Re: Need help with PLC noise problems in a Manhattan (New York City) apartment

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"AlanTinNYC" <AlanTinNYC@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1133165980.384648.164700@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Thank you all for your guidance.  To answer some questions/comments:
>
> 1)  I'm not an electrician or electrical engineer, but
>     I am an audio visual engineer working in Manhattan
>     for 20+ years now.  My gut feeling when I saw
>     Robert Green's RF recommendation is that in this
>     city I don't trust wireless *anything* -- too many
>     glitches in both old, tested technologies (wireless
>     microphones) to new ones (Nextel GPRS) .  We just
>     have too much traffic to keep a local RF system
>     reliable.

The mesh network protocol is remarkably advanced and hasn't very much in
common with real-time audio transmission protocols.  Each device is a
repeater and the data rates are high enough so that the time lag for
repeated commands isn't really an issue.  I asked Dave to comment on the
robustness of the current X-10 RF scheme compared to a ZigBee-type mesh
network because he's far more competent to explain the difference.

>     I thank Dave Houston for concurring on that, but
>     he asks about Insteon.  Isn't Insteon half RF-
>     based?  That's why I opted for a more "tried and
>     true" X10 solution; we even tested an X10 dimmer
>     in our old apartment four blocks away in the same
>     neighborhood and had flawless results for two
>     months.  I've since learned the hard way that the
>     two buildings are not analogous.  :-(


>     The other point about Insteon, I think, is that
>     it continues sending a command until the receiving
>     device acknowledges it.  That might mean that
>     during a long noisy period we could see the
>     command execute a few hours after it was given.
>     But I'm speculating here; I have no hands-on
>     experience with Insteon.

Someone else would have to comment on that.  I've not been interested enough
in Insteon to look very far into it.

>
> 2)  I simplified the description of my apartment's
>     environment in my last post ("That was SIMPLE,
>     Alan???")  It's not just two adjoining apartments
>     with a wall knocked down but in fact underwent a
>     gut renovation.  Every old branch circuit was
>     severed, new lines were run through new walls,
>     with new switches, outlets, etc., and one of the
>     service panels was upgraded.  I think the mains
>     wiring from the basement cutoff breakers may date
>     from 1941 but I doubt it; the feeder cable seems
>     to be PVC insulated.

That encompasses several generations of sparkies.  You can bet there are
some interesting details to the electrical plan.

>     So if we are cross-linked with any neighbors, this
>     would happen before service reaches our apartment,
>     as all our branch circuit wiring is new.

I believe Dave already pointed out, X-10 is a little like unprotected sex.
You *are* linked to every other apartment in the building UNLESS you install
a whole house blocker at the service panel that sits between your apt.
wiring and the rest of the building's wiring.  Gotta be rated at the max
rating of your panel and probably installed in its own box.  I've never
needed one but some people here use them and will hopefully chime in.

>     But if we are indeed cross-linked with our
>     neighbors before the service enters our panels,
>     wouldn't a whole-house block or attenuator stop
>     or greatly reduce that?  Otherwise, what purpose
>     do those devices serve???

They are supposed to insulate you from the rest of the world in both
directions.  Some vendors call it an X-10 firewall.

> 3)  When I speak of our lights randomly flickering on
>     or off (I chose the wrong word; they don't
>     "flicker" but do switch on or off); I did mean
>     RANDOM:  there is no recognizable time or
>     pattern, i.e., they don't turn off right after
>     going on, or vice versa.  It just happens when it
>     happens; most of the time I can run over to the
>     TesterLinc and see high 120kHz activity but no
>     valid X10 codes (lots of bad blocks, though).

Not good.  Indicates your lines are noisy enough to randomly trip the
modules.  Forgive me if I plug RF, but the newer technologies have an
incredible amount of redundancy and wouldn't respond to a noise-generated
signal.  Worst case, a stronger transmitter might block legit transmissions
but should rarely, if ever, response to noise as a legit command.  That's
because they operate so much faster that there is much more room for data
checking and security in each command interval.

> 4)  When I wrote of "good isolation" between our two
>     service panels, I used the signal generated by our
>     Active Home Pro (CM15A) and the TesterLinc
>     meter:  without the attenuators now in place,
>     signals generated on one phase of one service
>     panel could be detected by devices on both phases
>     of both service panels.  This was the case even
>     with a PZZ01 installed in each panel.
>
>     But with the 6285 installed, I could not operate
>     devices or meter anything on the other panel from
>     the one the CM15A was plugged into.  We tested
>     both panels that way, and they do appear to be
>     isolated from each other.
>
> 5)  My method of measuring noise levels:  using
>     Mode 4 of the TesterLinc ("120kHz Activity"), I
>     can see Quality Counts of around 50, or 80, or 120
>     at various noisy times.  This usually does not
>     change as I switch branch breakers off.  The one
>     time I saw the Quality Count drop when I switched
>     off a branch circuit, I checked everything
>     plugged into the branch.  That's how I found the
>     noisy PC monitor the other night.
>
>     I plug the meter into an outlet with no other
>     resistors (appliances, x10 devices, etc) on that
>     branch.  Of course, when I shut that breaker, the
>     meter goes dead.  But there is nothing else on
>     that branch that would generate any signal or
>     noise.
>
>     As per my electrician's and my understanding of
>     Leviton's written instructions, the filter is
>     installed on a separate pair of 15 amp circuit
>     breakers.  So when I switch the filter "off", the
>     other branches stay on, including the TesterLinc's
>     meter, but the filter's branches (one for each
>     phase) are switched off.  During relatively quiet
>     times, the Quality Count may jump from 000 or 001
>     to the 20s, 30s or higher when I switch the filter
>     off.  That's how it's supposed to work.  But
>     during peak noisy times, switching off the
>     breakers feeding the 6285 cuts the Quality Count
>     from around 120 down to around 60.  That's
>     opposite of how it's supposed to work.
>
>     But based on feedback I'm getting from Robert
>     Green and Dave Houston, I suspect I don't have my
>     6285s installed properly.  (See below, very bottom
>     of this post.)

Dave's covered most of this.  Get an ESM-1 meter.  It will give you more
useful information than quality counts.

> 6)  My only controller device at this time is the
>     CM15A.  When it transmits codes, I see Quality
>     Counts of around 50 - 60.  That's at the low end
>     of the Quality Count during our noisy evenings, as
>     I mentioned above (count can be from the 50s to
>     the 120s).
>
>     All of my dimmers are X10 RSW17 or companion RSW19
>     slave switches.  No other modules at this time,
>     but if this goes well I will add 2 or 3 plug-in
>     dimmers -- all for incandescent lights (no
>     fluorescents, CFLs, halogen low voltage
>     transformers, etc.)

X-10 unfriendly devices are insidious.  Almost anything from a shaver
charger to an aquarium heater can mess up X-10.  From what you've been
describing, you still have some more signal suckers in your house - you just
haven't found them yet.  A good meter is essential.  Signal suckers act
cumulatively.  A lot of small ones can really impede the signal but they are
hard to find unless you can see their effect on a good meter or a scope.
>
>     We are at this time transceiving only House Code
>     L. We switched from House Code G within the first
>     week of our problems, before we bought the tester
>     and started serious troubleshooting.
>
> 7)  Regarding using multiple HCA02-10E amplifiers in a
>     single home:  Leviton in fact specifies that if
>     there are sub-panels, an amplifier is required at
>     each one.  So I don't think that separate
>     HCA02-10Es at each of two main panels would be a
>     problem, but I'm not spending anything on them
>     until we deem them necessary.

I thought you didn't have subpanels but two equivalent panels feeding one
combined apartment.  Dave will correct me if I am wrong but I think it's
possible that twin panels will have phase issues where subpanels won't.  I
disconnected my HCA02-10E shortly after installing it.  Too many "broadcast
storms" of unknown origin.

I would start with a good meter (I use the Monterey because it's got a
digital readout but it's incredibly pricey).  Then I would set up a standard
reference - hopefully with a maxicontroller and a lamp module.  I would
start at the ends of two branch circuits and read the signal strength.
Then, turn off all other breakers and read the signal again.  If it's about
a volt higher, you then turn on the other breakers one by one until you find
the one that's sucking the signal.

> 8)  This whole building has been solely residential
>     since it was built.  Not even doctors' offices
>     on the ground floor or commercial storefronts.

But it sounds like it's nearly 70 years old.  Think of how few electrical
appliances there were back then.


> I think that addresses the comments & questions posed so far.  But both
> Robert Green and Dave Houston mention stuff that bring me to doubt my
> filter installation:
>
> Following Leviton's instructions, the filter is installed on two poles
> of a 15 amp breakers:
>
>   ----------------------------------------------------
>   |                                                  |
>   |         |               |                     |  |
>   |       L1|             L2|                     |N |
>   |         |               |                     |  |
>   |   -------------   -------------               |  |
>   |   |           |   |           |               |  |
>   |   | BREAKER A |   | BREAKER B |               |  |
>   |   |    (1)    |   |    (2)    |               |  |
>   |   -------------   -------------               |  |
>   |   |           |   |           |-----|    |----|  |
>   |   | BREAKER B |   | BREAKER A |    --------   |  |
>   |   |    (3)    |   |    (4)    |    |      |   |  |
>   |   -------------   -------------    | 6285 |   |  |
>   |   |           |   |           |    |      |   |  |
>   |   | BREAKER A |   | BREAKER B |    --------   |  |
>   |   |    (5)    |   |    (6)    |-----|    |----|  |
>   |   -------------   -------------               |  |
>   |   |           |   |           |               |  |
>   |   | BREAKER B |   | BREAKER A |               |  |
>   |   |    (7)    |   |    (8)    |               |  |
>   |   -------------   -------------               |  |
>   |   |   (etc.)  |   |   (etc.)  |               |  |
>   \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
>
> This is how mine are installed.  At first I couldn't see how this would
> filter *all* incoming noise, i.e., the branch circuits on breakers 4
> and 6 are filtered, but wouldn't the noise bypass the filter on the
> other branch circuits?  (I mentioned earlier I'm an audio visual
> engineer.  If we apply a bandwidth filter or echo canceler to a channel
> of a mixing board, the other channels remain unfiltered.  To filter the
> whole board we would need to filter its line input or mixed output.)

Yes.  It would filter only what on that branch circuit.  It's not what you
want.

> But I'm assuming the instructions are correct and the 6285 functions as
> a big "signal sucker" in close proximity to the other branches.  In
> addition, the instructions specify that the filter be wired to a 15 amp
> double-pole breaker (or two single pole breakers) to meet NEC spec.
> Doesn't that mean it must be on its own branch circuits?
>
> And wouldn't this mean that if there is noise generated on one of my
> branches internally (like my old PC monitor), the 6285 would suck it
> up?
>
> But Robert points out that if I shut off the filter, "all circuits it
> was filtering should be dead."  And Dave points out that "the 6285 only
> blocks signal or noise from passing in or out of your apartment's
> wiring."
>
> This suggests that the 6285 should be installed prior to the branch
> circuits, not in parallel with them.  But that would require something
> far greater than a 15 amp breaker.

Ubetcha.  Smarthome says:

"Designed for installations where the Whole-House Blocking Coupler or X10
Pro Whole-House Blocking Coupler can't be used, the Signal Attenuator
reduces the signal strength of external X10 signals. Other outside noise
sources, such as baby monitors, that are on a similar frequency to X10 will
also be reduced."

Why aren't you using:

http://www.smarthome.com/4851.html

# Blocks X10 signals from entering the home
# Couples X10 signals across 2 and 3 phase systems
(Image says good for 225A)


--
Bobby G.