Re: Smarthome Lamplinc and local control

[nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston)]

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>"Richard S. Smith" <rss@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>
><stuff snipped>
>
>> All of the Insteon lamp modules are bi-directional in their X10
>> behavior.  I don't want to fill my house with bi-directional lamp
>> modules due to the risk of excessive X10 signal absorption.
>>
>> That's why I'm going down this path.  I think something will be lost
>> when Smarthome exits the market for plain X10 hardware.  They made a
>> lot of good stuff.
>
>Very interesting.  Migration apparently can't be undertaken slowly when
>going from X-10 to Insteon.  That's going to have some profound implications
>for people that wanted to switch over gradually.

In my review back in July/August of last year, I said, "The interoperability
with X-10 is a big plus although the fact that the more Insteon units one
has (all are two-way) the more the X-10 signal will be attenuated, tends to
negate that." And SmartHome also tends to stress the negative effect on X-10
so it should not come as a big surprise.

I would expect there is some critical mass or point of no return where the
hit to X-10 communications will encourage you to complete the transition but
it still gives you a way to evaluate Insteon with minimal risk. And, judging
from the posts here by those who have made the switch, the decision is easy
to make, even after adding just a few Insteon units.

It is disappointing that they did not design it to disconnect the
transmitter section, when idle, to eliminate its loading of the powerline.