Re: 32 years using x-10

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"greenpjs" <greenpjs@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dk8k14p46mq3vr7e8e2ik645ea1krs8utp@xxxxxxxxxx
> (I posted this in alt.home.automation yesterday.  I thought I would
> try this group today.  Any input?)
>
> Background:
>
> I've been successfully using X-10 for 32 years now.  Like many of you,
> I have had my share of issues but always managed to use filters and
> phase couplers to solve them.  Again, like many of you, the last five
> years have seen the level of intermittent operation increase.  Every
> new piece of electronics brought into the house usually requires
> another day of troubleshooting.  I managed to swap circuits around in
> the breaker box such that all X-10 equipment is on one side of the box
> thereby eliminating the need for a phase coupler, but problems still
> occur.  Of the 16 modules in use (all on one house code), 14 work all
> the time while the other 2 work most of the time.  It's that "most of
> time" that drives me nuts.  (By the way, our house is a little over
> 1300 sq ft in size plus a basement so I don't think my issues are
> caused by excessively long runs).

Unfortunately, you're at the point where you need to spend money on a meter
like the ESM1 to have even an inkling of what's happening on the powerline.
Trying to diagnose X-10 problems via a binary "works/does't work" method is
occasionally successful, but more often not.  A meter will tell you whether
you have a noise problem, a signal sucker problem, a bad transmitter,
collision problems, etc.  It should pay for itself in short order if you put
any reasonable value on your time.

> The question:
>
>
> Is it time to upgrade to a new technology?  Insteon, Z-Wave, Zigbee, +
> etc all sound promising, but I have no real experience with them.
> What, in your opinion, is the right choice if I were to decide to
> start over?  Which, if any, of the above has a chance to be around
> decades from now such that spare parts will still be available?

You'll need a crystal ball to answer that question, but consider this.  The
110VAC network has changed little in 100 years.  I have table lamps from the
'30s that work quite well today.  X-10 has been around for 30+ years but
none of the contenders has that sort of track record.  When you eliminate
the known problems, there's no reason for it not to last another 30 years.
One thing to consider about low power RF controls is that in this ever more
wireless world, your RF controls are more and more likely to get stepped on
by a higher powered radio signal.  This has already happened to one of the
most expensive HA protocols on the market, Lutron RadioRA.  They were forced
to provide users with special gear (they refer to it as channel B) when
users in NYC reported their systems no longer functioned.

Nearly *ANY* RF protocol can get squashed like that and there's not a thing
you can do to stop it except moving into a Faraday cage.  X-10's powerline
protocol, though saddled with its own issues, can be isolated from glitches
or legit transmissions on the power grid by a "firewall" far more easily.
With all the new RF spectrum sales and realignments along with the
anti-terrorism efforts to thwart RF controlled devices, I've become very
dubious of any RF system working well into the future, especially the
low-powered unlicensed devices.

> Secondary question:
>
>
> Why is the new stuff so expensive?  I have typically paid $10 - $15
> for X-10 modules.   (Although I have to admit that has been true all
> these years in spite of inflation).  The new stuff seems to cost $50
> to $70 per module.  I just retired so I'm watching my spending... $69
> is a lot of money for a wall switch.  Multiply that by 16 or so
> modules and add a few controllers (manual controllers and a computer
> interface) and we are talking a lot of money.  Maybe I should just buy
> a few more X-10 filters ;-)

The X-10 cost is low because the patent has expired, the designs are already
out there and the components used are incredibly cheap compared to the
custom IC's found in the newer gear.  Buying filters, an XTB and an X-10
meter is still way cheaper than upgrading even a modest system.  With the
big downturn in housing, I would expect one of the current players not to
survive very much longer.  Do you want to replace all your X-10 gear with
"Zigwaveon" only to find you've been orphaned when they go out of business?
I've seen that happen in the PC world and it makes the remaining spare parts
as precious as gold because of their scarcity.  Not a position I want to be
in if a meter, some filters and an XTB could set things straight.

> Final question:
>
>
> If I stay with X-10, do the signal boosters I see discussed here
> really work?  Many of the devices are designed to solve the
> cross-phase issue which I don't have (as stated above, all my X-10
> equipment is on one phase).   While I do believe my problems are
> caused by low signal levels rather than noise, I believe the low
> signals are caused by each new electronic appliance cutting the signal
> just a little more.  There isn't any one thing I can unplug which
> solves all the issues.   Filters have solved the big issues (eg, Sony
> TV's), but I'm guessing that many minor issues are now adding up to an
> overall marginal situation.

You'd have to describe your installation in much greater detail for us to
make a guess at what's ailing your setup, but I am guessing you've missed
several signal suckers or noise generators.  Got any CFL's or fluorescents
running unfiltered?  My first step would be to see if completely
disconnecting them from the power cures your ills.  Then I would buy a
meter.  There used to be a vendor who lent or rented them, but since I own a
meter and an analyzer, I never needed that service.  Maybe someone here
remembers who has them.

As for the XTB's working or not.  The answer is emphatically "yes!"  I
suffered from all sorts of X-10 maladies before installing the XTB-IIR and
now they've just vanished back into the blue hell they came from.  I wish
all problems had a similar magic bullet.

--
Bobby G.