Re: Survey: Home Control Software

[nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston)]

There's a "gotcha" with the gradual replacement scenario. Each Insteon
device is two-way and the transmitters attenuate X-10 signals in the same
manner as two-way X-10 devices do. The more Insteon devices, the better the
Insteon reliability but the bigger the hit on X-10 reliability. It depends
on how many total devices you have but at some point you'll probably find
you need to convert all remaining X-10 devices.

All that said, most of the people using Insteon report good reliability
although some report problems. While Insteon is subject to the same signal
attenuators and noise sources as X-10, filters will fix most problems as
they do for X-10. There are some persistent complainers on the Insteon forum
but I suspect most are from people who really do not understand it.

I think an ESM1 signal meter is almost a necessity. It lets you see X-10 and
Insteon signals (although it cannot interpret Insteon) and measure relative
amplitudes. It can eliminate most of the guesswork. AutomatedOutlet.com will
even loan you one - knowing full well that 98% (my WAG) of the loaners turn
into purchases.

     http://www.automatedoutlet.com/product.php?productid=463&cat=0&page=1

Insteon prices have edged up plus they have apparently discontinued some of
their lower priced "value" lines but I think it is still the best choice for
new installations where the user doesn't want to spend far more for
hard-wired low voltage control. However, someone who has a large X-10
investment and understands the ins and outs is probably better off sticking
with it.

Given that you've had X-10 problems, you may continue to have them with
Insteon. You probably need to run the the problems down before deciding.

Whichever way you go, as you move into the new house, deploy switches and
modules in sub-groups so you can find and fix problems before you have a a
large number of devices. Troubleshooting a limited number of devices is
easier to manage. You'll have lots of time to troubleshoot.

"John J. Bengii" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>I was not aware of the RF missing factor on these devices. You are
>correct on the overhype. They discuss this technique in depth and give
>the impression all Insteon devices are "fully equipped" but when
>examining their remote units, the RF is never mentioned.
>
>The units are quite pricey and the slow replacement of X10 devices
>seems attractive. Most of mine have been removed from service due to
>several reasons
>- I am building a new home and recovering units for the move.
>- many operated unreliabily or not at all despite two powerline signal
>bridges and neighbour blocking devices.
>- too may light left on for days is costing me energy money on my
>bill, despite software to shut them down a few times a day for "just
>in case" scenarios.
>- too many "all lights on" in the middle of the night from wireless
>receivers (I think)
>
>I short the three of four dozen units and 15 years of trying to
>perfect the system has resulted in a complete distrust for X10 units
>and there is only a few spots where flakey can be useful. Soon I will
>retire and won't need my "sunrise" algorythm for a 300W halogen
>anymore either. I was hoping Inteon may be an answer for a technology
>hungry kid.
>
>"Dave Houston" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:4775911c.2425218@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Unless you're using something that receives RF directly, you cannot
>> see the
>> RF messages. You only see powerline messages so the incorrect
>> command has
>> already made it to the powerline before your software is aware of
>> it.
>>
>> Even if your software does receive direct RF messages, there are
>> seldom
>> collisions between RF codes and when there are, the result is
>> garbage -
>> there's no possible way to sort out what the two colliding messages
>> were.
>> The RF messages do contain data which allows a receiver to check
>> validity
>> but any corruption will merely cause an invalid message it will not
>> cause
>> one message to be transformed into another. IOW, corrupt RF messages
>> never
>> make it to the powerline from any X-10 transceiver.
>>
>> Bream Rockmetteller <bream(dot)rockmetteller(at)mac(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>>Regarding the software, the reason it knows it has received a "bad"
>>>message is because I told it so. When I have a light act in a
>>>strange
>>>manner, I look at the log that Indigo keeps.
>>>
>>>If I see that an RF switch somehow transmitted "turn on E10" instead
>>>of
>>>"turn on the kitchen lights" which are E1, I'll  add a script in the
>>>"Trigger Actions" sections that says something like "If you receive
>>>a
>>>message to turn on E10, send a message to turn on the kitchen
>>>lights."
>>>That way, even if the switch or the receiver or some random noise
>>>has
>>>caused the message to go bad, the software will re-transmit the
>>>correct
>>>message.
>>>
>>>I hope this helps...
>>
>>
>> http://davehouston.net  http://davehouston.org
>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/roZetta/
>> roZetta-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>


http://davehouston.net  http://davehouston.org
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/roZetta/
roZetta-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx