Re: XTB - the Future of X10 has arrived!

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"AZ Nomad" <aznomad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
<ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 03:40:05 GMT, BruceR >
>
> >>> While higher bandwidth is always welcome for broadband
> >>> connections, the X10 technology's problem has never really
> >>> been one of speed but of reliability and resistance to
> >>> interference from other PLC signal
> >>
> >> OH pulleze.  If you 60 baud is nowhere enough bandwidth.
>
> >If me, 60 BPS plenty good bandwidth!  (-:  (Baud ain't the right term,
BTW,
> >it's bits per second)
>
> baud is signal changes per second and with X10, 60 baud == 60 bps.  Of
course
> there's overhead for start/stop bits, parity, etc.

Strictly speaking, you're right.  In reality, baud's only meaningful in
discussion of old modems and teletypes.  Once you go past 2400 bit/s, baud
is no longer the same thing, at least in modems. Since we were discussing
both the old and new transmission protocols, ethernet, etc. the correct
common denominator is bit/s.

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.

--
Bobby G.