Re: No more X10 at Radio Shack?

["Jeff Volp" <JeffVolp@xxxxxxx>]

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1KqdnQBQ6pgYDOvYnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> I think Robert's point is that an X-10 setup is in a constant state of
> tweaking.  To that end, anyone highly concerned with tech support or SAF
> should be aware of its potential for problems.

I know.  My wife reports whenever anything technical is amiss.

> > Back then everybody was
> > talking about interference and how noise sources had to be filtered.
Well
> > it turns out that the major problem for X10 isn't from noise sources,
but
> > "signal suckers".
>
> Respectfully disagree.  The "major problem" for X-10 is actually a
> constellation of problems that arise from slow transmission speed,
primitive
> error detection and poor signal strength.  If it was faster, there would
be
> fewer collisions, if there was better error detection, you'd know when a
> targeted device failed to operate and if the signal strength was greater,
it
> wouldn't be so easily knocked out by a noisy CFL or a signal-sucking UPS.

I guess it depends on how one uses X10.  Here we have no problem with X10
speed.  I don't think I have ever seen a collision except for the ones
purposely induced while testing.  We have one controller that pretty much
does everything.  We do have palmpads and wired remotes in case we need
something out of the ordinary, but that may average just a few commands a
day.

I investigated the CFL issue while testing the XTB-II.  As reported earlier,
a set of 4 unfiltered generic (cheap) CF bulbs produced enough noise when
beating together that they almost mimicked a X10 transmission.  A couple of
times they morphed one X10 command into another.  If a device that could do
this was developed for the military, it would be called a jammer.  So people
bring these "jammers" into their homes and complain that it causes problems
for X10.  Maybe the complaint should be directed toward the CF manufacturers
so they don't radiate so much crap.  We do have CF bulbs from well-known
companies that cause no problem at all, so it can be done.

X10 did produce two-way modules that can provide a status acknowledge.  I
understand they don't sell nearly as well as the cheap receive only modules.
So cost remains the biggest driver in X10 sales.

> While I agree a meter is an important thing to have (so much so that I
> bought the Elk and the Monterey) the need for it troubles me.  It's one of
> the things that makes me classify X-10 as "it works if you know the
> secrets."   Using X-10 successfully means analyzing *every* stinkin' piece
> of equipment you buy with the X-10 meter to make sure it's not a black
> holer.  That's a damn bother.  I must confess I haven't bothered doing it
> since I've implemented the XTB's if only because I am curious to see when
> they'll become overpowered by signal suckers and noise.

People bitch that X10 is garbage.  If you take a step backward and look at
the big picture, most of the electronic stuff isn't much better.  Our Sony
XBR TV blew up its HV supply under warranty.  Then all the larger components
on the main circuit board had to be resoldered because of circular cracks
that caused intermittents as people walked through the room.  Then the tuner
failed.  Now the sound board has some intermittent.  And Sony isn't a cheap
brand.

Lets face it, most manufacturers make things as cheaply as possible.  In
today's world volume sales go to the lowest priced items.  If you can price
it a buck lower by leaving out the line filter, then maybe you will get a
much larger piece of the pie.  And that is X10's problem.

Jeff