Re: No more X10 at Radio Shack?

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Jeff Volp" <JeffVolp@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:KXBdh.437487$QZ1.325581@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "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.

I know what you mean.  X-10's been a help in that they really do have a lot
of technical information on their products as well as step-by-step stuff for
non-techies.  Ever since the "stuck Palmpad button" when I was away and
out-of-touch I've had to leave pretty specific troubleshooting
documentation.  In that case, she got by because most of the lamps she uses
are operable by local control and that's the only thing that worked.  A
stuck RF transmitter button (now that it's hooked to the XTB turbocharger)
crippled almost every X-10 device in the house.  Of course this happened on
a critical day for her.  It's also happened to me when I least needed it and
for a while, it looked like we were going back to the land of the 99 cent
dumb snap switches again.  There's hardly anything you can do that would
make an entire house-full of simple manual toggle switches misbehave as
badly as X-10 did that day.

Experiences like that make it easy to see where Bill K's opinion is coming
from.  Those are the situations where the Monterey is worth its weight in
polonium.  It displayed a steady stream of P1 ON's (along with collisions
and other junk) that enable me to at least figure out what transmitter it
was.  Even though I disabled the P housecode transceiver, the continuous
transmission of the RF knocked out all RF controllers like the remotes, the
stickaswitches and lots of other stuff.  Now I have a "executive summary"
document that tries to explain how to detect such a problem with the
Monterey and what things to disable and in what order to attempt to get
things working.  What I'd really like is a handheld RF detector that I could
wave around the room that would beep when it encountered a stream of X-10 RF
with some degree of directionality.

> > > 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.

Very wise words.  I think that one sentence explains how as many people seem
to love X10 as hate it.  If you don't use multiple Hawkeyes, you probably
won't see many collisions but if you have more than one and they're near
each other, trouble awaits.  The equation is also dependent on the number of
people moving around at any one time.   I find their greatest use is as a
guardian.  Put one in a drawer that shouldn't be opened and it will leave a
record in Activehome of exactly when it was opened.

> 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.

The "controller-centric" is very well-suited to the XTB but it's only one of
many, many possible X-10 configurations.  I had given up on the CM11A and
the TW-523 that comes with the Ocelot because they had become so unreliable
without a signal boost.  I am slowly redesigning the system to bring those
devices back on line.

> 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.

Our setup and use patterns are almost completely the opposite so it's easy
to see how one man's X-10 glass may be half full and another's broken in
bits on the floor!

> 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.

It's such a problem for the military that they have come up with schemes to
broadcast highly compressed packets at the ionization trails of meteors to
bounce directly to a remote receiver because such directed transmission are
hard to jam.

> 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.

That turned into a bigger issue than I thought when I labelled CF bulbs for
use in certain sockets only.  That seemed a little extreme to SWMBO.  Things
became even worse when I went back and bought the same brand of GE CF bulbs,
the same model number, the same everything except a few digits on the inkjet
lot numbers.  The second batch was noisy as hell and jammed the X10 signal
where the first batch did not.  That's when I bought the big box of filters
and put them on all lamps that could accommodate a CF bulb.

One would hope that manufacturers of switching power supplies and CF bulbs
would have gotten enough bad feedback from angry X-10 users to induce them
to change their designs.  But in a world where a 1 cent price difference
matters so deeply to the bean counters, I suspect they won't make CFL's and
switching power supplies more X-10 friendly unless they can also make it
cheaper at the same time.

> 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.

That's one conclusion you can draw.  Another is that they're basically
useless because they tell you the state of the switch, not of the load!

> > 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.

I've owned Sony's since their first 6 transistor shirt pocket radio.  Their
quality peaked around the time of the TC55 portable cassette recorder.
Built like a Sherman tank, I still see reporters shoving it in people's
faces on TV.  It was downhill from there.  What can you expect from a
company that paid Michael Jackson 1 BILLION dollars (since reneged upon) and
who invented the portable music device but let Apple and the Ipod stomp it
in the marketplace?  Losers!

> 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.

One of them, anyway.  (-:

--
Bobby G.