Re: XTB, reliablity, etc.

[sylvan butler <ZsdbUse1+noZs_0612@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 00:14:01 GMT, Jeff Volp <JeffVolp@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> I thought a bit about this after my earlier message, and it sounds like the
> OP arranges his filters by trial and error until he finds a configuration
> that works.  Unfortunately, that is likely to be just over the minimum
> acceptable signal levels, and the next widget plugged in could cause a
> problem.
>
> To get a reliable X10 system (and I mean RELIABLE), one has to do some
> homework.  The fact that adding a filter doesn't seem to change anything
> doesn't mean that device is not causing a problem.  It may not be enough by
> itself, but can be when something else is added on the same circuit.

I have a testerlinc.  It shows a silly "quality" number for X10 traffic,
and an equally silly "120khz activity" number.  Yet it has been
incredibly helpfull isolating noise sources.  Other things which I
suspected have shown no testerlinc differences with or without a filter,
so I "assumed" they are OK without.

Is that a flawed assumption?

> We know most computers will cause problems, so they all should have filters.

Mine are running thru UPS's, and one site caused a large problem, the
other no apparent problem.

> Compact fluorescents are a gray area.  Some work fine, but others can be a

Yup.  I relocated my problem ones so they'd all be together.  Cheaper to
filter one spot, but again with no evidence to the contrary, I did not
filter them all (yet).

> identify these is to use a X10 signal level meter like the ESM1 to measure

Probably should have one of those, but another nearly $100 is also
distaseful.

sdb