Re: Z-Wave RF range

["Robert L Bass" <robertbass1@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> To me it sounded like he had
> actually bought the stuff and tried it.

It sounded like that but you have to know
the guy a little better.  He's not here for an
interest in HA any more than Olson or
Morgan.  They're a bunch of nasties who've
clearly stated their intention to make this
newsgroup uninhabitable in the past.

> It is always good to hear from people
> who have use a certain technology.

It would be good but he's not a candidate.

>> It sounds like you've got a home that
>> for some unknown reasons is problematic
>> for RF. That doesn't make Z-Wave good
>> or bad.  It just means your house is RF
>> unfriendly.
>
> Well, it may be RF unfriendly but my take
> is that technology marketed as home
> automation must be able to cope...

Various systems which are appropriate for one location may be totally inappropriate for another.  It isn't necessary that a system
be good for everu location for it to qualify as good in general.

> Lots of houses out here like this one...

Considering the success of cordless phones, wireless LANs and so on, I'd say that the vast majority of homes are not like yours.
Speaking of phones, if cordless phones don't "cope" well in your home do you condemn them all as unacceptable everywhere else?

> Else there is going to be the usual rash
> of unhappy customers like you have it
> with X10...

I don't have unhappy X10 customers.  I refuse to sell the stuff.

> Or in the case of contractors the post-install complaints which makes them turn their
> backs on the technology if that festers.

RF systems work quite well in most locations.  X10 festers.  From what I've learned so far from experienced users (that
automatically excludes Mr. Houston who once admitted he has no experience at all with it), Z-Wave works remarkably well.  My home is
large enough and spread out enough that it should provide a reasonable test platform for Z-Wave.  As soon as I install it I'll let
you know how it's working.

>>> You can end a phone conversation simply
>>> by walking into the garage with the wireless
>>> phone...
>>
>>
>> My home is what I consider "medium large"
>> -- 3,800 sf under air and almost 3,000 sf
>> non-AC space.  I have two sets of wireless phones.  The business phones are from Sony.
>> They work everywhere except out by the
>> mailbox (50 feet from the front of the garage). My wife's personal line is another brand.  It
>> works well in 3/4 of the house, poorly in the
>> rest and not at all outside.
>
> Our house is about 3000sqft and the phones
> we use are always pretty professional. None
> of the cheap stuff. Right now AT&T, before
> that it was Cincinnatti Microwave.

Judging from what you've said so far I concur that your house is not a good home for RF based systems.  Since X10 is mostly a pile
of $#%& that means you'd better stay away from Insteon, too.

>> They have a nasty habit of letting end
>> users beta test their products without
>> telling them.
>
> Sounds like a large software company... ;-)

I hear that.  :^)

>> As you probably already know, I sell HA
>> products.  After I test the stuff for a while
>> I'll offer it for sale in my online store.  If you decide you'd like to test a few units
>> let me know.  If they're problematic I'll
>> take them back.
>>
>
> Thanks for the offer but I'll wait a little. I am
> pretty sure the range won't work where I live.

No problem.  I'll let you know how it works for me anyway.

>>> Although it would still most likely be a
>>> waste of time ;-)
>>
>> Perhaps.
>
> RF stuff out here is even more tough to
> operate. We are right next to a runway
> plus the Fedex freighter fly directly overhead
> and radio in their approach. Even the TV
> falls off the cliff sometimes.

I'd be surprised if proximity of the airport is much of a problem. GA aircraft radios are not very powerful to begin with (usually
less than 10 Watts) and signal strength falls off geometrically with distance.  If there's a NAVAID on the field you could be
getting some fun signals but most are not in the same band as anything you're likely to use for HA.  ATIS, a continuously broadcast
report of ground weather observations, should also be far from the frequency of your gear.

I'm not sure what kind of power the ATC radio puts out, but you said runway rather than an airport so I wonder if perhaps you're
referring to a small airfield.  Many (most?) of those are non-towered anyway.  Some only have UNICOM service which is operated very
sporadically.  Some have nothing at all -- pilkots simply "self announce" before they maneuver in the area.

>>> About 35 miles east of Sacramento, CA.
>>> Lots of houses here with foil-backed
>>> wool. It is still widely used, like on our
>>> roof six years ago. We have foil-backed
>>> fiber under a Decra metal roof...
>>
>> Perhaps California is very different from
>> Southern New England. In Florida we have
>> concrete block walls and slab floors.
>> Roofs are shingle, tile (like mine) or (rarely)
>> metal.  Exterior walls are insulated but not
>> very much.  Our walls are over a foot thick.
>> The outside is concrete block with stucco.
>> Inside that is a 2" insulated space and then
>> sheetrock.
>
> Very different here. Two by fours, siding on
> the outside, drywall inside and AL-backed
> fiber inside, that's pretty much it. Our house
> in Europe looked like a fortress in comparison.

Every modern home I worked on in CT was insulated.  The usual treatment today is to install unfaced batts and then tack a layer of
clear poly across the entire wall.  There are two reasons this is popular.  First, it's cheaper.  Second, it makes for an extremely
vapor-tight barrier -- much better than paper or foile-backed batts which are open at every stud.  Aluminum backed wool is virtually
unheard of though some folks still use paper-backed.

> I had a test generator from there.
> Oh man... but it somehow worked.