Re: Insteon Review

[nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston)]

Ralph <no-spam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Dave Houston wrote:

>> The ESM1 was plugged into the target circuit and it showed nothing during
>> the failures which was an indication that the RF link wasn't working. It
>> turned out that I had repositioned one unit (to avoid the bright LED which
>> really is annoying when looked at head-on) and had the antennas oriented
>> badly but this is with the RF units only 8' apart. I think this will be
>> tough to troubleshoot without dedicated diagnostic tools to indicate both RF
>> and PLC activity. In fairness, in a permanent installation the antenna
>> orientation is unlikely to change - but I suggest the RF units be within a
>> few feet of each other. And, it may well be that they have diagnostics in
>> the firmware that can only be triggered by a PC interface.
>
>If your RF range is only a few feet, you've probably got some 900MHz
>interference. I had exactly that problem and changed the "channel" on
>the interfering equipment and now have no RF issues. It's a design error
>that Insteon can't change it's frequency or do spread spectrum. OTOH, it
>seems to me that the whole RF coupling is not a big deal, why not just
>use a wired bridge?

Ralph,

In my case I think it was just the way I had the antennas (mis)aligned and
the generally RF unfriendly walls and ceilings (lots of wire lathe). While I
concluded that the RF bridge is the weakest link, I suspect it will be OK
for most people (excluding other 904MHz devices).

If you've read the other installments of my running review, you've found
that my overall assessment is positive as regards the technical issues. I
like the Insteon concept and expect it will prove to be robust. As you know,
I have the same qualms as you about the terms of the license for the SDK. If
they weren't so bad, I might buy it and develop an RF to Insteon bridge so
that palmpads and Prontos could control the Insteon modules.