficient external
antenna. But, this isn't really worth the effort as the TM751 is not all
that good even with a better antenna.
When you have the BX24-AHT working, you can probably get rid of all of your
other transceivers. If using a CM11A with the BX24-AHT, it will stop sending
as soon as it detects a collision so, if you do retain other transceivers,
it will not add to the chaos.
You can program the BX24-AHT to respond (or ignore) the RF from the motion
detectors. With a CM11A, it's about the same speed as MS -> RR501 -> PLC.
You can also tell it to ignore some RF to avoid clogging the powerline with
superfluous traffic.
If you want better motion detection, use the X-10 security motion detector.
I've found it to be several orders of magnitude more reliable that the
EagleEye or HawkEye. I've had one for 4-5 years and am still on the initial
battery. The BX24-AHT will also report RF from the door/window switches.
One of theses days I will adapt the PIC I programmed as a generic ADC RF
input node to use the transmitter in the door/window switch. Jeff Volp
suggested doing something similar with an EagleEye or Hawkeye but I think
the door/window switches are better for this. They're about $10 each in a
3-pack.
BTW, my plans to port the AHT code to the ZX-24 are on indefinite hold. I've
come to the conclusion that the ZX-24 isn't really ready for use by anyone
other than experimenters. I'm afraid the support burden would be
overwhelming.
Robert Green
<stuff snipped>
> If it's any consolation, the problem of accumulated delays in motion
sensing
> and its application to smart lighting control is not confined to X-10.
Your
> application is simple one, consisting in turning on a single light in
> response to a single motion detector which requires minimal smarts and so
> Dave's simple fix may suffice. ( Another fall-back which may be even more
> dependable may be to use a switch with a built-in sensor and eschew
> centralized HA altogether. )
That's an interesting point and certainly a pathway a number of people have
taken. I find it makes me uncomfortable to have such a situation because
almost always you want to be able to control the light in a context other
than detected motion. The X-10 stuff is quick enough if you position the
sensor and transceiver close to each other and close to the load.
Before I did that, the RF or PLC commands might not always get through and
that means either waiting until the PIR circuitry "looks" again (several
seconds) or reaching for the manual switch. The time that it takes to
react, reach for the manual switch and hit it coincidentally is nearly equal
the time it takes for the second PIR scan to occur. Often, the user ends up
hitting the switch a millisecond or two after the 2nd PIR scan has turned
the lamp on and, you guessed it, the user actually turns the lamp out.
> Cyberhouse software (and ABIK, Crestron, AMX, Lutron, I think now Homeseer
> and doubtless others. See eg http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6912429.html
;
> http://www.patentstorm.us/class/700/277-Multiple_zones.html} has a much
more
> complex capability what is variously 'motion vectors' or 'lighting paths/
> automated path lighting' which uses multiple motion detectors to control
> multiple lights in a defined sequence and direction. This in turn places
> much higher demands on the sensors, control SW and HW, and lighting
system.
That's an area where X-10 breaks down. With multiple occupants in motion,
there are bound to be collisions. Such a situation requires a higher
bandwidth to avoid such problems. That's probably where I would switch to
hardwiring. Since I currently use TM751's spread throughout the house with
one near every controlled load and almost all a room away from each other,
it's worked out nicely.
What I need now is a "PIB" (Person(s) in Bed) detector that can reliably
tell me when either one, none or both of us is in bed. A sleeping/awake
detector would be nice, too! I want to automate phone muting, security
arming and a bunch of other things predicated on whether we've gone to bed
for the night. As a corollary I'd need a travel detector that could also
tell me whether a single person in bed or no persons in bed was a normal
condition for that day. My wife often works the swing shift, so there's no
really fixed bedtimes around here.
As you noted in an earlier message, home automation really has a long way to
go in terms of knowing detailed information about the home environment and
putting that information towards high level decision making.
> CyberHouse system reportedly worked fine with some combinations of
hardwired
> security system for the motion detectors and some hard-wired lighting
> systems.
As you noted, so many of these have interlink issues that come about from
RS232 or other comm delays. If there's one area in HA where speed is of the
essence, it's in the automation of lights. My wife really enjoys the
hands-free aspects of PIR switched lights for the laundry room and bathroom,
but ONLY when they work without delay or "futzing."
> To my dismay 6-7 years ago when I first tried to implement this, Napco's
> popular (among the DIY HA crowd) hard-wired security system was not 'fast
> enough' owing to limitations in the speed at which sensed events are
> reported over the RS-232 connection (and/or replicated on external
relays).
Yeah, that!
> The long-contemplated solution is to use a dedicated hard-wired controller
> such as ELK M1 or homebrew PC/PIC/Atmel. In any case, X10 lighting is
useful
> only under very limited circumstances because of bandwidth limitations
> intrinsic to the protocol - a limitation that is separate from signal
> strength and reliability issues that get most of the attention.
Oddly enough, there are two areas where X-10 is able to overcome bandwidth
limitations that still make it very, very useful. Those are the "ALL LIGHTS
ON" and "ALL UNITS OFF" commands. You can command 16 units simultaneously
with one keypress. You can also stack commands which, at least on the maxi
controller and that allows all the commanded lights, even with different
unit codes, to go on and off simultaneously.
I would have preferred they had chosen "ALL LIGHTS OFF" on the Maxi
controllers - it never made much sense to have two not quite parallel
commands next to the very parallel "ON/OFF" and "BRIGHT/DIM" keys. But I
agree, overall, that bandwidth is the only monster left in my X-10 setup
with the XTB in place, boosting the signal. I've avoided long macros as a
result, but that's been more limiting than I like.
--
Bobby G.
Marc F Hult
<ROBERT_G...@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
<MvudnRP6gru4SxjZ...@rcn.net>:
<snip>
Bobby, Dear Bobby, *Dearest* Bobby ;-)
No need to be so defensive ...
I've order one of Jeff's nifty X-10 amplifiers (sensu stricto) because it
will neatly allow me to keep a couple of X-10 switches in service where
running a neutral wire for INSTEON or low-voltage for hard-wired lighting is
not worth the effort at this time. But I rather doubt that this is gonna
solve the "fundamentals of how [I] live and work" as you wrote in your first
post of the thread.
To continue the alternative automotive power analogy used elsewhere in this
thread, when I bought our family's shiny, brannew 1980 Dasher diesel wagon
in 1980, it was wunnerful in part because it got 50 mpg. But when in 1993 I
bought a second, used one, identical except for color, for spare parts to
help keep the first one alive, I didn't gush that others would/should follow
the same path. Because just as X-10 switches -- amplifier or not -- are
still tactile mush, slow to respond relative to newer devices, more easily
confused by multiple commands, add noise to the powerline, have poor hash
suppression, etc etc, my then 13-year-old Dasher model was way long in the
tooth and superseded by better cars for less money.
Similarly, I still ride my 1972 Motobecane 10-speed bicycle most days. The
light, purty new front wheel I recently treated it to cost bout as much as
the whole bike did when new, but I don't recommend 1972 Motobecanes because
[ add list of good reasons here]. If someone asked, me, I'd tell them to buy
a new bike.
Thanks for your (many, many! ;-) words and bon mots in this newsgroup.
... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org
Marc F Hult
<ROBERT_G...@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
<b5SdnU5KZ8wTgBrZ...@rcn.net>:
>"Marc F Hult" <MFH...@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote in message
>
><stuff snipped>
>
The X-10 stuff is quick enough if you position the
>sensor and transceiver close to each other and close to the load.
In my experience, X-10 is almost never quick enough if the system needs to
dim instead of toggle ON-OFF. And if you get up at 3AM , who wants the
lights to go on suddenly at 100% bright?
Or worse, the infamous X-10 Flash! followed by the slow excruciating,
erratic dim that may or may not follow. Bleach out the eye's rhodopsin
with the first Flash! and then dim so that you couldn't see even if you
*did* have a flashlight ... (Yet another of x-10's many gotchas that has
tedious work-arounds.)
Methinks you want this to work so badly that you don't see how badly it
usually works ...
... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.EControl.org
BruceR
call a SLEP, or "Service Life Enhancement Program." The pilots flying
B-52s are (a lot) younger than their aircraft but SLEPs have kept them
flying for many years beyond their planned retirement (the B-52s - not
the pilots!). The 52 year old B-52's may not be as technologically
sophisticated as newer stealth bombers but they do serve their purpose.
I view the the XTB as a SLEP that may enable one to squeeze a few more
years out of their existing X10 installations. It is particularly
timely in that we are in the midst of a shakeout period of competing
technologies where delaying commitment to one or another may be
beneficial to those who have a working X10 system and can wait a bit
longer.
As I've said in earlier posts, the $1000+ I've spent converting to
Insteon has yet to yield any real benefit over X10, although I think
that will change when I have a RoZetta in the mix. In the meantime,
Insteon allows me to hedge my bet by acting as X10 devices too - I don't
have to reinstall the old stuff. If the XTB works as well for me as
reported by others I'll have the best of both worlds: X10 commands sent
from my "legacy" controller will reach everywhere they need to for
reliable scheduled control AND, I'll have reliable manual control from
Insteon controllers, keypads and switches using the Insteon linking
technology.
Marc F Hult
message <t8Ghg.147$MF6...@tornado.socal.rr.com>:
>I would liken the XTB as to what the military used to (and may still)
>call a SLEP, or "Service Life Enhancement Program."
Excellent characterization.
>I view the the XTB as a SLEP that may enable one to squeeze a few more
>years out of their existing X10 installations. It is particularly
>timely in that we are in the midst of a shakeout period of competing
>technologies where delaying commitment to one or another may be
>beneficial to those who have a working X10 system and can wait a bit
>longer.
Yes, but it is also useful IMO to consider the relationship of existing
technologies/oncepts/strategies with emerging ones as complementary rather
than primarily competitive. It is also helpful to the all technologies to
candidly assess SWOT's (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats).
IMO, this is one of the recurring issues with some conversations in c.h.a .
-- namely the need for partisan identification and endorsement 'winners'
at the expense of accuracy and completeness and refraining from hyperbole.
>As I've said in earlier posts, the $1000+ I've spent converting to
>Insteon has yet to yield any real benefit over X10,
What did you convert from? Folks migrating from a couple of dozen x10 WS467
wall switches to a like number of $19.99 INSTEON wall switches will both
find it hard to spend anything like $2000 and will enjoy immediate payback
in terms of tactile response, visual aesthetics, possibly better hash
filtering ( still working to quantify this), probably longevity of the
hardware (my WS 467's fail with appalling regularity) freedom from
interdevice interference, lack of start -up flash when dimming, more
accurate dim levels, ability to logically gang switches and so on. I have at
least of each of the available INSTEON switches and dimmers and am
hard-pressed to find a reason to buy the $40 switches and dimmers instead of
the $20 ones.
<various snips>
>"Marc F Hult" <MFH...@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote in message
>> Thanks for your (many, many! ;-) words and bon mots in this newsgroup.
My turn to fix a finger-fault before the dreaded ruler comes down on said
fingers: Should be "bons mots".
... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.ora
Robert Green
> I would liken the XTB as to what the military used to (and may still)
> call a SLEP, or "Service Life Enhancement Program." The pilots flying
> B-52s are (a lot) younger than their aircraft but SLEPs have kept them
> flying for many years beyond their planned retirement (the B-52s - not
> the pilots!). The 52 year old B-52's may not be as technologically
> sophisticated as newer stealth bombers but they do serve their purpose.
You wouldn't want to be either one of them when they got angry.
> I view the the XTB as a SLEP that may enable one to squeeze a few more
> years out of their existing X10 installations. It is particularly
> timely in that we are in the midst of a shakeout period of competing >
technologies where delaying commitment to one or another may be
> beneficial to those who have a working X10 system and can wait a bit
> longer.
I suppose I was a bit effusive in my praise but the XTB came at a time when
my family's facing some pretty serious price increases all across the board,
from gas to electricity to food to insurance and even property taxes.
Having something like the XTB allows me to spend $200 instead of $2K to
solve the majority of my X-10 problems. That translates into a very nice
weekend getaway and that's got a lot of SAF. Learning all new ways of doing
the same old things has very low SAF. I know how much my wife dislikes
changing PC's, SW, cars, home theater equipment, light switches and TV/VCRs.
And car tires. :-)
So the XTB allows me to extend the current interface for a few more years,
at least. And to avoid what I lovingly refer to as the "stinkeye" when
something's gone so amuck that damage has occured. That's got a lot of "blue
sky" value for me. X-10 is the devil you know . . .
> As I've said in earlier posts, the $1000+ I've spent converting to
> Insteon has yet to yield any real benefit over X10, although I think
> that will change when I have a RoZetta in the mix. In the meantime, >
Insteon allows me to hedge my bet by acting as X10 devices too - I don't
> have to reinstall the old stuff.
That's a pretty useful feature, as it turns out for you.
If the XTB works as well for me as
> reported by others I'll have the best of both worlds: X10 commands sent
> from my "legacy" controller will reach everywhere they need to for
> reliable scheduled control AND, I'll have reliable manual control from
> Insteon controllers, keypads and switches using the Insteon linking
> technology.
May the Force be with you!
--
Bobby G.
AZ Nomad
>Well, it was actually a PDP-10 but you got the rest right. Of course
>there's no comparison with that to modern day computing, BUT, just how
25 analog inputs, read at 4 times/second when there's a change
up to 5 analog outputs, each updated once while that AI updates
Check 8 doors, once every second
sample room temmperatures of 15 rooms, once every 5 minutes
control 5 dampers, also at 5 minutes.
I dunno, I'm just making stuff up.
However, when you've got a 2 ghz processor instead of a 50 line/second
BASIC interpreter, you're going to come up with more stuff.
AZ Nomad
>"AZ Nomad" <azn...@PmunOgeBOX.com> wrote
>On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 03:40:05 GMT, BruceR >
>>> While higher bandwidth is always welcome for broadband
>>> connections, the X10 technology's problem has never really
>>> been one of speed but of reliability and resistance to
>>> interference from other PLC signal
>>
>> OH pulleze. If you 60 baud is nowhere enough bandwidth.
>If me, 60 BPS plenty good bandwidth! (-: (Baud ain't the right term, BTW,
>it's bits per second)
baud is signal changes per second and with X10, 60 baud == 60 bps. Of course
there's overhead for start/stop bits, parity, etc.
BruceR
Smarthome switches and some plain old Appliance and Lamp Modules. The
Leviton switches were never so great - I like the Smarthome ones better
but they came out after the house was done 4 years ago. At least I had
the soft start dimming and the other nice features.
Unless you program large scenes there is really no need to to use the V2
switches since the ICONs do most everything for half the price. The one
thing they say it doesn't have, adjustable on and off ramping, is wrong.
They DO have it and it works just like the the V2s. They just don't tell
you about it. As one who joined their development group, I was extended
a one time discount on the V2 stuff that made it the same price as the
ICONs so I now have mostly V2s which do have prettier lights. Had they
not offered the discounts I would have all ICONs.
> What did you convert from? Folks migrating from a couple of dozen x10
> WS467 wall switches to a like number of $19.99 INSTEON wall switches
> will both find it hard to spend anything like $2000 and will enjoy
> immediate payback in terms of tactile response, visual aesthetics,
> possibly better hash filtering ( still working to quantify this),
> probably longevity of the hardware (my WS 467's fail with appalling
> regularity) freedom from interdevice interference, lack of start -up
> flash when dimming, more accurate dim levels, ability to logically
> gang switches and so on. I have at least of each of the available
> INSTEON switches and dimmers and am hard-pressed to find a reason to
> buy the $40 switches and dimmers instead of the $20 ones.
>
> <various snips>
> ... Marc
> Marc_F_Hult
> www.ECOntrol.ora
Robert Green
> ><stuff snipped>
> >
> The X-10 stuff is quick enough if you position the
> >sensor and transceiver close to each other and close to the load.
>
> In my experience, X-10 is almost never quick enough if the system needs to
> dim instead of toggle ON-OFF. And if you get up at 3AM , who wants the
> lights to go on suddenly at 100% bright?
That's an easy one. Just get a two-way wall switch or module. They'll
remember the state last dimmed to and without any of the flash problems.
But that's not and ideal solution. I'm working on a more elegant one for my
Mom and Dad who need more than a dimmed bulb hallway bulb. I am looking at
installing LED or similar "carpet lights" that you see in theaters and
airplanes. It's clear that in low light, with dark adapted-eyes, a series
of small lamps illuminating the pathway is the proper way to go. Those on
one unit code, the regular lights on another and a way to tell when it's
dark or light and it's done. It's not a challenge for X-10 because there's
no dimming involved. They come on when they sense motion, they go off after
a while or when the bed sensor says "back in bed."
I'm probably going to end up using Christmas lights because I love COTS
solutions and there's nothing cheaper or that requires less labor.
Concealing them artfully will be the only issue.
> Methinks you want this to work so badly that you don't see how badly it
> usually works ...
One could turn that statement right around and say "methinks you want this
NOT to work so badly that you don't see how well it CAN work." (-:
It just takes a little effort. It's not brain surgery. I've solved the
problems that could be solved by reading here and doing research through
Google. I've worked around the rest. Now the XTB will allow me to eliminate
a lot of compromises and really embrace a centralized controller. No matter
what I tried before, the CM11A and the TW523 could not reach every corner of
the house. Now they can. That's a big, big change in the whole design of
my system.
It's a good time for it, too, because the mini-ITC PCs have proven
themselves to be very capable and reliable. They'll make better controllers
for far less $ than many of the hardwired panels out there.
The XTB has made the formerly inaccessible design path of a powerful central
controller open to me again and really has reclaimed the value of my X-10
system. That's going to save me a ton of money and let me "wait it out"
until one of the new protocols (or something even newer) prevails.
--
Bobby G.
Robert Green
<stuff snipped>
> It is also helpful to the all technologies to candidly assess
> SWOT's (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats).
> IMO, this is one of the recurring issues with some conversations
> in c.h.a . -- namely the need for partisan identification and
> endorsement 'winners' at the expense of accuracy and
> completeness and refraining from hyperbole.
Each and every newsgroup I've visited suffers from those "recurring issues."
Having "favorites" is human nature and it's likely not to disappear from the
behavioral characteristics of Usenetters any time soon. I probably wouldn't
have to look very hard to make the very same claims about you that you're
making about others. People elide information from their posts that tend
not to support their contentions. People repeat inaccurate information as
if it gained the power of truth by simple repetition. Such has been the
nature of human discourse since long before Plato. We do it subconsciously,
I am sure.
> >As I've said in earlier posts, the $1000+ I've spent converting to
> >Insteon has yet to yield any real benefit over X10,
>
> What did you convert from? Folks migrating from a couple of dozen x10
WS467
> wall switches to a like number of $19.99 INSTEON wall switches will both
> find it hard to spend anything like $2000 and will enjoy immediate payback
Your concern about comments made "at the expense of accuracy" U-turns very
well to rest on your own shoulders. I assume your "hard to spend anything
like $2000" comment is at least partially predicated on mine that to switch
to another protocol and system would cost me $2000. (It could be you chose
the $2000 number completely by chance and his has nothing to do with my
comments. If so, accept my apologies.)
If your comment was to challenge to my assumption that it would cost *me*
$2K to changeover, the truth is I could spend that in a heartbeat on some of
the wired automation systems I've been looking at. You're subconsciously
"playing your favorite" - which seems to be Insteon - without thinking about
whether I was even talking about that protocol or something else entirely.
I don't think I will be using PLC in the next system I install. Why?
Because there's no guarantee that 10 years from now Insteon won't face
issues similar to X-10 as the environment and powerline next noisier and
more complex. The only way to beat that is to go hard wired.
That brings to the surface another apparently erroneous assumption: that all
the average large X-10 user possesses is a couple of dozen WS467's and
that's all we'll need to convert. Highly inaccurate. It's pretty easy to
not get things right because of incorrect foundational assumptions? We all
do it, even we perfekt people. :-)
I know pretty much to the dollar what my X-10 installation is worth and what
it would cost to replace it. Unless you know electricians that work for
free, I suggest that $2000K is a *very* conservative estimate of switchover
cost. It assumes no pigtails break off in the boxes (it's happened twice so
it's probably going to happen again and it's the bitch of the century!!!).
It assumes all goes well and it's a simple switch in and out. In fact, it
assumes all sorts of things not entered into evidence that are contrary to
my experience, as well as the posted experience of others.
Bruce said he spent $1000+ doing the conversion and that was at a "good
buddy/great deal" price. He's retained a Stargate from his previous setup
that I recall him saying would cost another $1000 to replace. So your
assumption anyone would be "hard pressed" to spend $2000 ripping out an X-10
system is in reality "hard pressed" to survive in the face of challenges
from both my inventory valuation and projected electrician costs and Bruce's
actual experience switching away from X-10.
Allow me to break out your remaining comments one by one about what my
spending from ?$ to $5K will allow me "to enjoy" [with my replies in
straight brackets like this]:
a) tactile response [Not great but not worth $2000 to improve]
b) visual aesthetics [Not great but not worth $2000 to improve]
c) possibly better hash filtering [I'm not going to pull X10 for that!]
d) probably longevity of the hardware (my WS 467's fail with appalling
regularity) [At the X-10 price, so what? But I challenge your longevity
estimate with the fact that I still have old paddle style switches that work
just fine. I also counter with the many reports of defective Smarthome gear
that had to be returned, often more than once, for refurbishing or repair.
Maybe your electrical power isn't well-regulated or you hooked up the WS467
switches backwards. They do have differently colored wires and since I
began paying attention to hooking them up as directed in the instruction
sheets, I've had no more failures. I freely admit that I did experience
several failures with the original X-10 wall switches. I changed to Stanley
switches, which I got for $3 each at closeout, and for whatever reason, none
have failed. That means at least 5 years without a single switch failure.
I've had perhaps 4 controllers go flaky, as well as a few other items but
the replacement cost and bother is really just noise.]
e) freedom from interdevice interference [Only time will tell!]
f) lack of start-up flash when dimming [No issue for X-10 2-way lamp
modules and wall switches]
g) accurate dim levels [Oh come on, who REALLY cares? OK, maybe some HA
supergeeks do but we don't even dim our lights so why would we care?]
h) ability to logically gang switches [I can electronically "gang" them by
using the same unit codes. ALL ON/OFF is all the ganging I really need.]
i) and so on.
Well, sorry, Marc, nothing so far has convinced me I need to leave X10. In
the interests of accuracy, the flashing dimmer problem only affects the $5
lamp modules. Spend a little more, get a little more - if you need it.
Now, let's look, as objectively as I can, at my side of the equation
(although I've listed these items a number of times before).
a) I save money - lots of money, by not converting. I say it's $2000+ and
since it's my setup, you'll have to agree that it's highly likely I know
more about what I own than you do. Could it be that you're failing to
assess a fair market value to the cost of an electrician (or my time) to
perform the switchover? $5K is more like what the new system will really
cost, but since it will be in a new house, it's not as onerous as making the
change now would be. Doing the upgrade at that time it becomes a case of "I
had to install a new system anyway." It's really the only time when
installing a hardwired system is truly feasible, at least IMHO.
b) I save lots of time and effort not learning new software and hardware
interfaces. I don't have to scour the web looking for shareware apps to
enroll all my modules. I don't have to run all sorts of beta software for
all the new hardware I didn't buy, either. This is one of the reasons that
there's not so much HA discussion in CHA these days. Anyone who wanted to
automate did, and in their own ways. So there's lots less to talk about
than there was in the beginning when the really smart people were still
finding their way. Sadly, in CHA, we often end up chewing on the same old
bones.
c) I have testers and other tools for X-10 that don't even seem to EXIST yet
for other protocols.
d) I have an ever-growing amount of experience in dealing with X-10's
foibles that makes new problems much easier to solve than they used to be
when X-10 was new to me.
e) I can get new X-10 equipment dirt cheap as Ebay sellers panic and dump
their stock, probably assuming Insteon's going to kill the X-10 market.
That means I can go very, very deep in spares for very little money.
f) There's a plethora of equipment that exists for X-10 that's apparently
not going to be available for other platforms for a long time, if ever.
Phone controllers, universal modules, universal remotes, Robdogs,
Sundowners, etc. If I convert, I lose mucho functionality and gain things
(like accurate dim levels) that I don't give a whit about. Where's the
logic in that?
g) I get to postpone what protocol I would like to change to until the wars
are over and a winner emerges. There's no guarantee that Smarthome will be
around for ever. I remember when the well-capitalized Cybergenie phone
makers went bankrupt. Here one day, gone the next and the only spares are
what's out in the market already. Their intellectual property went into
deep freeze along with all remaining stock - that got sold a few years
later when its value had all but vanished.
I'm sorry if that point-by-point breakdown still sounds like some partisan
boosterism. I've tried to make it as logical a requirements and systems
analysis as I could, and it really pertains only to me. I don't like X-10
for emotional reasons, as partisanship might imply. I like it because it
gets the job done as cheaply as possible, leaving me money to spend on other
things. That's important to both me and the exchequer, my wife.
I'm with Bob Bass on this one. Smarthome violates the "eggs in one basket"
rule for me, at least for now. Plus, I've never had an X-10 appliance or
lamp module codewheel reset to A1 but it seems to be a popular pastime for
at least some Smarthome products. Admittedly, that's based solely on the
number of posts I've seen along the lines of "my X-linc loses its address"
and not direct experience. But it came from people I know to be reliable in
at least same cases.
Yes, once again undermining my own points, I find the X-10's MD and keychain
controllers are notorious for resetting to A1, too, but there are
workarounds for that, too. I am in no hurry to switch anymore, now that the
XTB has arrived. For me, avoiding an upgrade that saves me lots of time,
effort and money is a "change in the way I live and work." That's why I am
so effusive about the XTB and why I think some of the other 5 million X-10
users will be as well.
--
Bobby G.
Robert Green
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 05:56:23 GMT, BruceR wrote:
>> BUT, just how much bandwidth is really needed to turn on
>> a light switch? Really no
>
> 25 analog inputs, read at 4 times/second when there's a change
> up to 5 analog outputs, each updated once while that AI updates
>
> Check 8 doors, once every second
> sample room temmperatures of 15 rooms, once every 5 minutes
> control 5 dampers, also at 5 minutes.
So, that can be done with an Ocelot and some $80 relay modules. It's
basically an X-10 compatible device. That's the beauty of X-10. It allows
the very simple integration of hardwiring and high speed where you need it
but doesn't make you pay for it where you don't. You don't need high speed
bandwidth to switch lights on and off although you made need it to analyze
inputs.
Lots of people have designed their X-10 just as I have described and are
quite thankful you can get a load controller on sale for less than $5. No
one else can touch that. It leaves lots of extra money for hardwired PIRs,
Ocelots and other goodies, if you need them. With the signal strength
problems squelched by the XTB, X-10 has taken on a very new life. I think
that's just the first of some very interesting X-10 gear we'll see from
Jeff.
--
Bobby G.
Larry Moss
> Watching your ESM1 may give you a picture of when the delays occur.
Right. I'll definitely do that. I've hardly been home the last few days.
> The simplest way to speed things up is to have the RR501 turn on the light
> and have Mr. House merely log the activity.
That would be great, but I can't. As I mentioned before, there are two
motion sensors. Due to the shape of the room, a single one couldn't always
see me no matter where I put it. I did originally try that. One of them
would send an off while I was still in there. Lights would go on and off.
Also, what I didn't mention is that the basement is wired with only pull
string fixtures, so I'm using screw in modules. No way to plug them into
the transceiver. (I plugged in a utility light for the original
experiment.)
Larry Moss
> ( Another fall-back which may be even more
> dependable may be to use a switch with a built-in sensor and eschew
> centralized HA altogether. )
I've done this in places where the application really is that simple. My
garage has one sensor and one overhead light, so it makes sense. I wish I
had logging capability, but it's not that important. But I do need
multiple sensors in the basement to make it work.
Robert Green
> There's nothing that a solder-averse individual can do with the mangled
> TM751. For someone who can solder, it's possible to put a small 1:1 SMT
> isolation transformer in the antenna circuit and use an efficient external
> antenna. But, this isn't really worth the effort as the TM751 is not all
> that good even with a better antenna.
To the landfill they go - or maybe Ebay!
> When you have the BX24-AHT working, you can probably get rid of all of
your
> other transceivers. If using a CM11A with the BX24-AHT, it will stop
sending
> as soon as it detects a collision so, if you do retain other transceivers,
> it will not add to the chaos.
That would be very nice. I live in plaster and lathe - RF tends to
"stovepipe" in that it passes easily from floor to floor (wood only) but not
from room to room (the wire lathe).
> You can program the BX24-AHT to respond (or ignore) the RF from the motion
> detectors. With a CM11A, it's about the same speed as MS -> RR501 -> PLC.
> You can also tell it to ignore some RF to avoid clogging the powerline
with
> superfluous traffic.
Interesting. I will be powering it up as soon as I can find the coax
required to make the connection. IIRC, RG59 and RG6 had the wrong
impedance. I should be looking for 50 Ohm cable to use with the BX-AHT and
your "eggbeater" antenna design, correct?
> If you want better motion detection, use the X-10 security motion
detector.
> I've found it to be several orders of magnitude more reliable that the
> EagleEye or HawkEye. I've had one for 4-5 years and am still on the
initial
> battery. The BX24-AHT will also report RF from the door/window switches.
That's the big round sucker, right? The Robodog comes with a similar
version but alas, it too got squirrel happy. It might even be the reason I
got married - my then GF got such a kick out of the fact that an electric
dog would bark at real birds and squirrels.
> One of theses days I will adapt the PIC I programmed as a generic ADC RF
> input node to use the transmitter in the door/window switch. Jeff Volp
> suggested doing something similar with an EagleEye or Hawkeye but I think
> the door/window switches are better for this. They're about $10 each in a
> 3-pack.
Why do you prefer the door/window switches?
> BTW, my plans to port the AHT code to the ZX-24 are on indefinite hold.
I've
> come to the conclusion that the ZX-24 isn't really ready for use by anyone
> other than experimenters. I'm afraid the support burden would be
> overwhelming.
That's a reasonable choice. With a viable whole house controller I can
create my own "select your own house code" option via an Ocelot translating
codes I enter and using an escape sequence so the the requirement of a more
configureable AHT has slackened somewhat. Thanks for thinking about it,
anyway. The discussion alone cleared up some misconceptions I had about the
way the remote actually worked. I somehow expected it to output RF as well
as IR for every button press simultaneously.
--
Bobby G.
Robert Green
> On 2006-06-07, Dave Houston <nob...@whocares.com> wrote:
> > Watching your ESM1 may give you a picture of when the delays occur.
>
> Right. I'll definitely do that. I've hardly been home the last few days.
>
> > The simplest way to speed things up is to have the RR501 turn on the
light
> > and have Mr. House merely log the activity.
>
> That would be great, but I can't. As I mentioned before, there are two
> motion sensors. Due to the shape of the room, a single one couldn't
always
> see me no matter where I put it. I did originally try that. One of them
> would send an off while I was still in there. Lights would go on and off.
> Also, what I didn't mention is that the basement is wired with only pull
> string fixtures, so I'm using screw in modules. No way to plug them into
> the transceiver. (I plugged in a utility light for the original
> experiment.)
So, if I follow correctly you're using a different housecode so that you can
have the computer decide when to turn off the lights, not the motion
detector. I recall seeing a mod that made the PIR MD's only send ONs on
every motion detected but never an off.
I believe you can get around this by doing the following. Set the timers on
both MD's to the maximum. That why, the off can be issue by the controlling
software X minutes after it's seen the last on or when it detects that
you've moved to a different room or whatever.
Can you trace the wire going to the lights and find an outlet to plug the
transceiver into that's on the same branch? The close the sender is to the
receiver, the fewer transmission problems you'll have.
Did turning off the log have an effect on the overall speed?
--
Bobby G.
Larry Moss
> So, if I follow correctly you're using a different housecode so that you can
> have the computer decide when to turn off the lights, not the motion
> detector.
Correct.
> I recall seeing a mod that made the PIR MD's only send ONs on
> every motion detected but never an off.
That would be very helpful if anyone has any pointers.
> I believe you can get around this by doing the following. Set the timers on
> both MD's to the maximum. That why, the off can be issue by the controlling
> software X minutes after it's seen the last on or when it detects that
> you've moved to a different room or whatever.
That makes sense. Off the top of my head, I don't know what the max is and
if it would ever be a problem. Probably not.
> Can you trace the wire going to the lights and find an outlet to plug the
> transceiver into that's on the same branch? The close the sender is to the
> receiver, the fewer transmission problems you'll have.
Yes. This isn't a problem.
> Did turning off the log have an effect on the overall speed?
I didn't actually turn it off, but since I log a message both before and
after the light on command is sent, I can see that's not slowing things
down. (I can try it anyway just to be absolutely sure, but I'm not
expecting anything there.) I really need to do what Dave suggested and
watch the ESM1. TOday is going to be another insane day that I don't
really get to be home.
Dave Houston
>Interesting. I will be powering it up as soon as I can find the coax
>required to make the connection. IIRC, RG59 and RG6 had the wrong
>impedance. I should be looking for 50 Ohm cable to use with the BX-AHT and
>your "eggbeater" antenna design, correct?
Yes.
>> If you want better motion detection, use the X-10 security motion
>detector.
>> I've found it to be several orders of magnitude more reliable that the
>> EagleEye or HawkEye. I've had one for 4-5 years and am still on the
>initial
>> battery. The BX24-AHT will also report RF from the door/window switches.
>
>That's the big round sucker, right? The Robodog comes with a similar
>version but alas, it too got squirrel happy. It might even be the reason I
>got married - my then GF got such a kick out of the fact that an electric
>dog would bark at real birds and squirrels.
No.
http://www.x10.com/products/x10_ms10a.htm
>> One of theses days I will adapt the PIC I programmed as a generic ADC RF
>> input node to use the transmitter in the door/window switch. Jeff Volp
>> suggested doing something similar with an EagleEye or Hawkeye but I think
>> the door/window switches are better for this. They're about $10 each in a
>> 3-pack.
>
>Why do you prefer the door/window switches?
There's more room inside the case for mounting a small daughterboard with a
PIC on it.
>> BTW, my plans to port the AHT code to the ZX-24 are on indefinite hold.
>I've
>> come to the conclusion that the ZX-24 isn't really ready for use by anyone
>> other than experimenters. I'm afraid the support burden would be
>> overwhelming.
>
>That's a reasonable choice. With a viable whole house controller I can
>create my own "select your own house code" option via an Ocelot translating
>codes I enter and using an escape sequence so the the requirement of a more
>configureable AHT has slackened somewhat. Thanks for thinking about it,
>anyway. The discussion alone cleared up some misconceptions I had about the
>way the remote actually worked. I somehow expected it to output RF as well
>as IR for every button press simultaneously.
You really haven't grasped yet what you can do with the BX24-AHT. The
advantage of using the ZX-24 was that it's software UARTs are always active
in the background so it can deal with multiple, simultaneous I/O streams.
The configurability enhancements are not major.
Marc F Hult
<ROBERT_G...@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
<lf2dnQfUlbT8MBrZ...@rcn.net>:
>"Marc F Hult" <MFH...@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote in message
>
>> ><stuff snipped>
>> >
>> The X-10 stuff is quick enough if you position the
>> >sensor and transceiver close to each other and close to the load.
>>
>> In my experience, X-10 is almost never quick enough if the system needs
to
>> dim instead of toggle ON-OFF. And if you get up at 3AM , who wants the
>> lights to go on suddenly at 100% bright?
>
>That's an easy one. Just get a two-way wall switch or module. They'll
>remember the state last dimmed to and without any of the flash problems.
>
>But that's not and ideal solution.
Two-way x-10 modules and switches cost ~$30 and up. An INSTEON ICON wall
switch is $19.99 Why recommend getting something new that costs more and
does less or worse? Not Either/Or. Get it?
>> Methinks you want this to work so badly that you don't see how badly it
>> usually works ...
>
>One could turn that statement right around and say "methinks you want this
>NOT to work so badly that you don't see how well it CAN work." (-:
Touché ! ... or should we say "touchy" ? ;-)
>It just takes a little effort. It's not brain surgery. I've solved the
>problems that could be solved by reading here and doing research through
>Google. I've worked around the rest. Now the XTB will allow me to
>eliminate a lot of compromises and really embrace a centralized controller.
>No matter what I tried before, the CM11A and the TW523 could not reach
>every corner of the house. Now they can. That's a big, big change in the
>whole design of my system.
Waiting for (eg) INSTEON's many bugs to be addressed is especially
appropriate for folks that aren't making a clean install of all (eg)
INSTEON. The firmware on most (eg) INSTEON switches and devices is not field
upgradeable, so there will be more than a bit of trauma involved for the
early adopters who will find that the recommended solution to many of the
current issues will be to replace all their hardware (Sound familiar ?).
'Course if we had waited until x-10 got all its bugs we would have missed
out on all the fun over the years -- not to mention the wrath of SO's when
the lights inexplicably went on at 3AM ...
>It's a good time for it, too, because the mini-ITC PCs have proven
>themselves to be very capable and reliable. They'll make better
controllers for far less $ than many of the hardwired panels out there.
"Far less $ " ??? The mini-itx that Homeseer sells with its software
installed -- only through distributors that will provide support -- costs
about ~2700. This is all about the cost of support, and next to nothing
about the cost of hardware which you seem to assume.
Also, if one steps away from the hypothetical to the actual, reality is that
hardwired panels provide secure, systematic hardware I/O connections and
connectors in an appropriate enclosure. This is critical. If you look at
(eg) the $2700 Mini-Itx Homeseer sells for their software, it has none of
those needed features. It connects to other pc-centric hardware, not home
wiring. This is/was also part of the Elk MM443-Ocelot comparison that folks
with no hands-on experience could never grok. The physical installation is
critical -- not jist the smarts.
My experience with mini-ITX is limited to the three VIA mini-itx's I own
including one diskless, fanless running XPe off a compact flash that I
purchased on eBay for $100. Another runs MS Server 2003. The third is in the
junk box awaiting an assignment or recycling through eBay. Yes they are
neat. No they are not a cheap panacea IME.
The original fanless 5000 and the new AN and CN-series
http://www.via.com.tw/en/products/mainboards/motherboards.jsp?motherboard_id=400
are at the ragged edge of what the current version of Power Over Ethernet
(POE) can provide (~15watts). Mini-ITX will become even more popular when
the new POE standard supplying 30 watts+ is adopted. Adoption of distributed
and scavenged DC power will change the HA landscape considerably. Banish
wall warts.
... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.EControl.org
Scott Hughes
> "Robert Green" <ROBERT_G...@YAH00.COM> wrote:
>
>>That's the big round sucker, right? The Robodog comes with a similar
>>version but alas, it too got squirrel happy. It might even be the
>>reason I got married - my then GF got such a kick out of the fact that
>>an electric dog would bark at real birds and squirrels.
>
> No.
>
> http://www.x10.com/products/x10_ms10a.htm
>
Is there a way to use that w/o the security system? Iow, I would like to
use it in place of a Eagle/HawkEye. Is that possible?
-Scott
Dave Houston
Bobby will use it with a BX24-AHT (discontinued) which can receive the
security RF codes.
Robert Green
> >On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 03:40:05 GMT, BruceR >
>
> >>> While higher bandwidth is always welcome for broadband
> >>> connections, the X10 technology's problem has never really
> >>> been one of speed but of reliability and resistance to
> >>> interference from other PLC signal
> >>
> >> OH pulleze. If you 60 baud is nowhere enough bandwidth.
>
> >If me, 60 BPS plenty good bandwidth! (-: (Baud ain't the right term,
BTW,
> >it's bits per second)
>
> baud is signal changes per second and with X10, 60 baud == 60 bps. Of
course
> there's overhead for start/stop bits, parity, etc.
Strictly speaking, you're right. In reality, baud's only meaningful in
discussion of old modems and teletypes. Once you go past 2400 bit/s, baud
is no longer the same thing, at least in modems. Since we were discussing
both the old and new transmission protocols, ethernet, etc. the correct
common denominator is bit/s.
This discussion makes me wonder if it might be possible for a bright guy
like Jeff or Dave to take the 60 cycles offered by the powerline and
multiplex them so that each cycle (baud) carried a greater number of bit/s.
The old X-10 equipment would see only the old X-10 signals and the new
protocol could use the extra capacity to significantly increase the
bandwidth. That's exactly how they bumped those 2400 "baud" modems up to
56Kbit/s eventually.
I remember Byte magazine articles that talked about the theoretical limits
of copper phone lines and how we would all have to use fiber to get even
cable modem speeds. And yet year after year modems over POTS got faster and
faster. Now you can get 1.5Mb/s with copper and DSL. I'm betting that X-10
can be similarly extended and enhanced - maintaining backwards compatibility
and incorporating fallback capability. That all happened with PC modems.
X-10's not that much different in concept.
Jeff's XTB invention convinces me that there's still a lot of life left both
on the powerline and in the X-10 protocol. He's cut away at the primary
weakness of X-10: signal loss. I'll bet he could bring some interesting
ideas to bear on an enhanced X-10 spec that was truly backward compatible
with older gear. It would answer your legitimate gripe that X-10's too slow
and would really extend the life of the installations of millions of users.
People would use high speed modules for macro execution and low speed, cheap
mass produced modules for everything else. Yet when you sent an "ALL OFF"
from an old-style controller, it would turn off all modules, old and new.
Just like company intranets, you put the high priced high speed network gear
on backbones and on the PCs of those most in need of high speed. I'll even
bet Dave's got some of the technical details of such a protocol extension
worked out as byproduct of his work on Rozetta.
--
Bobby G.
Dave Houston
Well, actually I don't "got HomePlug" because it still costs too much
compared to 802.11G so I opted for 802.11G to add a new laptop to my LAN,
but BPL and HomePlug do with the powerlines what the modems and DSL do over
phone lines.
I believe HomePlug has approved a newer, lower bit rate version intended for
HA type tasks. Its cost and reliability are still to be determined.
http://www.homeplug.org/en/docs/alliance_press/CommandControlSpec.pdf
Yitran whose technology was chosen already has chipsets that use Microsoft's
free SCP protocol.
http://www.yitran.com/it800tool.htm
As I've noted before, it surprises me that X10 hasn't developed something
similar that is backwards compatible to their installed base. HomePlug has
no interest in doing that.
Jim Baber
Robert Green wrote:
>"Marc F Hult" <MFH...@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote in message
>
>>>stuff snipped>
>>>
>> The X-10 stuff is quick enough if you position the
>>
>>
>>>sensor and transceiver close to each other and close to the load.
>>>
>>>
>>In my experience, X-10 is almost never quick enough if the system needs to
>>dim instead of toggle ON-OFF. And if you get up at 3AM , who wants the
>>lights to go on suddenly at 100% bright?
>>
>>
>
>That's an easy one. Just get a two-way wall switch or module. They'll
>remember the state last dimmed to and without any of the flash problems.
>
>But that's not and ideal solution. I'm working on a more elegant one for my
>Mom and Dad who need more than a dimmed bulb hallway bulb. I am looking at
>installing LED or similar "carpet lights" that you see in theaters and
>airplanes. It's clear that in low light, with dark adapted-eyes, a series
>of small lamps illuminating the pathway is the proper way to go.
>
I agree.
>Those on
>one unit code, the regular lights on another and a way to tell when it's
>dark or light and it's done. It's not a challenge for X-10 because there's
>no dimming involved. They come on when they sense motion, they go off after
>a while or when the bed sensor says "back in bed."
>
>
Well I wouldn't be quite so quick to make that assumption.
For years I have used a X-10 Appliance module to turn my Christmas
tree's sub miniature light strings on and off successfully. I did this
so I did not have to get down on the floor to plug or unplug them. I
don't have a switched outlet within 30 feet. I changed over to the LED
strings last Christmas, to save wattage and the X10 appliance would not
turn off the 5 strings of 50 each bulbs. They just dimmed about 50%.
Same problem as CFL lights, the 6 strings only draw 42 W total at full
brightness. The leakage current the X10 module uses to test if an
appliance is turned on or off, is enough to give about 50 % of the
normal light from all of the LED lights. I used them anyway and just
accepted the daily 0.67 kWh * $0.08199/kWh cost = $0.05513 cost of
operation each day.
>I'm probably going to end up using Christmas lights because I love COTS
>solutions and there's nothing cheaper or that requires less labor.
>Concealing them artfully will be the only issue.
>
>
I am still using 1 string of 35 white LED christmas bulbs to illuminate
a path in our house. Our dog has decided that path is his bed. He is
an 120 pound Akita, and does a damn good job of blocking that path from
our bedroom to one of the bathrooms. Unfortunately he is mostly the
same color as the carpet, a very sound sleeper, and while he does not
seem to object to being stepped on, neither my wife nor I care to fall
over him.
Ergo, we needed a night light for the whole hall, and the LEDs hung on
adhesive cup hooks at the ceiling provide an unobtrusive ghostly light.
I am planning to drop the existing cornice trim about a half an inch and
then lay the light string behind the cornice and put a outlet and J-box
at one end. I will wire that to an existing attic light switch and
replace the existing attic lights with CFLs at the same time. (At least
I will know if someone has left the attic lights on!)
--
Jim Baber
Email j...@NOJUNKbaber.org
1350 W Mesa Ave.
Fresno CA, 93711
(559) 435-9068
(559) 905-2204 (Verizon IN cellphone (to other Verizon IN accounts))
See 10kW grid tied solar system at "http://www.baber.org/solarpanels.jpg"
See solar system production data at "http://www.baber.org/solar_status.htm"
Scott Hughes
I don't have one of those or the expertise/knowledge to build one myself
(looks like it was something you designed/built?). Is that the only way
to make use of those motion sensors outside of the x10 security system?
-Scott
ben.p...@gmail.com
(http://www.smarthome.com/1132B.HTML) connected to a PC as the central
controller for my x10 installation. From what i'm reading about XTB,
it sounds like it would really help the powerlinc get its signals to
some of my devices that i have trouble controlling, but what i'm
wondering is would the XTB interfere with the reception of signals by
the powerlinc? or improve it? or it has no impact on reception of
signals by devices plugged into it?
I'd love to improve my transmission strength, but i also need the
powerlinc to receive signals from a number of transceivers throughout
my house for using motion detectors/etc, so i need to know that that
won't be a problem.
Thanks.
Robert Green
> I currently use a smarthome powerlinc serial controller
> (http://www.smarthome.com/1132B.HTML) connected to a PC as the central
> controller for my x10 installation. From what i'm reading about XTB,
> it sounds like it would really help the powerlinc get its signals to
> some of my devices that i have trouble controlling, but what i'm
> wondering is would the XTB interfere with the reception of signals by
> the powerlinc? or improve it? or it has no impact on reception of
> signals by devices plugged into it?
As I understand Jeff's explanation, there is a "return" path to the
Powerlinc (we were actually talking about the TW-523, the similar X-10
device). I tested it last night and confirms that it works. I did not
measure the voltage, but IIRC Jeff said it boosts the incoming signals,
although not like it does the outgoing ones. I believe it will help your
installation enormously.
--
Bobby G.
Robert Green
> > Bobby will use it with a BX24-AHT (discontinued) which can receive the
> > security RF codes.
> >
>
> I don't have one of those or the expertise/knowledge to build one myself
> (looks like it was something you designed/built?). Is that the only way
> to make use of those motion sensors outside of the x10 security system?
You might be able to find used BX-24 AHT's by asking around. I did. Jeff
may have some circuit boards left for you to roll your own. I'll bet people
might part with boards - a number of them were sold on Ebay a few months
back and then you'd have to find a "contract solderer" to build it. I
believe all the parts are still quite available.
(If there's anyone out there who would like to build one for a fee, please
speak up now!)
Finally, there's (I believe) an FCC UN-approved device that does something
similar. It's the WGL-800. I don't know much about the details but you
could search Google.
--
Bobby G.
Robert Green
> >> In my experience, X-10 is almost never quick enough if the system needs
> to
> >> dim instead of toggle ON-OFF. And if you get up at 3AM , who wants the
> >> lights to go on suddenly at 100% bright?
> >
> >That's an easy one. Just get a two-way wall switch or module. They'll
> >remember the state last dimmed to and without any of the flash problems.
> >
> >But that's not and ideal solution.
>
> Two-way x-10 modules and switches cost ~$30 and up.
What, now you're price sensitive? (-: Yesterday you were trying to spend
$2000 on an upgrade for me for features I don't need and today you're trying
to save me $10.
The point I was making was that X-10 already had a solution to what you were
calling a problem. I was also pointing out that the two way X-10 modules
are reasonably priced but not as dirt cheap as a vanilla lamp module.
> An INSTEON ICON wall switch is $19.99 Why recommend
> getting something new that costs more and does less or worse?
> Not Either/Or. Get it?
Get what? That you think mongrelization to save $10 is a good thing? I
would NEVER recommend an Insteon Icon switch in place of a slightly more
expensive two-way X-10 switch for a newbie X-10 user for two reasons:
One is the lack of codewheels. I like to be able to see what a module is
set at without a lot of hoopla. I've seen how new users like my wife react
to devices with codewheels compared to Hawkeye "morse code" address entry.
I like modules and switches to retain their settings. Especially if they
are buried behind wall plates, in drop ceilings and behind furniture.
Especially if I am going to be asked by that end user for help with their
system. I am not convinced Insteon switches can retain their settings in
all environments.
The second reason is homogeneity. I would not introduce a second protocol
into a system if I really didn't have to. That's just introducing another
possible failure vector for no gain whatsoever. I've been bitten by mixing
manufacturers in X-10. Lots of little "gotchas" there is absolutely no
reason to inflict on a newbie.
The Insteon circuitry might be nice if I were planning to go to Insteon, but
I'm not headed that way so it's foolish to have it there. The more
components and circuits, the more chances for failure.
If you recall, the discussion leading to this current message was about what
I would recommend to newbies and why. I would NOT recommend "a bit from
here, a bit from there" approach unless it was absolutely necessary.
Why? Well it's just too easy for tech support at X-10 to hear "Insteon" and
blame them and for Smarthome to hear "X-10" and do the same. I've had it
happen to me more times than I can recall in the PC world so I would have to
ask myself: Why mix?
I also think that Smarthome might be pricing their equipment very
agressively to edge out the competition. I don't see their prices staying
so low. Remember X-10's voucher giveaways. From what I read they put over
$2M of free product into the pipeline as long a people actually bought
something else. I believe they are not quite so generous anymore. I'll
feel more comfortable when Insteon appears in gear not made by Smartlabs.
Now, if dimming from 0 level up at every lamp was incredibly important to an
end user, I might change my recommendation and go with the Insteon switches.
But I'd have to believe that the end user was techie enough to deal with
Insteon's way of setting up switch addresses. I know a lot of people can't
program their EagleEyes correctly which I why I like codewheels for newbies
just like I prefer training wheels for children's bikes. It helps them gain
their balance, learn what that basics are and enables them to take bigger
steps in the future.
I recall reading the manuals for some switches by Smartlabs and one of the
programming sequences was absolutely arcane. It also, I believe, assumed
you owned a Maxi-controller. I recall a number of people over the yearas
asking in CHA how they could get around that requirement.
No, I would not recommend Insteon to newbies for a number of reasons. Get
it? (-:
> >> Methinks you want this to work so badly that you don't see how badly it
> >> usually works ...
> >
> >One could turn that statement right around and say "methinks you want
this
> >NOT to work so badly that you don't see how well it CAN work." (-:
>
> Touché ! ... or should we say "touchy" ? ;-)
Or should we say "touched?" :-)
> >It just takes a little effort. It's not brain surgery. I've solved the
> >problems that could be solved by reading here and doing research through
> >Google. I've worked around the rest. Now the XTB will allow me to
> >eliminate a lot of compromises and really embrace a centralized
controller.
> >No matter what I tried before, the CM11A and the TW523 could not reach
> >every corner of the house. Now they can. That's a big, big change in
the
> >whole design of my system.
>
> Waiting for (eg) INSTEON's many bugs to be addressed is especially
> appropriate for folks that aren't making a clean install of all (eg)
> INSTEON. The firmware on most (eg) INSTEON switches and devices is not
field
> upgradeable, so there will be more than a bit of trauma involved for the
> early adopters who will find that the recommended solution to many of the
> current issues will be to replace all their hardware (Sound familiar ?).
OK - those are *definitely* not the words of an "rah rah" Insteon partisan.
You've just elucidated another reason why the XTB makes such great sense for
me at this moment in time. I can now afford to wait until the bugs are
shaken out of the "next big thing." The powerline clutter issues were
beginning to make X-10 unviable for me and I was feeling forced to make a
switch. Now that pressure is gone.
> 'Course if we had waited until x-10 got all its bugs we would have missed
> out on all the fun over the years -- not to mention the wrath of SO's when
> the lights inexplicably went on at 3AM ...
Eventually, I will have enough haunted house stories to write a book. But
that's part of the fun of home automation. I suspect every protocol has its
horror stories. Just the other night we heard a crackling noise coming from
the guest bedroom at 3AM. Very strange, almost like a big bug chewing on a
stick.
Turned out it was an appliance module hooked to a window fan with dial
thermostat that had worn its way into X-10 chattering module heaven. The
more complexity, the more modes for failure. Yet I am not ready to go the
Thoreau route and own only a single chair that I hang up on a hook at day's
end.
> >It's a good time for it, too, because the mini-ITC PCs have proven
> >themselves to be very capable and reliable. They'll make better
> controllers for far less $ than many of the hardwired panels out there.
>
> "Far less $ " ??? The mini-itx that Homeseer sells with its software
> installed -- only through distributors that will provide support -- costs
> about ~2700. This is all about the cost of support, and next to nothing
> about the cost of hardware which you seem to assume.
I said, precisely: "They'll (mini-ITX's) make better controllers for far
less $ than many of the hardwired panels out there."
That's straight up and simple. In my case, and that of many other HA
enthusiasts, we already have the PC HW and SW smarts so we can assume the
cost of support is negligible. I would NEVER give HS $2700 for a $200
mini-ITX ($100 used from Ebay) that I could (and did) assemble myself. Nor
would I use HomeSeer until I got the sense that their plug-in problems have
been solved. I've seen far too many complaints that plug-ins don't work as
advertised and getting plug-in support is way too difficult.
However, I do agree with their choice of a Mini-ITX as perhaps the perfect
home automation controller, which supports my contention that PC based HA,
specifically in the mini-ITX format, will eventually outperform hardwired
panels. Even Homeseer agrees. Get it? :-)
> Also, if one steps away from the hypothetical to the actual, reality is
that
> hardwired panels provide secure, systematic hardware I/O connections and
> connectors in an appropriate enclosure. This is critical. If you look at
> (eg) the $2700 Mini-Itx Homeseer sells for their software, it has none of
> those needed features. It connects to other pc-centric hardware, not home
> wiring.
Let's get back on track with what I actually said first. The mini-ITX *I*
am talking about costs about $200 for the most elemental version. You can
mount it, just like an automation controller in a big box, if you like, or
in a case. You can connect any number of I/O ports, ethernet devices, USB
devices, to that motherboard very nicely with breakout cables and serial and
USB I/O adapters.
In fact, you can build a far more easily maintainable system with a much
higher degree of "swappability" using COTS parts like the ITX than you ever
can with a proprietary panel. And, in my case, a spare ITX machine can be
used as a regular PC until it's needed. An Omni motherboard can't do
anything else except be an Omni motherboard.
You can keep a TWO spare ITX's MB's (at $100 each) on hand for a fraction of
what a spare Omni or Elk spare motherboard would cost. Remember, the ITX
memory and CPU are socketed and easily repaired and upgraded in the field.
Not so with your hardwired panels. The ITX machines have many more users
testing the system to the limits and have been revised far more often than
any proprietary boards to fix small annoyances.
There are innumerable adapters to connect PC's to relays and real world
devices. It's just not the problem you're making it out to be. If it were,
why would HomeSeer choose the mini-ITX as the platform of their choice?
If you're concerned about it not being in the appropriate enclosure, then
you've got 1,000's to choose from. It's the size of laptop PC. How hard is
it going to be to enclose? Really.
> This is/was also part of the Elk MM443-Ocelot comparison that folks
> with no hands-on experience could never grok. The physical installation is
> critical -- not jist the smarts.
What, exactly, is so wrong about the Ocelot/ADI method of HA? I've seen
top-notch Ocelot installations (at least photos of them) and they seem no
way inferior to the Elk way of doing things. In fact, their internetworking
capabilities make them superior for the kind of HA work I want to do. You
just have to love C-Max and ladder logic and to able to forget everything
you know about structured programming. Well, that's hyperbole again, but by
now the whole world know's I am very hyperbolic.
If I were to give bad marks to the Ocelot/ADI entry, it wouldn't be
something I could easily correct at "enclosures'R'Us.com" it would be the
nastiness of programming the bugger. I'm not sure what a pure, hardware
independent HA programming language should look like, but C-Max is not it.
I'll know it when I see it. HomeSeer and CharmedQuark each come close on a
number of fronts, but from different directions.
> My experience with mini-ITX is limited to the three VIA mini-itx's I own
> including one diskless, fanless running XPe off a compact flash that I
> purchased on eBay for $100.
A marvel of technology. I often just sit and stare at the VIA because I
know how many man centuries of work have gone into refining every single
component of a modern mini PC. They are engineering marvels. And they are
reliable. We've both noticed the tendency of HA and alarm hardwired panels
to grow more and more tendrils into the PC world. Ethernet adapters, USB
adapters, all sorts of PC stuff. That's a sign that eventually, the board
itself will get sucked into the PC. My fixation with having spares around
for all critical system parts is very much a factor in switching away from
hardwired panels. Too expensive to keep spares. HAI went offline for a few
months this year due to Katrina. Bad things can happen to large areas of
the country. I want on-site spares. Using a mini-ITX as a home automation
controller makes that very practical.
> Another runs MS Server 2003. The third is in the
> junk box awaiting an assignment or recycling through eBay.
> Yes they are neat.
How's the mean time between involuntary reboots been?
> No they are not a cheap panacea IME.
Who's talking panacea? I'm talking about the future, which I am convinced
will be PC-centric. Elk and HAI just can't give you the bang for the buck
that a mass-produced motherboard like the VIA ITXs can. More importantly,
with voluminous disk space, a PC-centric system is far better suited to
dealing with logging requirements than any hardwired panel I've seen. Want
to add another ethernet connection? $5 for a lowrise PCI ethernet card.
Tell me what it costs to add ethernet to Elk or HAI. I'll bet you $5 that
it's more than $5.
> The original fanless 5000 and the new AN and CN-series
>
http://www.via.com.tw/en/products/mainboards/motherboards.jsp?motherboard_id
=400
> are at the ragged edge of what the current version of Power Over Ethernet
> (POE) can provide (~15watts). Mini-ITX will become even more popular when
> the new POE standard supplying 30 watts+ is adopted. Adoption of
distributed
> and scavenged DC power will change the HA landscape considerably. Banish
> wall warts.
ITX is the way of the future, both for PC's and for HA. At least that's the
direction I'm headed in. If POE kills a few wall warts along the way, I'm
all for it!
--
Bobby G.
Robert Green
<stuff snipped>
> >Mom and Dad who need more than a dimmed bulb hallway bulb. I am looking
at
> >installing LED or similar "carpet lights" that you see in theaters and
> >airplanes. It's clear that in low light, with dark adapted-eyes, a
series
> >of small lamps illuminating the pathway is the proper way to go.
> >
> I agree.
The issue will be making the lights cosmetically acceptable to Mom. I don't
want them to look geeky or get caught by a cane or in the vacuum.
>>Those on one unit code, the regular lights on another and a
>>way to tell when it's dark or light and it's done. It's not a
>>challenge for X-10 because there's no dimming involved.
>> They come on when they sense motion, they go off after
>>a while or when the bed sensor says "back in bed."
> Well I wouldn't be quite so quick to make that assumption.
>
> For years I have used a X-10 Appliance module to turn my Christmas
> tree's sub miniature light strings on and off successfully. I did this
> so I did not have to get down on the floor to plug or unplug them. I
> don't have a switched outlet within 30 feet. I changed over to the LED
> strings last Christmas, to save wattage and the X10 appliance would not
> turn off the 5 strings of 50 each bulbs. They just dimmed about 50%.
>
> Same problem as CFL lights, the 6 strings only draw 42 W total at full
> brightness. The leakage current the X10 module uses to test if an
> appliance is turned on or off, is enough to give about 50 % of the
> normal light from all of the LED lights. I used them anyway and just
> accepted the daily 0.67 kWh * $0.08199/kWh cost = $0.05513 cost of
> operation each day.
I see - you just let the leakage current power the string at partial
current. Amazing that it would work that well. I've seen neon lights glow
from X-10 "sensing" current but not a whole string of lights. Did you
consider making the "diode snip" that cuts the leak current off?
> >I'm probably going to end up using Christmas lights because I love COTS
> >solutions and there's nothing cheaper or that requires less labor.
> >Concealing them artfully will be the only issue.
> >
> >
> I am still using 1 string of 35 white LED christmas bulbs to illuminate
> a path in our house. Our dog has decided that path is his bed. He is
> an 120 pound Akita, and does a damn good job of blocking that path from
> our bedroom to one of the bathrooms. Unfortunately he is mostly the
> same color as the carpet, a very sound sleeper, and while he does not
> seem to object to being stepped on, neither my wife nor I care to fall
> over him.
(-: I had a cat that liked to sleep on the very top stop of the basement
stairs. I think he had it in for me. Blending right in with the shadows.
Taught me to be very careful where I step.
> Ergo, we needed a night light for the whole hall, and the LEDs hung on
> adhesive cup hooks at the ceiling provide an unobtrusive ghostly light.
> I am planning to drop the existing cornice trim about a half an inch and
> then lay the light string behind the cornice and put a outlet and J-box
> at one end. I will wire that to an existing attic light switch and
> replace the existing attic lights with CFLs at the same time. (At least
> I will know if someone has left the attic lights on!)
Yes, all the new forms of lamps are not making X-10 any easier or friendlier
to use, I'm afraid. I just bought another 6 pack of plug in filters to help
fight the war against signal sucking CFLs, among other things. Even with
the XTB, some appliances are just black holes. If they show up as noisy on
the meter, they get a filter.
I'll be looking more closely at airline and theater "runway" lights to see
if I can come up with a good way to conceal the lamps down near the floor
level. Floor molding that appeared to match the color of the walls by day
but glowed softly at night would be nice. I thought of running a strip of
Lucite along the top edge of the molding and injecting light at one end of
the strip.
--
Bobby G.
Robert Green
It's really surprising that X-10 hasn't tried to enhance the basic protocol.
The must have noticed all the hungry wolves at their door looking to be the
next leader of the pack.
--
Bobby G.
Marc F Hult
<ROBERT_G...@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
<BM2dnQrdKs0kBBTZ...@rcn.net>:
>"Marc F Hult" <MFH...@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote in message >
><ROBERT_G...@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
>>
>> Waiting for (eg) INSTEON's many bugs to be addressed is especially
>> appropriate for folks that aren't making a clean install of all (eg)
>> INSTEON. The firmware on most (eg) INSTEON switches and devices is not
>>field upgradeable, so there will be more than a bit of trauma involved for
>> the early adopters who will find that the recommended solution to many of
>> the current issues will be to replace all their hardware (Sound familiar
>> ?).
>OK - those are *definitely* not the words of an "rah rah" Insteon partisan.
>You've just elucidated another reason why the XTB makes such great sense
>for me at this moment in time. I can now afford to wait until the bugs are
>shaken out of the "next big thing." The powerline clutter issues were
>beginning to make X-10 unviable for me and I was feeling forced to make a
>switch. Now that pressure is gone.
The US House of Representative today has one less of those '"rah rah"
partisans -- which is a good thing in my opinion. Last vrais partisans I
fully approved of may have been the WWII French underground based minor
family involvement.
Of _course_ the XTB makes good sense at this time. Mine arrived yesterday
(thanks!).
Your phrases "for me at this moment", "unviable for me", are duly noted.
Marc
Marc_F_Hult
Marc F Hult
<ROBERT_G...@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
<BM2dnQrdKs0kBBTZ...@rcn.net>:
>"Marc F Hult" <MFH...@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote in message >
><ROBERT_G...@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
>
>> This is/was also part of the Elk MM443-Ocelot comparison that folks
>> with no hands-on experience could never grok. The physical installation
>>is critical -- not jist the smarts.
>
>What, exactly, is so wrong about the Ocelot/ADI method of HA? I've seen
>top-notch Ocelot installations (at least photos of them) and they seem no
>way inferior to the Elk way of doing things. In fact, their
internetworking
>capabilities make them superior for the kind of HA work I want to do. You
>just have to love C-Max and ladder logic and to able to forget everything
>you know about structured programming. Well, that's hyperbole again, but
by
>now the whole world know's I am very hyperbolic.
>
>If I were to give bad marks to the Ocelot/ADI entry, it wouldn't be
>something I could easily correct at "enclosures'R'Us.com" it would be the
>nastiness of programming the bugger. I'm not sure what a pure, hardware
>independent HA programming language should look like, but C-Max is not it.
>I'll know it when I see it. HomeSeer and CharmedQuark each come close on a
>number of fronts, but from different directions.
Bobby,
Let me try it again: "The physical installation is critical -- not jist the
smarts".
Elk makes nifty white, optionally paintable boxes that are the approximate
size and shape of smoke detectors into which they put things like MM443 HA
controllers, Caddx security panels, annunciators, speakers etc.
So if you need one to four analog inputs or outputs/relays somewhere, you
can pop a hole through the wall board (say, on the ceiling) run CAT5 to a
MM443 (RS-485 + 12vdc + four 'spare' conductors) and wire up the sensors if
they are external. You are done.
Nothing shows except a smoke-detector-like box on the ceiling. The wires are
hidden by the box and the box is very unobtrusive. Good example is drape
control where a MM443 can be taught to locally sense drape position, relays
control motots, sense local control switch/potentiometer, light levels,
clock calendar, local and remote temperature and can run autonomously (or
communicating with other MM443s or HA PC's on the 485 bus) forever.
Now imagine that you want a few outputs and you are using an Ocelot. Fer
starters you have two boxes with an interconnecting cable (ocelot + ADI
relay gizmo) And you have cables entering each ADICON box from the outside
(not underneath and hidden). And the Ocelot case is anything but
unobtrusive. You can't just screw it to the living room ceiling near the
drapes. You need an enclosure. A fairly big enclosure to hold the two boxes
and external wiring. A 12x12 junction box is a good size. But now you have
to cut a hole in the drywall and flush mount it because a j-box sticking out
from the ceiling is typically not OK. And neither is a j-box cover. So you
need to locate or build an unobtrusive cover.
If you are a professional installer competing on price, or a busy homeowner
that would rather be out playing golf, the physical installation differences
difference may be the deciding factor. If you are a DIY type, the time, $,
effort, plaster mess (and resulting flak from SO) may be worth it.
My point is _not_ to make any particular recommendation here, but to lay out
differences and options -- especially experiences based on my actual
experience, rather than jist hippopotamusly.
My experiences and need have been much messier and complicated than just
cutting through wallboard. The exterior and most interior walls in my house
are solid brick (in US) or stone and mortar (in Spain) with plaster
skim-coat. Even the shortest wire run can mean lotsa hammer and chisel
masonry work. Different strokes fer different folks.
... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECONtrol.org
Marc F Hult
<ROBERT_G...@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
<BM2dnQrdKs0kBBTZ...@rcn.net>:
>"Marc F Hult" <MFH...@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote in message >
><ROBERT_G...@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
>
>What, exactly, is so wrong about the Ocelot/ADI method of HA? I've seen
>top-notch Ocelot installations (at least photos of them) and they seem no
>way inferior to the Elk way of doing things. In fact, their
internetworking
>capabilities make them superior for the kind of HA work I want to do. You
>just have to love C-Max and ladder logic and to able to forget everything
>you know about structured programming. Well, that's hyperbole again, but
by
>now the whole world know's I am very hyperbolic.
>
>If I were to give bad marks to the Ocelot/ADI entry, it wouldn't be
>something I could easily correct at "enclosures'R'Us.com" it would be the
>nastiness of programming the bugger. I'm not sure what a pure, hardware
>independent HA programming language should look like, but C-Max is not it.
>I'll know it when I see it. HomeSeer and CharmedQuark each come close on a
>number of fronts, but from different directions.
Only a minuscule fraction of the world has ever heard of you. Many of those
that have have done so through this newsgroup. Since you are concerned about
tone and record (refer to your own your recent post), do consider that the
vast majority of folks may actually think that you mean what you write.
+++++++++++++++++++
The "nastiness of programming the [Ocelot] bugger" in CMax is shared by the
difficulty of programming the Elk MM443 in SIMPLE (another proprietary PIC
compiler). Difference was/is that:
1) There were one or more partisans in c.h.a that would recommend the
Ocelot to folks without any idea of whether or not they would *ever* be able
to do *anything* with it. Without programming, the Ocelot does nothing.
2) The SIMPLE language for the MM443 (CMAX equivalent) could be elegantly
avoided by using CyberHouse which allowed/s for development of rules in
three ways (wizard, point and click and ASCII text editor ) within the
CyberHouse user environment that were the same as the way that rules were
easily written in CyberHouse for PC control of stuff except that when you
were done, CyberHouse would compile the rules to PIC machine code and
automagically download to the PIC in the MM443S.
This is all well-plowed ground in c.h.a. But IMO it illustrates how
'partisanship" can be a disservice to participants, particularly folks new
to HA and the newsgroup.
Tedious topic (for me) ... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org
Marc F Hult
<ROBERT_G...@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
<BM2dnQrdKs0kBBTZ...@rcn.net>:
>"Marc F Hult" <MFH...@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote in message >
><ROBERT_G...@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
>
>> >It's a good time for it, too, because the mini-ITC PCs have proven
>> >themselves to be very capable and reliable. They'll make better
>> controllers for far less $ than many of the hardwired panels out there.
>>
>> "Far less $ " ??? The mini-itx that Homeseer sells with its software
>> installed -- only through distributors that will provide support -- costs
>> about ~2700. This is all about the cost of support, and next to nothing
>> about the cost of hardware which you seem to assume.
>
>I said, precisely: "They'll (mini-ITX's) make better controllers for far
>less $ than many of the hardwired panels out there."
>
>That's straight up and simple. In my case, and that of many other HA
>enthusiasts, we already have the PC HW and SW smarts so we can assume the
>cost of support is negligible. I would NEVER give HS $2700 for a $200
>mini-ITX ($100 used from Ebay) that I could (and did) assemble myself. Nor
>would I use HomeSeer until I got the sense that their plug-in problems have
>been solved. I've seen far too many complaints that plug-ins don't work as
>advertised and getting plug-in support is way too difficult.
>
>However, I do agree with their choice of a Mini-ITX as perhaps the perfect
>home automation controller, which supports my contention that PC based HA,
>specifically in the mini-ITX format, will eventually outperform hardwired
>panels. Even Homeseer agrees. Get it? :-)
Not in the Either-OR way that you, as "rah rah" advocate fer sumthin or
'nother, imply.
HomeSeer (and Charmed Quark, and others) _also_ support Elk M1G (and Omni
and others). So no. So Homeseer does not 'agree' with you.
I write this as someone who owns Homeseer and Charmed Quark and Elk M1G.
Do you use any of these, or is this another pet hippopotamus of yours?
>> Also, if one steps away from the hypothetical to the actual, reality is
>> that hardwired panels provide secure, systematic hardware I/O connections
>> and connectors in an appropriate enclosure. This is critical. If you look
>> at (eg) the $2700 Mini-Itx Homeseer sells for their software, it has none
>> of those needed features. It connects to other pc-centric hardware, not
>> home wiring.
>
>Let's get back on track with what I actually said first. The mini-ITX *I*
>am talking about costs about $200 for the most elemental version. You can
>mount it, just like an automation controller in a big box, if you like, or
>in a case. You can connect any number of I/O ports, ethernet devices, USB
>devices, to that motherboard very nicely with breakout cables and serial
>>and USB I/O adapters.
Hippopotomus check: What MS-based, 12vdc-supply, mini-ITX costs $200
including OS and power supply? I am fairly knowledgeable and do not know of
any.
There are at this moment 100 (one hundred) Elk M1G's with enclosures and DC
power supply and built-in battery charger for the backup battery available
on Buy-it-Now from an Elk dealer on eBay for $389.99 each.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ELK-M1G-Base-Unit_W0QQitemZ9710460784QQcategoryZ50584QQssPageNameZWD1VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem.
That's roughly the price of HomeSeer + XP (sans hardware.)
I bought one last year. Arrived lickety-split jist as promised (may not have
been this same vendor).
In equivalent/comparable terms for a PC, that's CPU, I/O, enclosure, power
supply, UPS (less battery) *Operating system*, and *complete application*
(most everything less kybd, mouse and monitor).
>In fact, you can build a far more easily maintainable system with a much
>higher degree of "swappability" using COTS parts like the ITX than you ever
>can with a proprietary panel.
I disagree quite completely based on experience with pc's in general and Elk
and three mini-ITX's in particular. To use a joke from the Profumo scandal
days "one screw out of place and the whole cabinet falls apart". PC
configurations are fragile.
>And, in my case, a spare ITX machine can be used as a regular PC until it's
>needed. An Omni motherboard can't anything else except be an Omni
>motherboard.
Which is absolutely all it ever needs to be.
>You can keep a TWO spare ITX's MB's (at $100 each) on hand for a fraction
>of what a spare Omni or Elk spare motherboard would cost.
Do you have a spare engine for your car too? ( I _used_ to ;-)
>Remember, the ITX memory and CPU are socketed and easily repaired and
upgraded in the field.
Hippo Alert: The mini ITX was invented by VIA and ABIK, no VIA Mini-ITX has
ever had a replaceable CPU. Current units by other manufacturers that I know
of that do have replaceable cpu's are not nearly so low-powered and so not
nearly so useful.
>Not so with your hardwired panels.
Not so with VIA mini-ITX. What do you mean by "_my_ hardwired panels'? I
have never used an Omni.
Have you ever seen the insides of an Elk M1G ? (FWIW, the 'cpu and memory'
in an Elk MM443 _are_ socketed and that of the M1G are not although the
voice processor is.)
>The ITX machines have many more users
>testing the system to the limits and have been revised far more often than
>any proprietary boards to fix small annoyances.
But there are so many more "small annoyances" to fix! And many, many, many
more (infinite?) configurations to test. And I dunno what you mean by
"revised far more often". They typically are not revised at all except for
BIOS. They are typically replaced by a _different_ model that ain't
necessarily plug-n-play replaceable with predecessors --and typically isn't.
>There are innumerable adapters to connect PC's to relays and real world
>devices.
And we woulda been jist fine if weda stuck with the 8055 PIO that the 8088
PC bus inherited from the Z80 in my opinion based on 22 years of adding
relays and real world devices to PC's. Complexity doesn't help here.
>It's just not the problem you're making it out to be.
What problem ? Please read what I wrote. Neat devices but not panacea. Been
there; Stayed there; Doing that. Not as inexpensive as you make out. Still
need enclosure etc. Experience vs hippopotamuses. MS OS not free.
Applications not free.
>If it were,
>why would HomeSeer choose the mini-ITX as the platform of their choice?
What *are* you talking about? They chose a particular Mini-ITX (I presume
without having looked inside) because it met their design criteria.
>If you're concerned about it not being in the appropriate enclosure, then
>you've got 1,000's to choose from. It's the size of laptop PC. How hard
>is it going to be to enclose? Really.
Optimizing budget, space, (width, depth, height and volume) and
functionality is not always straight forward. I made/adapted a 1U rack mount
enclosure for a VIA Mini-ITX (with National Instruments PCMCIA 24-bit AD
converter, video input (which uses only the PCI slot available in a 1U
Mini-ITX) that includes DC-DC converter for the board and peripherals,
batteries for back up, router/switch/wireless with external cabled antenna,
built-in ElkMM443 for PC and Inet watch dog, CAT5-to-fiber converter, BX24
homebrew workhorse I/O and more. Idea is to have a self-contained unit that
optically isolated except for power, which is galvanically isolated through
an external transformer. !%&# thing is too deep to fit the way I wanted on
the rack ...
Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.econtrol.org
Marc F Hult
<ROBERT_G...@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
<BM2dnQrdKs0kBBTZ...@rcn.net>:
>"Marc F Hult" <MFH...@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote in message >
><ROBERT_G...@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
>
>> >> In my experience, X-10 is almost never quick enough if the system
>> >> needs to dim instead of toggle ON-OFF. And if you get up at 3AM , who
>> >> wants the lights to go on suddenly at 100% bright?
>> >
>> >That's an easy one. Just get a two-way wall switch or module. They'll
>> >remember the state last dimmed to and without any of the flash problems.
>> >
>> >But that's not and ideal solution.
>>
>> Two-way x-10 modules and switches cost ~$30 and up.
>
>What, now you're price sensitive? (-: Yesterday you were trying to spend
>$2000 on an upgrade for me for features I don't need and today you're
>trying to save me $10.
If you'd like a cogent, non-'partisan', fact-based discussion, please
restate whatever it is you are trying to say here after reading what I wrote
in the context in which it was written. Note I am not trying to influence
_your_ actions, but rather, provide some balance to the record of your
hyperbolic enthusiasm as it regards what might be (mis?)construed as
sweeping recommendations to others. (We are moving, once again beyond the
OP's question.)
TIA ... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org
Marc F Hult
<ROBERT_G...@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
<BM2dnQrdKs0kBBTZ...@rcn.net>:
> Bad things can happen to large areas of
>the country. I want on-site spares. Using a mini-ITX as a home automation
>controller makes that very practical.
Redundancy does _not_ mean duplication. PC + panel (and/or Security panel).
Belt and suspenders. Wearing two belts is way tacky and not nearly so
practical.
I have mini-ITX but my the HA controller currently is a 1.2 mhz that has
both PCI and an ISA slot -- no longer available. The smaller of my "junk
boxes" is about 15x20x8 feet. Its chock _full_ of obsolete spares. Not
recommended. If you visit, drive a pickup.
>> Another runs MS Server 2003. The third is in the
>> junk box awaiting an assignment or recycling through eBay.
>> Yes they are neat.
>
>How's the mean time between involuntary reboots been?
To the best of my knowledge, the server has never rebooted by its lonesome
-- lightning events that also took out phones and other hardware excepted.
Scheduled reboots for periodic MS patches is all that it has needed. Biggest
headache by far is Internet connection (cable + dsl+ dual wan router+
hardware firewall). But the HA PC runs XP SP2 (was SP1, was XP, was W2k Sp1
was w2K, was w98SE , was W98, was w95b, was w95 -- preceded by progs on WFW,
W31, W30 Dos 6.2 back to Compaq DOS 1.1 (no hard drive))
>
>> No they are not a cheap panacea IME.
>
>Who's talking panacea? I'm talking about the future, which I am convinced
>will be PC-centric.
>Elk and HAI just can't give you the bang for the buck
>that a mass-produced motherboard like the VIA ITXs can.
I disagree because experience leads me to place value and cost on the OS,
application, programming the application, maintaining the OS and the
application and the programming, etc, etc etc . I believe that most folks
that have experience with both will agree with the assertion that hardware
based panels have fewer reliability issues/problems and require les care and
feeding in general.
I have been running a federated PC based home automation system since 1999
(Napco, Slinke, Elks, Enerzone thermostats, IVIE mixers, etc ) so I find the
notion that PC's are the future to be very quaint.
They are here and have been here fer a long spell. And they coexist and
complement (belt and suspenders) with panels very well including
security-only panels (NAPCO, CADDX, etc) general purpose panels (Omni,
Stargate, ELK M1G) controllers (Adicon, Elk MM442) and other purpose-built
hardware.
>More importantly,
>with voluminous disk space, a PC-centric system is far better suited to
>dealing with logging requirements than any hardwired panel I've seen.
Oh dear. What has this got to do with the price of tea in China? Some panel
systems (Elk MM443, Elk MM433 are ones that I have used) have decent
annunciator modes, but are you suggesting that folks would somehow decide to
toss out the ipod and the media center pc and usb video cams and and and and
and -- because they got a panel? What might you be talking about?
Marc
Marc_F_hult
www.ECOntrol.org
Marc F Hult
<ROBERT_G...@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
<BM2dnQrdKs0kBBTZ...@rcn.net>:
>"Marc F Hult" <MFH...@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote in message >
><ROBERT_G...@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
>
>
>Get what? That you think mongrelization to save $10 is a good thing? I
>would NEVER recommend an Insteon Icon switch in place of a slightly more
>expensive two-way X-10 switch for a newbie X-10 user for two reasons:
>
>One is the lack of codewheels. I like to be able to see what a module is
>set at without a lot of hoopla. I've seen how new users like my wife react
>to devices with codewheels compared to Hawkeye "morse code" address entry.
>
>I like modules and switches to retain their settings. Especially if they
>are buried behind wall plates, in drop ceilings and behind furniture.
>Especially if I am going to be asked by that end user for help with their
>system. I am not convinced Insteon switches can retain their settings in
>all environments.
>
>The second reason is homogeneity. I would not introduce a second protocol
>into a system if I really didn't have to. That's just introducing another
>possible failure vector for no gain whatsoever. I've been bitten by mixing
>manufacturers in X-10. Lots of little "gotchas" there is absolutely no
>reason to inflict on a newbie.
One reason for of the price comparison is remind folks that the implicit
notion in most of these discussions that reliable X-10 is less expensive
than the alternatives is demonstrably not so.
With respect to the ID issues: Code wheels should go the way of DIP switches
and jumper pins and BCD SCSI drive selectors in my (and many others')
opinion. Yours may be different.
INSTEON _does_ have to get this part right. Interestingly, in some folks
experiences, the too-hard part has been to get devices to _forget_ (return
to factory settings). If you can learn to live with a headless PC (no
keyboard, mouse or screen attached to pPC) you can learn to live with a
'headless" wall switch (assuming that the remote access actually works well
enough).
With respect to the interference issue, by analogy, you would never allow
more than two (even human) speakers in a room at the same time lest there be
"mongrelization".
Do you have a microwave? If so, presumably you don't also use a [long list
of RF devices here].
I also do think that it is useful to both save $10 _and_ begin to accrue the
benefits of a new technology rather than putting time and effort in
known-defective one. Jist my opinion and what I am doing (although the X-10
remains as a residual in my case). So far no problem, but I'm keeping my eye
out for stray hippopotamuses.
When folks start shouting NEVER about things, it is time for me to bow out.
... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org
Jeff Volp
it should work fine with the XTB. Strong return signals are clamped below
the threshold that turns on the power stage. Weak return signals are
boosted slightly.
Perhaps one of the people who have an XTB will report on this combination.
Jeff
<ben.p...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149863424.5...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Robert Green
<stuff snipped>
> >However, I do agree with their choice of a Mini-ITX as perhaps the
perfect
> >home automation controller, which supports my contention that PC based
HA,
> >specifically in the mini-ITX format, will eventually outperform hardwired
> >panels. Even Homeseer agrees. Get it? :-)
>
> Not in the Either-OR way that you, as "rah rah" advocate fer sumthin or
> 'nother, imply.
You didn't get either "it" did you? :-(
How you read my words "eventually outperform" and interpret them as
"either/or rah, rah my way only" advocacy is a mystery to me, Marc.
> HomeSeer (and Charmed Quark, and others) _also_ support Elk M1G (and Omni
> and others). So no. So Homeseer does not 'agree' with you.
If HomeSeer agreed with the "hardwired panel-centric" view of the universe,
they would have chosen a proprietary hardwired CPU panel when they recently
began selling their own HA controller hardware.
They didn't.
They know the future of HA does not lie in the Elks, the Omnis and the
Ocelots of this world. They recently chose the mini-ITX as the *only*
hardware platform that they sell. How you can construe that action by
HomeSeer as not agreeing with my view of the mini-ITX as the controller of
the future for HA is a total mystery to me. Really.
Yes, HomeSeer does support legacy panels but when it came time for them to
sell their OWN home automation hardware, they chose the mini-ITX. Yet from
this action of theirs, you get "So, HomeSeer does not 'agree' with you"?
???????????
If they believed proprietary panels were the way to go, they would have
built their own. They've supported enough other hardwired panels to know
all their strengths and weaknesses. They could have built a bang-up uber
panel *if* they chose to. They didn't. They chose what I chose, the
mini-TX PC as my basic HA controller.
--
Bobby G.
Dave Houston
John Galvin published a schematic of the original 1132B. You can find a link
to it in this thread.
Marc F Hult
<ROBERT_G...@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
<XPOdnUYmqbRM2RfZ...@rcn.net>:
>"Marc F Hult" <MFH...@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote in message
>
><stuff snipped>
>
>> >However, I do agree with their choice of a Mini-ITX as perhaps the
>perfect
>> >home automation controller, which supports my contention that PC based
>> >HA, specifically in the mini-ITX format, will eventually outperform
>> >hardwired panels. Even Homeseer agrees. Get it? :-)
>>
>> Not in the Either-OR way that you, as "rah rah" advocate fer sumthin or
>> 'nother, imply.
>
>You didn't get either "it" did you? :-(
>
>How you read my words "eventually outperform" and interpret them as
>"either/or rah, rah my way only" advocacy is a mystery to me, Marc.
Because I also read your other words. MS-PC based HA platforms have long
outperformed specialized panels in functions in which the specialized panels
don't specialize. So "eventually" arrived years ago. Help us find meaning
in your verbiage.
>> HomeSeer (and Charmed Quark, and others) _also_ support Elk M1G (and Omni
>> and others). So no. So Homeseer does not 'agree' with you.
>
>If HomeSeer agreed with the "hardwired panel-centric" view of the universe,
>they would have chosen a proprietary hardwired CPU panel when they recently
>began selling their own HA controller hardware.
Who are you quoting with the "hardwired panel-centric" term. I googled on
"panel-centric" and as far as I can tell, you are the first to use it in
Googleland with this meaning. So you are in your own little semantic
universe as far as I can tell. I have clearly explained that the actual
system that I own has multiple panels, and multiple PC's ,and have used the
term 'federated system' to describe this approach over the years in c.h.a.
Not either/or. Belt and suspenders. Cooperative. Federation. "The computer
is the network". IP-based devices.
HomeSeer is an MS OS HA application. CyberHouse was an MS-OS application and
Savoy sold beginning ca 1999 a dedicated PC-based server with ATX
motherboard at a premium price. Last I knew they still sold a PC-based
server for video surveillance, but certainly not using a mini-ITX (poor
choice for a HA PC that needs multiple cards). Charmed Quark is an MS OS HA
application. CQ sells a PC-based server with (apparently) a 7-slot
motherboard. If you want all the I/O capabilities of the PC (which you extol
elsewhere) more slots are better than few slots. Mini-ITX only has one slot
(expandable to two in some cases) and is a *poor* choice of MB if you want
many slots. very useful in many cases, but poor choice in others.
My current HomeSeer and HA controller runs on an all-in-one VIA micro-ATX
(24x24 cm) motherboard. It has three PCI and one ISA slot which is useful to
me. ABIK, no mini-ITX has ever ISA. I also have three VIA mini-itx PC's
(17x17cm). VIA is shipping a Nano-ITX motherboard (12x12cm). Nano-ITX have
mini-PCI slot but no PCI or ISA. To claim that one or other of these
particular sizes and slot configurations is the future of HA -- as you do
repeatedly -- is hyperbolic hypothetical (hippopotumus-speak) IMO.
>They know the future of HA does not lie in the Elks, the Omnis and the
>Ocelots of this world. They recently chose the mini-ITX as the *only*
>hardware platform that they sell. How you can construe that action by
>HomeSeer as not agreeing with my view of the mini-ITX as the controller of
>the future for HA is a total mystery to me. Really.
>
>Yes, HomeSeer does support legacy panels but when it came time for them to
>sell their OWN home automation hardware, they chose the mini-ITX. Yet from
>this action of theirs, you get "So, HomeSeer does not 'agree' with you"?
>???????????
>If they believed proprietary panels were the way to go, they would have
>built their own. They've supported enough other hardwired panels to know
>all their strengths and weaknesses. They could have built a bang-up uber
>panel *if* they chose to. They didn't. They chose what I chose, the
>mini-TX PC as my basic HA controller.
Do you know of a single security panels or application amongst the dozens
of manufacturers in the US alone that is pc-based? Wait. Lets
check for hippopotamuses: Do you _have_ a security system?
This is an inane discussion.
... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.Econtrol.org
Marc F Hult
Let's throw a tea party in Boston".
Here is the beginning of a synopsis of the discussion and the history of PCs
in Home Automation that would be useful for a wiki/FAQ entry.
I'd be pleased to host a 'protected' but publicly readable wiki using (eg)
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki if others commit to participating.
The site would ad-free, non-commercial, not-for-profit. Manufacturers and
developers would be encouraged to provide accurate entries about their
products which would be reviewed objectively. From time to time, entries
might be migrated/spawned to a/the 'public' wiki.
I could provide installed application and space on a server and appropriate
admin rights (ACLs) to editors, participants and visitors. A backup/mirror
would be maintained elsewhere by one or more editors in case I stroke or
fink out.
There would need to be at least one person other than me from
comp.home.automation that would be willing to act as the principal
editors/maintainers/moderator.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
PC's in Home Automation Part I
Personal computers (PC's) have been a center of attention in the evolution
of Home Automation (HA) since the days of the Altair and Apple II. The Apple
II bus made analog and digital In-Out (I/O) connected to computing and data
storage capabilities available at affordable cost to academics building
one-off scientific instrumentation and home Do-It-Yourself (DIY) folks among
others.
After Apple abandoned its hardware expansion bus, the IBM-PC, which was
introduced in 1981, and its successors (PC-XT and PC-AT) became the
moderate-cost hardware platform of choice for digital and analog I/O.
Plug-in cards using IBM's 8-bit open-specification, Industry Standard
Architecture (ISA) expansion bus proliferated. The initial selection by IBM
of a variant of the 8086 family (internally 16-bit) with an 8-bit external
bus (8088 Central Processor) over a 16-bit external architecture was made
in part because of the maturity of integrated circuits (IC's) for the 8-bit
Zilog Z-80 processor on which PCs using the then-standard CPM operating
system (OS) were based.
The 8-bit ISA bus (mapped by IBM in an "I/O" address space separate from
memory addresses) was a feature of nearly all IBM-compatible computers from
the original IBM-PC in 1981 through those based on the Intel Pentium III and
Celeron and AMD CPUs two decades later. A notable exception was the IBM
Personal System/2 (IBM-PS/2) released in 1987 which failed to thrive
commercially in part because it used a proprietary expansion bus rather than
the ISA bus. With the introduction of IBM-AT in 198x, IBM introduced a
16-bit, memory mapped ISA bus that was backward compatible with the 16-bit
I/O and memory-mapped ISA bus.
---
PCI bus
etc
--
Other PC's
Apple
Timex Sinclair
Atari
etc
--
OS's
Unix
CPM
OS2
Linux
BEOS
PC-DOS
Windows
Apple
etc
--
HA applications
CyberHouse
Invensys
Mr House
Charmed Quark
Homeseer
etc
etc, etc
++++++++++++++++++
Hope This Helps ... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org
Jeff Volp
That Powerlink has a transformer-coupled input. While not the same as the
one in the TW523, it looks like it should work fine with the XTB.
Jeff
"Dave Houston" <nob...@whocares.com> wrote in message
news:448a9aed....@nntp.fuse.net...
Dean Roddey
panel is better than a PC. They have a PC based product. So using a panel
would have A) required them to build a panel, something that would cost them
a lot of money, and B) probably make major changes to their software. So,
like us, it's a choice we made implicitly a long time ago by creating the
type of product we did. Even if we thought a proprietary panel was superior,
there's not much we could do about it short of creating a completely new
product and hiring someone to do design a panel and then to have it
manufacturered.
Both platforms have their strengths. There are things that PC based systems
can do that a panel will never do. OTOH, a panel is a hugely simpler
product, and simpler (as a rule) means less likely to break. This is not to
say that PC based systems cannot be made very stable, because they can. But
it can only be done emperically by finding a set of components that fails to
fail, because we can't look inside the box. And this is not to say that
panels don't have their problems either. They do have software in them and
it can be wrong sometimes, and the market forces them over time to get more
and more complex.
We chose a PC based platform for a number of reasons. One, I had ten years
of general purpose PC based software architecture to build on. Two, there
were already plenty of panels, so what would have been the point to get into
that market. Three, I really do think that PCs are the future of automation,
though in a more 'robustified' form. Four, the PC market is an enormous R&D
machine that dwarfs the automation market, spending more every year on R&D
than Crestron and AMX's total worth I'm sure. No proprietary hardware will
be able to remotely keep up with that. Five, given the above, software
becomes what is important, not hardware, and that's what we are good at.
Six, the home is headed towards a network backbone, and those who can
provide an automation system that leverages that network can get in for a
lower cost because the home owner has alreayd bought much of the
infrastructure that doesn't get 'charged' against the automation system.
Seven, there is a tremendous range of hardware out there from tiny systems
to multi-CPU mondo-servers, on which a software product like ours can run
without change, which provides us with the abilty to scale up and down
pretty far with a single product (which greatly reduces complexity of
product development.)
-------------------------------------
Dean Roddey
Chairman/CTO, Charmed Quark Systems
www.charmedquark.com
"Marc F Hult" <MFH...@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote in message
news:s7fl82lnlm3bia626...@4ax.com...