Re: Stupid home non-automation product

[Marc_F_Hult <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 18:35:42 GMT, "Jeff Volp" <JeffVolp@xxxxxxx> wrote in
message  <2_XIh.138275$5j1.45440@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>"Marc_F_Hult" <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:05e8v2h2sa6q0aunhhq6joe1ebabqs1cq8@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>> And once the word problem is adequately translated into a rule set, your
>> solution requires programming an obscure machine (Ocelot) in an obscure
>> computer language (C-Max) -- something that even most participants of
>> this newsgroup probably couldn't do. (Hence my frustration with the
>> oft-repeated, exceptionally bad advice to buy an Ocelot that was
>> proffered by some regulars in this newsgroup to folks that can't
>> program.)
>
>After writing programs since FORTRAN and hand-assembled machine code
>(including counting in both directions in hexadecimal), I did find C-max
>somewhat challenging at first because of its structure.  However, simple
>time-based functions are easy in C-Max.  The documentation provides good
>examples, and the ADI users group is extremely helpful for people who run
>into problems.
>
>I agree with you totally that the Ocelot is not for the average Joe, but
>it  can be a good choice for a technically oriented individual.  The last
>time I  checked, alternatives with similar capabilities were considerably
>more expensive.  The popular CM15A doesn't really provide any real-world
>analog measurement capability.

Our experiences are partly similar. I fortuitously elected to spent January
1972 entirely immersed in the learning of FORTRAN. It was my first computer
language but having first learned 4-1/2  spoken and written languages
helped (I think). In a month I went from zero to a completed useful program
that calculated theoretical mineral assemblages from actual chemical
analyses. I subsequently did other substantial applied work in that
language. I dabbled inconsequentially in Z80 and 8080 machine code, Pascal,
FORTH, C etc in the 80's.

The Ocelot is getting a bit long in the tooth compared to (eg) Elk M1G.
If coding and a bit of construction are not obstacles, Basic Stamp clones
have long done more and better for less money but harder to make work and
error-free. But all of these controllers are pretty far out on the
statistical tail of the capabilities of homeowners.

Ocelot still has lowest cost 'smart' IR functionality sans PC, but for
moderate sized systems it and the ELK Magic Module MM443 MM443s series have
been superceded IMO.  Importantly, HA panels (Omni, Elk, HAI etc) enjoy
installer support (at a price) so the homeowner can get some benefit of
their capabilities without programming it themselves.  As I understand it,
there is now a point-n-click interface for Ocelot C-Max which presumably
helps folks like BobbyG who have an Ocelot but can't use it fully because
of programming difficulties.

Cm15a: The CM11a replaced my brown ca. 1982(?) TW-523 but found that it
didn't perform reliably as a controller. Its failure modes were still being
discovered  when I gave up on it for anything but an interface. So I
haven't kept up with X-10 and X10 offerings other than buying an XTB. One
of the advantages of the greater bandwidth of INSTEON compared to X-10 is
that communicating measured analog values over the powerline is more
practical.

Right now I working on a different end of the HA arena using ATMEL AVR
8-bit RISC chips. What a blast! $2 a pop for 20 MIPS and 10-bit analog
inputs. Cheap enough to solder up dead-spider fashion with ancillary
devices and pot in epoxy -- no pcb, no connectors, jist a gumball-sized
blob on the end of a piece of CAT5 that does stuff. Or leave on a
solderless breadboard which have also gotten to be very inexpensive. Or
work up a PCB -- also now easy to do with free/inexpensive SW and shops.
Coding AVRs is simple with BASCOM (a QB work-alike) once you get past the
setup and if you avoid bugs other than those intended ;-)

... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org