Re: Water heater eating X-10 signal

["Slammer" <mjinks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Dan Lanciani" <ddl@danlan.*com> wrote in message
news:1338636@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In article <04YUh.314346$5j1.274986@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> JeffVolp@xxxxxxx (Jeff Volp) writes:
>
> | That's an interesting thought regarding 240V modules.
>
> Incidentally, it isn't my thought; I'm sure I read it somewhere though
> I can't remember where.  So I wasn't surprised when I saw how the
> CR230 was built.
>
> | Of course, the
> | percentage of those is miniscule compared with 120V modules used on
> | split-phase systems.
>
> The percentage of 240V modules in my home is exactly 0; hence my
> interest in a repeater that drives the legs in phase for less
> contention with the blocker/coupler.
>
> | Since most X10 modules work fine down to 100 mV, or even lower, it would
> | take almost perfectly balanced attenuation in both legs for in-phase
> signals
> | to null enough at the 240V device to cause a problem.
>

I am having a hard time with the phrase "in phase" here. Why the worry over
"the phase of the signal" between different legs of the circuit? I get the
feeling you both think the reason that neutral is at 0 volts potential is
that, the voltage waveforms on each leg destructively interfere with each
other due to phase cancellation and not simply as a consequence of vector
addition. I mean that's fine but its hardly the standard model for analysis
of a split-phase power circuit. I suppose you could look at that way but
this has nothing to do with the X10 signal.

As to 240V modules, I'd be surprized if they just didn't listen on one leg
only, since there is no return path for the signal, if one listened only
between legs as that is isolated from neutral--the designated return path of
the source which IS on one leg.

Slammer