Re: HA Primer - Pos and cons of X-10, Z-wave, Insteon, UPB

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Robert L Bass" <no-sales-spam@bassburglaralarms> wrote in message
news:epudnbJ-yKw-SbLbnZ2dnUVZ_o6gnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Z-Wave requires a minimal density of modules
> > to assure coverage. This plus their 4 hops max
> > limits the physical size of a network although
> > one supplier now offers a system with 7 hops
> > max...
>
> Mr. Houston is wrong about this.  Standard
> Z-Wave systems with "only" 4 hops can handle
> extremely large homes.

Wrong about what?  Are you saying that Zwave networks are limitless?
Re-read that paragraph.  He made no mention of house size, just that there
are physical parameters that define the topology and limitations of Zwave's
mesh network.

> If the controller is centrally located, 4 hops in every direction
> can cover a home that is ~200 long by ~200 feet wide

That's nice if it's possible to centrally locate the controller.  It's also
nice if people can realize the advertised maximum RF range.  I think we both
know that sometimes, neither situation is possible.  Dave didn't say
anything about home sizes, so I don't see how you can say he's "wrong" when
he points out that 4 hops defines the network range and that it apparently
had to be extended to 7 hops in an "add on" to the basic protocol.  That 3
hop boost could easily imply that range might well have been a problem in
the real world for the basic 4 hop design.

> wide.  That's quite a bit larger than the average
> HA palace.

We have a number of people that have posted here that need to control
devices in outbuildings of various sorts.  A 200' maximum range (that's
probably under ideal circumstance may simply be inadequate for people who
don't live in standard buildings.  For a vendor to "break" the existing
protocol to add nearly twice the hops indicates a theoretical collision with
real world problems.  I don't see how having a 4 hop and a 7 hop system
improves interoperability between manufacturers.  It seems to be the
reverse.  If they are just now discovering they have to nearly double the ma
x hops to ensure reliable performance, this stuff's still in beta, at least
IMHO.

> Lutron's patent is too weak
> to prevent anyone from placing a 2-way RF module
> inside a junction box.

Only a judge can meaningfully determine whether their patent is so *weak*
that it is unenforceable.  Patent problems can be very, very costly and the
feeling was, when the case below was first filed, that MercExchange couldn't
possibly prevail because "Buy It Now" was such an obvious invention:

<<A U.S. district Court jury sided with MercExchange of Great Falls, Va.,
which accused eBay in 2001 of infringing on three patents held by
MercExchange founder Tom Woolston. The verdict determined that eBay and its
Half.com subsidiary willfully infringed on two of those patents with their
"Buy It Now" feature for fixed-price sales.
The willful infringement ruling opens the door for the judge to hold eBay
liable for triple damages, or $105 million, said Neil Smith, an attorney
specializing in intellectual property law at Howard Rice, a San Francisco
firm.>>

source: http://news.com.com/2100-1017_3-1010397.html

> That's like saying that Victrola
> could keep anyone else from making a record player.

Huh?  Edison patented the phonograph on February 19, 1878 as US Patent
200,521.  Victor, the makers of the Victrola, didn't begin to make their
machines until after 1901.  Ironically, the name Victor allegedly comes from
the owner of the company finally emerging as the 'Victor' in incredibly
lengthy and costly patent litigation involving others who claimed (oddly
enough!) patent infringement.  In any case, Victor would have no standing to
prevent anyone from making a phonograph *after* someone *else's* patent had
expired!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Talking_Machine_Company

--
Bobby G.