Re: Cause of some major X10 problems found

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Dave Houston" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:46e925ba.1638112453@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >What I don't understand about the Bloom theory as it might apply here is
why
> >aren't the lights flashing off and on rapidly in response to the
apparently
> >continuous noise?  I'm assuming it's fairly constant in amplitude so if
the
> >switches are truly that susceptible, they should be going on and off like
> >crazy, shouldn't they?  If, however, they're responding to a single 11
cycle
> >signal they see as valid generated out of random noise, one would expect
a
> >very much more infrequent activation.  That latter case sounds more like
> >what we're seeing.  Activations that occur after 10's of thousands of
random
> >bits have been thrown onto the line.
>
> You're reaching for something that's not there.

That's funny.  I was about to say the same thing.  (-:

> There were no reports of random OFFs with the WS467 only random ONs.

No reports from who about which WS467s where?  Just on general principles I
would be reluctant to make a claim of "no reports" about *anything* because
all it takes is one case to shoot it down.  Maybe you'd like to rephrase
that so I know precisely what you're referring to.

> In my case (which was actually with a screw-in lamp module) there
> were OFFs but never any ONs.  Without
> having the source code for the firmware one can only speculate about the
> "why" but the facts that grounding the pin cured that case while replacing
> the lamp module with a different model cured mine is overwhelming evidence
> that those models were susceptible to direct noise effects.

And if you go back and re-read what I said, you'll find I don't dispute the
units' susceptibility to noise, exactly as you describe.  What I do dispute
is how this particular flaw explains why lights would sit for hours without
reacting to the constant outpouring of noise from the bad power supply and
then suddenly, at 4AM, decide "that spike looks particularly juicy, I think
I'll respond to it."

The Bloom theory certainly can explain your case, but that model fails when
applied to the larger universe of inadvertent activations.  It doesn't
explain Bruce's situation at all.  The lights sat off for hours (apparently)
and then activated in the middle of the night.

IIRC, whenever you turned on your culprit fixture, the lamp module fired up.
Bruce's situation appears to have no fluorescent lamp in the other room that
turns on and spikes the WS467 into life.  Many other reports I recall were
absent an event like the one that precipitated your inadvertent "turn on."
They occurred, apparently, late at night long after activity in the house
had ceased.  That seems to be the mode of failure in Bruce's house as well.

> Even X-10 has noted that spikes can cause problems in one of their FAQs.

No one is disputing that.  As I've said before, the fact that the units
respond to spikes (or power blips) in no way prevents them from responding
to OTHER forms of uncommanded activation as well.  My contention is that the
spike from a noisy PS theory fails badly when examined against cases like
Bruce's.  Why would a susceptible switch sit in the OFF state for hours when
exposed to a noise generator?

In your case, the errant lamp module appears to fire when you first activate
the noise generating fixture.  In these other cases the noise generation is
apparently constant and yet somehow the constant noise (I assume it's
constant) fails to fire the lights immediately, as the Bloom model and your
bad light suggest it should.  The Bloom model may explain a lot of
inadvertent activations, but it doesn't work for all of them.  That seems to
be a fairly reasonable conclusion to me.  I don't know why it's giving you
so much heartache.

You don't want to believe that a "magic code" could be created from 100's of
thousands of noise bits bombarding the powerline,  yet you appear to be
positing some sort of "magic spike" that reaches crescendo hours and hours
after the noise source comes on line.  It just doesn't fit the observed
facts.  Not to these old eyes.  Maybe you can explain why Miss Switch can
sit for hours, resisting Spike's relentless advances ("No, no, a thousand
times no!") and then suddenly cave in to them hours later?  That's the part
that gives *me* heartache. (-:

--
Bobby G.