Re: XTB - the Future of X10 has arrived!

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Dave Houston" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

It's really surprising that X-10 hasn't tried to enhance the basic protocol.
The must have noticed all the hungry wolves at their door looking to be the
next leader of the pack.

--
Bobby G.


> As I've noted before, it surprises me that X10 hasn't developed something
> similar that is backwards compatible to their installed base. HomePlug has
> no interest in doing that.
>
> "Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >This discussion makes me wonder if it might be possible for a bright guy
> >like Jeff or Dave to take the 60 cycles offered by the powerline and
> >multiplex them so that each cycle (baud) carried a greater number of
bit/s.
> >The old X-10 equipment would see only the old X-10 signals and the new
> >protocol could use the extra capacity to significantly increase the
> >bandwidth.  That's exactly how they bumped those 2400 "baud" modems up to
> >56Kbit/s eventually.
> >
> >I remember Byte magazine articles that talked about the theoretical
limits
> >of copper phone lines and how we would all have to use fiber to get even
> >cable modem speeds.  And yet year after year modems over POTS got faster
and
> >faster.  Now you can get 1.5Mb/s with copper and DSL.  I'm betting that
X-10
> >can be similarly extended and enhanced - maintaining backwards
compatibility
> >and incorporating fallback capability.  That all happened with PC modems.
> >X-10's not that much different in concept.
> >
> >Jeff's XTB invention convinces me that there's still a lot of life left
both
> >on the powerline and in the X-10 protocol.  He's cut away at the primary
> >weakness of X-10: signal loss.  I'll bet he could bring some interesting
> >ideas to bear on an enhanced X-10 spec that was truly backward compatible
> >with older gear.  It would answer your legitimate gripe that X-10's too
slow
> >and would really extend the life of the installations of millions of
users.
> >
> >People would use high speed modules for macro execution and low speed,
cheap
> >mass produced modules for everything else.  Yet when you sent an "ALL
OFF"
> >from an old-style controller, it would turn off all modules, old and new.
> >Just like company intranets, you put the high priced high speed network
gear
> >on backbones and on the PCs of those most in need of high speed.  I'll
even
> >bet Dave's got some of the technical details of such a protocol extension
> >worked out as byproduct of his work on Rozetta.
>