Re: What can I replace this latching relay system with?

[nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston)]

It sounds like the switches are mounted in "mud rings" which are for low
voltage wiring.

I don't think you will find any RS422 system but, if there is any
possibility that you can daisychain the low voltage switch locations, you
might want to investigate RS485 based systems like ONQ's ALC. There are a
few other RS485 based systems, but I think all will require daisychained (or
homerun) control wiring.

     http://www.onqtech.com/
     http://www.litetouch.com/
     http://www.touchplate.com/

I believe Touchplate predates GE's system. They use a similar approach and
may have something more modern to adapt to what you have.

"Steve Wechsler" <swechsler@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Wow, you guys are great!
>
>Unfotunately, it's probably going to be a couple of weeks before I can
>do a complete trace of all wiring. Here's what I know so far:
>
>1) Wall switches are installed in frames embedded in plaster rather
>than full electric boxes, and are horizontal (The frames are
>horizontal, but the switches are vertical. This configuration is no
>longer sold by GE). Most plates only have one switch installed, but
>some have two or three.
>2) Latching relays are installed inside ceiling boxes. Low voltage
>wires do not enter the boxes directly, but instead enter the relays
>through an entry in the side drilled through the box. There is no
>central controller. Unswitched 120V wiring runs to each ceiling box.
>3) There is three conductor low voltage wiring going from each switch
>to the ceiling box that it controls. Some relays have more than one
>switch controlling them.
>4) All boxes have a two conductor wire for power from a central
>transformer. The power wire is daisy chained.
>5) Some relays have an additional wire running from them to a 9-way
>remote rotary controller.
>
>I guess what I was hoping was that there would be something like an
>RS422 network that I could run on the existing wires. I may need to
>back to those controllers that Marc mentioned (but unfortunately those
>don't even provide for any automation).
>
>Steve