Re: Why cling to old X10?

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"bruceR" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
> Robert Green wrote:
> > "RickH" <passport@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >
> > <stuff snipped>
> >
> > The compatibility feature with X-10 *was* a good marketing ploy, I
> > agree, although how well it worked in fact as oppposed to theory is
> > probably still open to debate.
> >
> After I converted most everything to Insteon I found that the remaining
X10
> stuff wouldn't work very well.  However, once the XTB-II came out I got
full
> X10 control back.  My reason for switching to Insteon was that I had some
> areas that were X10 "sterile" no matter what I did and decreasing
> reliability overall.

You're one of the users that probably benefitted the most from the XTB-II
since it sounds like you're set up so that a central controller does the
heavy lifting.  It was a little bit messier in my case, but as I got more
familiar with the XTB's I realized I could set things up so that unboosted
maxi controllers would only turn off the local lights when I hit ALL LIGHTS
OFF which meant I didn't plunge my wife into darkness in some other area of
the house.  If I truly wanted to turn out all the lights, housewide, I could
use a maxi controller that was plugged into the XTB.  All things considered,
I'm still deliriously happy with the XTB's and all the rewiring work they
saved me.  I was just on the verge of switching away from X-10 when they
arrived.

Since every Insteon switch saps a little bit of the X-10 signal, the larger
the installation, the more of a problem it becomes.  It's good to know that
the XTB-II was able to reverse that trend for you.  I can't help but
thinking Insteon's designers were aware of the "sapping" problem in beta.  I
imagine it didn't concern them much, though.  The decrease in reliability of
the old X-10 gear would eventually cause folks with large hybrid
installations using both to convert entirely to Insteon.

>  I made the change when Insteon released their X10 to Insteon translator
> which was a short lived and now unsupported product.
> The translator still works but has lost the ability to be programmed so
> I can't add or change anything.  This left me in a quandry as I didn't
want
> to scrap my Stargate and I couldn't control all the new Insteon stuff with
it.

You've touched on why so many people have decided to stick X-10 despite the
warts.  Anyone who's got a Stargate, an Ocelot or some other X-10 based home
controller probably has a lot of their valuable "free time" (oh, if only it
were truly "free"!) wrapped up in programming and debugging their
installation until it's just the way they want it.  That creates a real
brake on the desire to switch over and seems to result in most people
changing when they were destined to change anyway, via a move, a lightning
strike or some other major event.  Never under-estimate the power of "sunk
costs" which is why I think X-10 will still be in use 20 or 30 years from
now.  I know there are still DOS based machines in labs and other places,
simply because of the rule "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."  The same
applies to X-10.

The modules are simple, but electronically robust.  They've also been under
continuous, though largely invisible improvement.  It's been a long time
since a light bulb "popping" has taken an X-10 switch or module with it.  In
the early days of the WS467 that was a fairly common occurrence.  Almost all
the newer switches from competitors have surface mount components and I
suspect might be more vulnerable to large line transients as a result but
only time will tell.

It's too bad the translator got lost in the shuffle, but I suspect they
decided it wasn't worth it for a number of reasons, the primary one that its
signal was too weak to overcome the sapping effect of the Insteon switches.
That's too bad, because as you've noted, it works well when the output is
boosted using Jeff's "miracle worker" product.  (-:  Do you know if the
Insteon switches degrade the X-10 signal as much in X-10 mode as they do in
the Insteon mode, or not at all?

>  Rozetta was to be the saving grace but its completion has been delayed
due
> to Dave's health problems.  Then the XTB-II came out and with that
replacing
> the Stargate's TW-523, I could control X10 throughout the house. So, I
> changed most of the Insteon units to X10 mode and the most troublesome
ones
> are Insteon. Now I have 99.99% reliability.

I didn't realize you had switched the Insteon devices back to X-10.  That's
just another feather in Jeff's cap, which is now looking like a Sioux war
bonnet

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/union-generals/indians/indian-war-bonnet.htm

it has so many feathers.  Smarthome deserves a little credit, too, for
giving you the option to switch to a second protocol.  Perhaps when the
patents all expire, someone will start marketing a combo UPB, X-10, Insteon,
Zigbee and Z-wave switch all rolled into one.

>  IF/WHEN I get a working translator I think reliability will increase to
> 100%

Even my ridiculously simple project (the BSD/EMS1 cradle) has given me great
sympathy for how long a custom piece of electronics takes to build.  It gets
back to the concept of free time not really being free at all.

--
Bobby G.