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

["Robert Green" <robert_green1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Smarty" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:isul5d$i0f$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> > <stuff snipped>
> >
> Thanks Bobby for your great insights and elaboration regarding X-10.

I'm worse that a reformed smoker when it comes to preaching XTB.  I really
was just about to dump a lot of time and effort spent with X-10, CPUXA,
HomeVision, etc. because the signal propagation became so unreliable.  Even
WITH couplers, repeaters and every other thing I threw at it, eventually
including a futile "feudal" system of RF transcievers control items local to
them (electrically speaking) because that was the only way to counter the
horrendous amounts of line noise besides filters, and even then the "Did Not
Turn On" events were getting to be the norm.  Totally unacceptable.

> 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.

That makes you, as I suspected "an early adopter" who likes to keep up with
current technology.  Lots of vendors were selling X-10 gear in the 1980s.
It also makes you vulnerable to having some of the noisiest "first edition"
gear out there, as was the case with so many CFL bulbs and the parallel
electronic ballast technology for fluorescent tubes.  The early CFL lamps
were very X-10 unfriendly.  The very early CFLs I bought, Chinese-made
"Lights of America" $10 bulbs were like miniature broadcast stations, they
were so noisy they could pass beyond a normal X-10 filter with ease.

> 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.

You are not alone in describing the devolution of your X-10 system.  There
used to be only two defenses to the problems X-10 experienced with its new
neighbors (switched power supplies, mostly) on the home powerline:

One was extensive filtering which gets a little tiring after the tenth one
is installed.  Filters  comes with as many problems as it solves.   )-:

The other was decentralizing - the feudal approach.  The constant failing of
remote signaling leads to disconnection, module by module.  I call it the
feudal approach because it parallels the way the Vandals sacked Rome and
destroyed the remarkable lines of communication and commerce of the Empire
from the outside in.  Far reaching outposts are abandoned and central
command devolves into local "stronghold" garrisons that are situated and act
in a way favorable to staying alive.  But I digress . . .

> 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.

Then you're probably NOT a candidate for the XTB.  The optimum point seems
to be in the first stages of X-10 disconnection, where you stop using it for
things that are going to piss you off like outside lights that burn all day
because X-10 signals are iffy.  You've moved into the next stage:  you've
converted critical (I assume) functions that used to be X-10 into hardwired
Ethernet devices, inherently more reliable and manageable but IIRC, orders
of magnitude more expensive than X-10.  Has that changed?

I've gone all out and attached an XTB to my all-housecode transciever and to
some other critical transmitting gear so I could indeed go back to "plug and
play."  That's more than most people would do - for them an XTB coupler
repeater might suffice but I'm a PC builder and there's a lot of EMI running
around my house and I wanted the lights to just work.  And for PLC, the
commands always get through now.  It's just like it used to be in 1985 when
I pulled all the light switches and converted them to X-10.

> 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 apologize if it sounded like I was impugning your CV.  It's infinitely
superior to mine.  In getting to know Jeff and several other
designer/builders of X-10 gear I've realized that it does take highly
specialized gear to make sense of the X-10 signal.  You obviously know that
the X-10 signal is not just an bit train without any error correction
whatsoever.  It's primitive but it's there and it seems to be enough.  Take
a look at Jeff's pages - you'll be able to appreciate the quality of the
units, the thought that went into building them and his ongoing commitment
to continuous improvement.

> 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.

Obviously.  (-:

I'm sure you have the IQ, but even the smartest guys who design and still
maintain X-10 systems for a living own X-10 specific meters and analyzers.