Re: Hard-wired HA lighting; was Re: XTB, reliablity, etc.

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Marc_F_Hult" <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:q6brn2pbfsu4ldnaikhu80mf691c0ptp25@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 05:30:26 -0500, "Robert Green"
> <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> <ud6dnbYPAvgnruDYnZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@xxxxxxx>:
>
> >"Marc_F_Hult" <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >
> ><stuff snipped>
> >
> >> Take the example of converting to centralized hard-wired
> >> dimming of a ceiling light powered through a wall switch.
> >
> >That ceiling light represents perhaps one tenth of my HA use.  Most of my
> >modules are plugged into outlets or powerstrips controlling free-standing
> >lamps and devices.  When you have to start pulling wire to every switch
and
> >outlet in the house to create a truly hardwired control system, you're
> >talking about turning the house upside.  Wifey no like!
> >
> >> Commonly you
> >> can get to the supply to that individual switch where it comes up the
> >> wall from the basement. Retrofitting for a centralized hardwired system
> >> consists in replacing the SPST switch with a wirenut, replacing the
> >> faceplate with the hole with one with no hole, and running a 14/2+G to
> >> the dimmer panel through the basement ceiling. How hard is that?
> >
> >See my response to Brian about how hard that can be.  I stand by what I
said
> >to him.  Running a new three-way switch - just a manual version - takes a
> >heck of lot more time and effort than doing it via X-10, at least for me.
>
> And a good example of where INSTEON runs rings around X-10 for a variety
of
> reasons.

They've had twenty plus years to study the problem.  I would HOPE that they
made some improvements! :-)

> >As I said to Brian, the devil lives in the details.
> >
> [several useful examples of nitty-gritty realities of practical DIY home
> maintenance snipped]
>
> >Remember the poor guy from Puerto Rico with the concrete house?  He's not
> >pulling cable any more easily than setting up and debugging X-10.  It's
easy
> >to discount all that you and Brian know and have learned to be able to
pull
> >your own wire.  I maintain that X-10 requires a similar level of
knowledge
> >to be used effectively.  Lots of people feel that it shouldn't,
>
> Well, lottsa people say lottsa things. I, for one, have never said this
> (ABIK).

Nor have I accused you of it, AFAIK.  (-:  It just seems to be a commonly
expressed sentiment here and elsewhere.

> >but that's
> >life, I guess.  Lots of people believe computers shouldn't have so many
> >things to fuss with but believing it doesn't make it so.
>
> My point (as usual) is that hard-wired lighting and other hard-wired AC
power
> control can/may have its place in most every automated home. It is not
helpful
> to describe the decision as Either/Or in my opinion. There is no need to
bet
> on horses or root for the home team or otherwise disparage or ignore
> alternatives in my opinion.

I'm quite well aware that there are newer systems that offer far better
out-of-the-box reliability than X-10 but I am faced with the issue of sunk
costs.  When I can't push X-10 any farther, I'll doubtless look into them
much more carefully, but I feel Jeff's XTB has bought another five, if not
ten years of useful life out of my X-10 system.

I also have another issue to deal with.  My wife hates upgrades.  She hates
it when the IT staff where she works forces her to learn a new OS and new
apps.  She hated it when I tried to foist a One-For-All remote on her as a
replacement for the X-10 remotes she had grudgingly learned to operate.  Her
enthusiasm for HA is roughly equivalent to my affinity for cleaning up her
diarrhea covered rescue dogs when she is on travel.  I deal with it, but I'd
rather not! Unless an HA system comes along that makes the changeover
transparent (not likely) we're probably going to continue with X-10.
Monitoring her Rascal, her pregnant canine is really the first thing that's
come along that's sharpened her interest in the capabilities of HA.  Up
until now at least, HA has, for her, mostly been a solution in search of a
problem to solve.

> PLC, RF, IR and hard-wired can coexist. I have decided on technical
grounds
> (and experiences reported in this newsgroup and elsewhere) that INSTEON
and
> X-10 do not play well enough together (for my purposes) despite what the
> manufacturer claims. I like the improvements afforded by INSTEON including
the
> all-important tactile switch response. So the mix of AC wiring control in
my
> house has migrated from X-10 + hardwired to INSTEON + hard-wired.

That's a perfectly rational choice.  HA component selection is obviously a
multiple attribute decision making process.  If I were still doing that sort
of work, I'd gen up a table of qualities like tactile response, low price,
high reliability and so on, and assign them a ranking to try to determine
which system fit best.  You've decided Insteon works well for you for a
number of reasons which just happen to rank fairly low in my ordering of
attributes.

I want lots of controllers spread throughout the house.  I want the devices
to be inexpensive.  I can tolerate a modest level of mis-operation (a light
failing to fire when activated by a motion sensor) and I don't much care
about the feel of wall switches because there are really only three wall
switches that we ever use.  None of those wall switches are ever dimmed.
Our requirements and preferences are clearly quite different, but that
doesn't mean either of our choices are wrong.

> (and FWIW, the $200+ you jist spent on  XTB X-10 boosters (however useful
they
> are) to replace the X-10 boosters for which you previously _also_ spent
> perfectly good money on, woulda got you ten (10) INSTEON dimmers +
change --
> currently *still* $19.99 each with free shipping from you know where.

As I've noted before I am *very* reluctant to torture the old wiring in my
house for any reason.  That especially includes swapping out X-10 switches
that work well for us with Insteon switches that would work equally as well,
but which would be completely uncontrollable by the types of control devices
we rely on most.  It just doesn't make sense for us and it has little to do
with any boosterism for X-10 or dislike of Insteon.  It's just not a
practical solution for people like us who very rarely use a wallswitch for
anything, especially dimming.  If, when changing out the switches, I broke
one of the already short and over-twisted wall wires, I'd have to do a lot
of grunt work to repair it.  No thanks!

We use a fairly simple setup that's affordable because X-10 modules are so
inexpensive.  In the rec room, for instance, the first press of B6 brings up
a single incandescent fixture near the stairwell.  The second press
activates 1/2 of the fluorescent ceiling fixtures (every other unit).  The
third press turns on the remaining units.  One house/unit code (and
therefore one button) controls three levels of lighting.

Mostly, we only use the first level when passing by.   When we're in the
room, we'll  light just half of it and if we're doing something that
requires a lot of light, we press the button three times and all the modules
come on.   This is accomplished by piggybacking modules set to the same
code.  A very substantial benefit is that the ceiling fluorescents no longer
come on after a power line interruption.  The first module, connected to an
incandescent lamp sometimes does, but that's a lot better than the whole
room lighting up.

When piggybacked, the downstream modules don't react to the first powerline
blip - only the first module does.  Another benefit is that piggybacking
defeats local sensing.  The fixtures that used to turn themselves back on
soon after being turned off no longer do so when piggybacked.  Who needs
local control for ceiling fixtures without switches anyway.  And best of
all, there's no module diode castration involved!

I came up with the idea when I used to use my X-10 RF belt controller in the
color darkroom.  I wanted to make sure the lights would never come on
accidentally and that it would take at least two or three button presses to
activate them.

It's a very practical way to vary light levels with COTS fluorescents using
appliance modules and it only consumes a single unit code.  I have no idea
whether I could do that with Insteon or another protocol, and I would be
loathe to abandon it.  It's also very intuitive.  Want more light?  Hold the
button down.  The only downside is that if you want to go from all lights
back to the single stairwell light, you have to turn them all off first.
That hasn't been very often.

It does consume a lot of appliance modules but they can be had new for less
than five bucks apiece.  That's 1/4 the price of the cheapest Insteon
switch, BTW.  So for the price of some powerstrips and modules, I can have
tri-level lighting for what a single Insteon switch would cost.  I don't see
any benefits, I'm afraid, only negatives if I were to switch.

--
Bobby G.