Re: X10 -> UPB?

["Brett Griffin" <bret.griffin@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I think there is one important point. X-10 lamp & appliance modules are
> dirt
> cheap. A lot of people would like to be able to continue using them while
> slowly phasing in a more robust system. UPB doesn't allow that so its "all
> or nothing" unless you want two different control systems.

I agree, why throw out something that works, I think many homeowner are
shifting to a controller in their home.  Weather it be HAI, HomeSeer,
HAL2000, Elk, JDS Stargate.  All manufacturers are supporting UPB and X-10.
With an HAI omni Pro II or the Omni II, your house can have both X-10 and
UPB and as the homeowner you would not know which is which, and they will
all work.  That is a great thing about these home controllers, you don't
have to get rid of everything you have, you can just start migrating to
newer technologies.

While I have the best hopes for Insteon and some of the other RF systems,
who supports them on a home control side?  That would be my first question
about these new technologies.  If Insteon RF can be controlled by X-10
commands great, but seems like a lot of extra work than just using X-10.  I
may be corrected by this on one of these controllers, but non to my
knowledge support Insteon, Zigbee or any of the other new technologies.  I
am sure once the industry adopt a standard these controllers will support
the technologies.  Software based systems because they are faster to adopt
will support sooner, but I don't trust my home to operate on any system that
brands the word Microsoft.  I don't mind auxiliary things like HAL2000,
Weblink, and other software based systems, but my primary controller will be
a hardware system that I don't have to reboot.

Back to my main point, I still plan to use my Leviton X-10 switches they are
great, but any new ones will be UPB because of their flexibility and
programmability, and the plug-in modules are cheap for X-10.   I have an
Omni Pro II, and I can control both systems, and my guests and family don't
have to care what X-10 or UPB means or how it affects them...

> If I were in your shoes, building anew, the one question I would like
> answered is how UPB distinguishes the UPB "pulse" from similarly shaped
> 40-50V triac noise pulses? Perhaps there's enough difference in the
> frequency content of the UPB "pulse" vs. other noise pulses but I'm
> dubious.

While I think it is fun to discuss the engineering side of things, most
people don't care about pulses, they just want to know it works.  Time has
shown that UPB is reliable, and blows X-10 out of the water when you discuss
programmability, and functionality.  Marshall and Stan at PCS developed this
technology in 1999, and have tested the system extensively over the last 5
years.  My first retail install was with an electrician who bought direct
from PCS in November of 2003, and the home works great.  They only known
problem found involved a retro install with a Lutron Graphic Eye system, due
to its proprietary wiring and system.  The cool thing I like about UPB is I
can control and set every single aspect of the switch via software. some
examples include, led control including the color, minimum dim levels, link
commands (scenes), multiple loads (2 max) from one switch (like bathroom
light and fan 2 switches one gang), the list goes on.  HAI has developed for
simplicity and programs the switch from the keypad or touchscreen, enter the
switch into setup (press the top side of the rocker 5 times) and touch
config on the touchscreen, and move to the next switch.

Now I am not saying UPB is for everyone, and every light.  I still use and
recommend X-10 for certain situations and budgets. However for someone
entering into lighting control, UPB brings simplicity and reliability, and
not having to worry about if you have that certain Maytag dryer, Sony TV, or
any of the other X-10 issues.

By the way why don't you just send PCS an email about your question?  They
are very easy to talk to and ask questions?

www.pcslighting.com

--
Brett Griffin, Technology Consultant
Architechtronics, Inc.
get to know home technology

*Home of "fidoh" for HAI/OnQ/Aegis
http://www.architechtronics.com/products_software.html

**keep up on cutting-edge technology... join "the EDGE" for free at
http://www.architectronics.com/edge.html

"Dave Houston" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:42d6a408.27139885@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Kurt Delaney" <kurt_dot_delaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Which of the switches you've listed have you used?
>>
>>I have used PCS, SwitchLinc (corrected my error above), and Leviton in a
>>previous house.  I am currently evaluating what to use in our new house.
>>
>>> All of the switches you listed (except UPB) use X-10's PLC protocol so
>>> all
>>> would appear to be oranges vs. one apple.
>>
>>I may have misundersood your previous comment.  I read it as you saying
>>that
>>UPB (new technology) is more expensive than X10 in general.  I was just
>>trying to point out that for similiar functionality, they are about the
>>same
>>price.  Now, no manufacturer of UPB devices seem to be developing a
>>bare-bones basic switch that competes against the $10 X10 switches -- I
>>don't know if they ever will.
>
> I think there is one important point. X-10 lamp & appliance modules are
> dirt
> cheap. A lot of people would like to be able to continue using them while
> slowly phasing in a more robust system. UPB doesn't allow that so its "all
> or nothing" unless you want two different control systems.
>
> X-10 also has wireless controls which are, so far, missing from UPB. I get
> around with difficulty, leaning on a crutch or walker. With a few
> exceptions
> (kitchen sink, bathrooms) I haven't touched a wall switch in years,
> controlling nearly everything wirelessly.
>
> If I were in your shoes, building anew, the one question I would like
> answered is how UPB distinguishes the UPB "pulse" from similarly shaped
> 40-50V triac noise pulses? Perhaps there's enough difference in the
> frequency content of the UPB "pulse" vs. other noise pulses but I'm
> dubious.
>
> Also, I think it's a risky strategy to use a noise pulse as a data
> element.
> While I recognize that one person's "noise" is another's rock'n'roll, when
> everyone else in the world is trying to filter out things that look like
> this I wonder how long it will be before we'll be reading about UPB signal
> suckers.
>