Re: Nigel's gratuitous troll

[Raymond <Reb.barnett@xxxxxxx>]

Current spend on home automation since I started 'doing' in about =
spring
is up around the =A31000 mark. I know because Kate reminded me a few
nights ago :-(. This is more than the TV but much less than either car.
Whilst I am more than happy to pay out for automation, I cannot get =
away
from the fact that there are plenty of other things to spend money on =
(a
faster car, more petrol) so it is important I consider the cost =
benefit.
Automation is in its infancy - there are no real show homes/friends
homes you can go and see to prove that it is genuinely useful and
practical, so I want to feel my way around without risking too much
cash, until I'm happy it is worthwhile.

In addition to my concern for cost and benefit (Kate has been
enthusiastic so far, but she doesn't share my love of gimmicks so I =
have
to demonstrate benefit to keep her on board with the spending).=20

I still don't see the problem with comms down a power line... I
understand where X10 falls down heavily, but surely the solution is =
X10+
rather than junk it and floodwire with CAT5? Does mains have a bandwith
issue - I'm guessing that you don't need much to implement automation
functionality such as on/off, dimming, status requests complete with
transmission receipts... Can't you just put an X10 filter on the main
powerline into the house to deal with interference from other houses.
Besides, isn't it NORWEB who are considering running a full blown
internet/telephone service over powerlines to your house - if they can
do that with the cables running to your house, surely it's possible to
do something with the cables running inside your house?

Ray.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: keith.doxey@xxxxxxx [mailto:keith.doxey@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: 01 September 1999 22:43
> To: REB.Barnett@xxxxxxx
> Subject: [ukha_d] Re: Nigel's gratuitous troll
>=20
>=20
> Hi Raymond,
>=20
> First of all....why I am not in favour of Radio/Powerline comms
>=20
> When the first cordless telephone appeared many moons ago there was =
no
> security coding on them and very few people had problems with=20
> them because
> they were expensive and there werent many around. As they=20
> grew in popularity
> so did the problems,
>=20
> people using other peoples base stations to make calls. - =20
> cured by security
> coding
> difficulty getting a clear channel - temporarily cured by adding more
> channels
>=20
> Then came digital and the interference mostly went away, but=20
> they still
> arent in everyones houses. When they are there will be=20
> congestion problems
> again at certain times. Consider what it is like trying to=20
> use a mobile
> phone on the motorway immeadiately after a big pile up has occured, =
no
> connection because everyone is trying to use the network at=20
> the same time
> and there isnt the bandwidth available.
>=20
> With your DECT phone you only use it for a small percentage=20
> of the day. The
> chances of you and all your neighbours within interfering=20
> range all wanting
> to use them at the same time is probably nil. However, when you start
> talking about using RF for linking your Hifi and TV=20
> throughout the house and
> having all sorts of appliances constantly chatting amongst=20
> themselves then
> the airwaves get pretty full. As the prices drop and your=20
> neighbours start
> to buy these goodies as well I thing it will get pretty hectic.
>=20
> Collision detection avoids problems with data corruption but=20
> they are still
> a bad thing, firstly you sent the data and got an=20
> acknowledgement that it
> was bad data so you resend and it is confirmed good data. End=20
> result...data
> gets through but it took twice as long as it should have, it=20
> doubled the
> traffic on the network and more traffic means greater risk of=20
> collisions.
> (just like the roads !!!)
>=20
> With cable it would almost certainly have got through first time.
> Powerline technology like X10 also suffers similar problems=20
> but without
> error checking and acknowledgement the problems are much=20
> worse. We in the UK
> also have a greater risk of interference from adjacent properties. =
Our
> houses are much smaller and much closer together than in the=20
> US. Also the
> Americans only seem to have 2 houses fed from a mains=20
> transformer, here a
> single substation can feed several streets.
>=20
> Taking your point about not plugging things in twice, if that=20
> were the case,
> everyone would still have a radiogram in the corner of the=20
> lounge so they
> only had to plug the mains in. Loads of things have more than=20
> one lead, you
> already mentioned the TV, lots of them are portables that=20
> allegedly dont
> need an aerial but most people plug one in because the RF=20
> reception on it is
> crap due to reflections from people moving in the room.=20
> Video, Satellite,
> Hifi many phones and answering machines, computers all have=20
> more than one
> lead to plug in.
>=20
> USB does indeed combine 2 data wires and 2 power wires in the=20
> one cable/plug
> but only for very low power devices. Big stuff still requires=20
> its own power
> supply, and by daisy chaining the USB lead are you not=20
> plugging it in more
> than once?
>=20
> At work I am installing CCTV cameras using my Video over CAT 5 boxes
> (yes...the first "production run" does now exist) and
these=20
> use a single
> CAT5 for the power and video (+ audio if required). They are=20
> plugged into
> our structured wiring and can be moved wherever we want them almost
> instantly. For checking camera positions we were plugging=20
> into different
> sockets and patching them to a TV where we could see the=20
> image. It is dead
> easy to move stuff anywhere.
>=20
> Lots of people have to rewire older homes and those fortunate=20
> enough to have
> custom built home all have the opportunity to install CAT5=20
> with the minimum
> of effort. As long as you have CAT5 adjacent to every mains=20
> socket you can
> have anything anywhere.
>=20
> Thats what I am doing but I appreciate others do feel differently.
>=20
> Keith
>=20
> Keith Doxey
> http://www.btinternet.com/~krazy.keith
> Krazy Keith's World of DIY HomeAutomation
>=20
>=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Raymond [mailto:Reb.barnett@xxxxxxx]
> > Sent: 01 September 1999 17:26
> > To: 'ukha_d@xxxxxxx'
> > Subject: [ukha_d] Re: Nigel's gratuitous troll
> >
> > I'm not really articulating myself properly, but my basic=20
> point is that
> > for domestic home automation, you are never going to sell a=20
> system to
> > ordinary people that needs a re-wire of their house and
everything
> > plugged in twice. I'm sure the ideal would be to use a 4-pin plug
=
to
> > transmit your data down, but I can't see that happening for a
long
> > while. And if you don't sell the system to ordinary people,=20
> then volumes
> > will always be low, and we'll moan about high prices in the UK.
> >
> > Radio transmissions do seem to be fairly well regulated, so=20
> I don't see
> > why a standard for DECT like transmissions of audio and control
> > information isn't possible within a domestic environment. If the
> > transmissions via radio are digital and have proper=20
> collision detection
> > etc then I don't see what the problem is.
> >
> > I accept that cabled protocols will always be better in=20
> principal, but
> > then I also accept that Betamax was better in principal...
> >
>=20
>=20
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> MyPoints-Free Rewards When You're Online.=20
> Start with up to 150 Points for joining!
> http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/805
>=20
>=20
> eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/ukha_d
> http://www.egroups.com -
Simplifying group communications
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20

------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOU'RE GOING TO NEED NEW CLOTHES FOR SCHOOL. UNLESS YOU'RE A NUDIST. =

Find out what's hot at Talk City's back to school site. Chat, games,
fashion and prizes. http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/850
=



eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/ukha_d
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying
group communications