Re: Suggestions for X10/Automation Widgets

[The Alien <Someone@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

X-No-archive: yes On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:38:39 GMT,
nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston) used recycled pixels to say:

>Jeff,
>
>There was an article in Nuts & Volts in September 2001 titled "Build the
>X-Lock" by Jeff Mazur that was along the lines of what The Alien is
>suggesting. It listened to the powerline and, when it heard an alien X-10
>command, jammed it by corrupting the signal. It used a COP8FLASH µC.
>
>The approach has the advantage that it works without modifying any existing
>modules. It has the disadvantage that it will cause an eternal duel for
>control of the powerline should the controller (or repeater) sending the
>signal be one that senses collisions and automatically retransmits. ACT
>controllers, RR501s, Ocelots, some coupler/repeaters and others
>automatically resend after collisions.
>
>For The Alien,
>
>Insteon only responds to commands sent from devices that have been
>"enrolled" in the system. You need physical control of a device to enroll
>it. Each device has a "unique" ID. Commands include the ID of the sender and
>target receiver.
>
>"Jeff Volp" <JeffVolp@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>>"The Alien" <Someone@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:dfahq1tn475kinlmobk681ribnl7c5ta42@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>> How about incorporating security into X-10?  Not house security but
>>> command security.... have the modules only respond to your commands
>>> and not your neighbors!
>>>
>>> One example:  My X-10 is set to "128", when my neighbor turns on
>>> "A-1", my "A-1" ignores the request,  when I turn on "A-1", I send a
>>> "128" first, then "A-1" "A-on" then module responds.   If it see a
>>> "A-1" "A-OFF" it will ignore it because 128 did not preceed the
>>> command?
>>>
>>> Or something along those lines?!  THEN I would be glad to turn my X-10
>>> stuff back on and start using it again!   Until then, the market is
>>> TOO saturated with X-10 stuff.  Just check my neighborhood, turn on
>>> "A-1" and about 3 other houses light up along with yours!!!
>>
>>It might be possible to do something like that using perhaps a two character
>>housecode and a custom module.  A "high security" module would respond to
>>X-A-1-ON, but not just A-1-ON (where X is a housecode other than A in this
>>example).  Modules so modified would have to be controled by high-end
>>controllers that have the ability to transmit multiple housecodes.  I recall
>>someone developed a PIC version of a X10 module, and this may be something
>>that could be incorporated into that design.
>>
>>You can probably solve your problem much more simply by just changing your
>>housecode.  If you still have problems, try the whole-house blocker.
>>
>>I was just looking for a few needs that could be met within the existing
>>protocol.  Some good suggestions have been received here and by e-mail.
>>Dave Houston's CM15A conversion looks very useful.  One that I still like
>>myself is a souped up TW523 that could drive both phases so no repeater or
>>coupler is necessary.  There seem to be a fair amount of interest in
>>wireless temperature monitoring.  And there were a bunch of other individual
>>suggestions.
>>
>>I plan to start working on some of these as the new year rolls around.
>>
>>Thanks again to all who contributed to this thread.
>>
>>Jeff
>>


I've been wondering about the InsteaOn technology?  If in fact it did
only listen to your codes.

The homes here are too tightly packed together for the filter to
work... I know a neighbor who tried this solution but only wasted
their money - it reduced the "noise" only 5%.   I've tried changing
codes and had someone chase me around the letters.... I guess they
liked my dim commands?  who knows!


------------------------------------------------
Autobot This Spammers!
<A HREF="mailto:postmaster@[127.0.0.1]";></A>
mailto:postmaster@xxxxxxxxx
(to reply to actual address, dispense the dots before
and after sirname.