Re: Wil I be able to use a Z-Wave controller

[Frank Olson <Use-the-email-links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Robert L Bass wrote:
>> Well, just in case...
>>
>> The Z-Wave devices are fixed frequency, so Section 15.209 is applicable.
>>
>>     http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/rules/part15/part15-9-20-07.pdf
>>
>> As you can see from p84 of, it supports what I've posted.
>
> You claimed that the limit is 1mW.  That is of course untrue.

You claimed to have programmed a Napco Alpha keypad with the words
"Attention Burglar!  Go ahead, make my day!" which is impossible to do.


>
>> Someone deliberately trying to mislead people might cite...
>
> Someone honest enough to admit he's not 100% certain would say, "Perhaps
> I'm reading the wrong paragraph in the FCC
> rules.  FCC regs aren't my usual fare."
>
> Kindly show us where it says 900 mHz non-frequency hopping intentional
> transmitters are limited to 1 mW.

Kindly show us where it states that adding a smoke alarm or heat
detector to a home security system will turn it into a listed fire alarm
system.


>
> Also, one hopes you can explain how it is that manufacturers designing
> and building Z-Wave modules state that their devices work at distances
> up to 100 meters in free air and 30 meters indoors yet you claim they
> won't go 30 feet in a building.  How can every one of these
> manufacturers be totally wrong and you (without ever having tried a
> single Z-Wave device) know better?

Actually in many earlier "arguments" with Dave, you also referenced 30
feet as the "hop" distance, not 30 meters.  If, it is in fact 30 meters
(as you now state), then I don't see where the problem is, although I
have a blue-tooth headset and USB adapter that's rated for "10 meters"
and I'm lucky if I can get five.


>
> How is it that various manufacturers state they have systems fully
> controlling homes in excess of 7,000 sf and yet you (without ever having
> tried a single Z-Wave device) insist the technology is so flawed it
> can't handle your tiny apartment?

You believe manufacturers??  Heh!


>
> Will you answer or simply avoid the questions as usual, preferring to
> respond to verbal effluent from Frank Olson?

I'm sorta hoping he doesn't respond to you directly.  It's way more fun
this way.