Re: No more X10 at Radio Shack?

[Charles Sullivan <cwsulliv@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 07:11:02 +0000, Dan Lanciani wrote:

> In article <pan.2006.12.10.00.00.14.483183@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, cwsulliv@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Charles Sullivan) writes:
> | On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 06:33:11 +0000, Dan Lanciani wrote:
> |
> | > In article <pan.2006.12.06.23.37.24.901638@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, cwsulliv@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Charles Sullivan) writes:
> | >
> | > | The AM14A Appliance Module is supposed to report whether of not
> | > | the load is connected, but is buggy and (almost) always reports
> | > | that the load is connected when it's not.
> | >
> | > You know that the AM14A can determine whether the load is connected
> | > only when the relay is off, right?
> | >
> | > 				Dan Lanciani
> | > 				ddl@danlan.*com
> |
> | Yes, that too, but...
> |
> | What I've found is that the only time an extended status_ack from
> | a PLM22/AM14A module will report "no load" is:
> |
> | 1. Immediately after applying AC power to the module, with
> | nothing plugged into the module and the module initially Off.
> |   -- or --
> | 2. If a load is unplugged from the module while the module is in
> | the Off state.
> |
> | Once the module has been turned on with no load connected, it
> | continues to report that a load _is_ connected after the module
> | is turned off again.
>
> That seems to explain the behavior I remember.  At first I thought it
> was being helpful by saving the state from off to on and was just buggy
> or getting latched up later.  But it sounds like it is consistent firmware
> bug. :(  It's too bad because I know they could do better.  I coded the
> load detection in my replacement RR501 firmware, and the hardware is pretty
> much the same.  For that matter, I guess anything that could get local control
> right must also be able to do load detection when the relay is off...
>
> | I've checked several different units and gotten the same results.
> | Under the circumstances, the load-reporting feature of these
> | appliance modules is practically worthless.
> |
> | By contrast, the load-reporting of the LM14A Lamp Module seems
> | to be reliable.
>
> I thought I also had some problem with that, but this sounds encouraging.
> I'll have to do some fresh testing with the 10 LM14As I got on that last
> special 2-way module sale. :)
>
> 				Dan Lanciani
> 				ddl@danlan.*com

I've wondered what X-10's intentions are regarding the LM14A/AM14A product
lines.  That big sale makes me wonder whether they are either abandoning
the products or are introducing improved models and just want to clear out
their inventory of old stock.

You may or may not have noticed that the Extended Code document formerly
named xtc798.doc on X-10's manuals page is now named xtdcode.pdf.  A
cursory inspection of the differences reveals that the two formerly "don't
care" bits in the data byte for the extended code preset (0x31) command
are now described as programming a ramp rate.  They're still "don't care"
for any of the LM14A units I have, so is there a "new and improved"
product in the wings or did someone at X-10 start with an obsolete file
when generating the PDF document?

I guess we'll find out sooner or later, maybe if a "does not / does too"
flamewar breaks out on this newsgroup over the capabilities of the
LM14A, but more likely if an attempt to purchase a LM14A _at list price_
from the X-10 website pops up a "Sold Out" message.

Regards,
Charles Sullivan