Re: Do these exist: "Instant on" or very rapid start CFL???

[Smarty <nobody@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 6/10/2011 12:09 AM, Robert Green wrote:
> "Smarty"<nobody@xxxxxxxxxx>  wrote in message
> news:isrcmo$sb5$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> On 6/8/2011 10:34 PM, Robert Green wrote:
>>> "Smarty"<nobody@xxxxxxxxxx>   wrote in message
> <stuff snipped>
>
>>>> Thanks again to all who responded. As always, the knowledge and talent
>>>> on this forum is incredible and very much appreciated.
>>> That's great news.  I am about to order one from Amazon to see how they
>>> interact with my X-10 home automation system.  CFL bulbs have been a
> serious
>>> problem for X-10 users because their electronic profile is so different
> from
>>> tungsten incandescent bulbs, the kind X-10 was designed around.  Of
> course,
>>> Amazon's price is double that of Lowe's, but it might be weeks before I
> got
>>> up that way and I wanted to see how X-10 controller modules reacted to
> the
>>> lightbulb.
>>>
>>> I'm hoping these will eliminate the terrible problem of CFL's turning
>>> themselves back on because of how they work with the slight current
> trickle
>>> used in X-10 circuits to sense local control of the switch.  I've got my
>>> fingers crossed.  It could be the miracle bulb for both of us!
>>>
>>> --
>>> Bobby G.
>>>
>>>
>> Bobby,
>>
>> I had a very elaborate X-10 set-up in my home, with many devices being
>> controlled by remote switches, and most of the lighting controlled by
>> both the dimmable and non-dimmable wall switches. I had a couple dozen
>> devices in total, and a bridge to ensure that both of my 110 volt feeds
>> were coupled to pass the comparatively weak control signals from some
>> home branch circuits to another. The system worked pretty reliably for
>> many years.
> Howdy, fellow X10'er!  Too bad we didn't meet sooner because I think I could
> have helped save your sizable-sounding investment in X10 gear.
>
>> Once I switched to CFLs as well as standard fluorescent tubes, my X-10
>> system became totally unreliable with all sorts of false triggers.
>> Putting a scope on my AC line made it instantly obvious that the EMI
>> created by these lighting devices was much stronger than the X-10
>> signals. Furthermore, the X-10 code length was too short to ensure no
>> false triggering, given the noise environment.
> Unfortunately, there are wildly varying brands and designs of CFL's.  GE's
> gave me NO end of trouble.  Then Marc Hult of CHA suggested the N:Vision
> line of bulbs from Home Depot and suddenly, no more noise.  That simple
> change made a world of difference.  While many noisy CFL's can be cured by
> 5A line filters, it's much, MUCH better to switch to a brand of bulbs that
> isn't spewing EMI like Mt. Vesuvius during an eruption and that don't
> require filtration.
>
>> I disconnected all of my X-10 stuff but have considered going to a newer
>> Zigby or other RF controlled local are net approach with supervised
>> switches capable of reporting their status back to the controller.
> X10 makes switches that can confirm their position to a central controller.
> Zigbee has been "just around the corner" for at least 10 years now.  It's a
> good idea - and home automation will take a quantum leap when manufacturers
> build automation interfaces into their appliances - but it's been a long
> time since the promise of Zigbee was made.
>
>
>> I have had terrible luck with any AC carrier line devices, including some
>> CCTV video cameras from Logitech and other devices which try to
>> piggy-back on the AC lines once I went to CFLs and flouresents.
> You probably do need to invest in some X-10 line filters and look at trying
> different bulbs.  Pick up and scope an N:Vision bulb from Home Depot.  I
> have two X-10 meters, the Monterey and the XTBM (well three, the Elk, but it
> is rather primitive) that allow me to read noise levels in millivolts near
> the AC zero crossing where the signal "resides."  The worst offender was a
> Cellet cellphone charger that put out pseudo-X10 signals continuously,
> corrupting nearby transmissions and blocking far away ones.  Second worst
> was a shoplite that had tested "OK for X10" when I installed it (no noise or
> signal attenuation) but that began to "sing" very loudly at 118KHz once the
> bulbs started darkening at the ends.
>
>> The noise levels are just overwhelming for these sensitive carrier
>> devices like X-10. And the signaling was never designed to be robust
>> enough to cope with the noisy channel either. They would need to do
>> longer codes sent more redundantly to get anywhere near acceptable
> behavior.
>
> Politely beg to differ. I can't stress enough how my whole, huge and at the
> time entirely unreliable X-10 installation came right under control as soon
> as I put the XTB-IIR in at the panel.  The wife gained in two ways:  The X10
> signals just plain worked now and since I was rearranging the panel, I was
> able to add three new grounded lines to the kitchen.  It's as close to magic
> as you're likely to get.  (-;
>
> Up until I discussed the shortage of breakers in my panel with Jeff (to add
> the XTB-IIR coupler/repeater/amp) I did not know about "dual skinny"
> breakers.  I got a number of those, rebalanced the panel and added four new
> circuits altogether.  Now my wife could operate a microwave, the toaster
> oven and a hot plate all at the same time without blowing a breaker.
> Win-win!
>
> Check it out, I am sure you're be blown away if you add one to your system.
> It sounds like a guy like you could even assemble your own.  Jeff "kits"
> those DIY units even better than Heathkit so that there's no mistake, even
> with tiny, unmarked diodes.
>
> http://jvde.us/xtb/xtb_reports.htm
>
> --
> Bobby G.
>
>
>
Thanks Bobby for your great insights and elaboration regarding X-10.

At one time quite a few years ago, long before fluorescent lighting and
other issues degraded my X-10 system, I had a very workable arrangement
here, and used it without complaints for perhaps 2 decades or longer.

Over the course of the last few years, I have moved a lot of my branch
circuits over to a transfer panel for a standby generator, removed the
phase couplers and amplifiers and some filters I had added, and
essentially removed most of my X-10 components except those within very
close proximity to one another.

I have no doubts whatsoever that proper filters, additional amplifiers,
careful removal of the worst offending noise sources, etc. could tame my
system. I just no longer have an interest in doing any of this, and I do
have many hard-wired Ethernet devices doing the specific things I need
to do with little or no problems.

I've had commercial and ham FCC licenses since the 1950s, and have built
35 Heathkits in total, as well as spent most of my professional career
as an electrical / electronics engineer, so the technical aspects are
comfortable and familiar. I attended classes with Irv Reed, who (quite
famously) co-developed the Reed Solomon coding methods (at MIT / Lincoln
Labs) still used prominently to mitigate bit errors in communication
channels, and still feel up to the task of analyzing and designing such
things. In the case of my own X-10 EMI as well as the more troublesome
wideband EMI that compromises my shortwave and AM reception, I have
learned to live with it. Even if I am willing to invest the time and
effort and money, my neighbors still create a lot of powerline and near
DC to 20 MHz trash as well.

I entirely agree that Zigbee has been far too long in coming although
there are some devices out there. Hardly a replacement for X-10 at this
point. And Insteon appears to have gained enough traction and solved
enough problems to be the real contender at this stage.