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

[Smarty <nobody@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 6/12/2011 2:07 AM, Robert Green wrote:
> "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.
>
This was the same stage I reached Bobby, but with less effort on my part
to really solve the problem. I just "gave up" and concluded that the
X-10 hardware was better suited for a different era.
>> 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.
>
A lot of X-10 hardware I added to my system came from the X-10 web  site
and their many enticing offers. They often sold "buy this and get that
free" or "buy two and we will give you two more" types of deals and I am
a total sucker for discounts, rebates, etc. I wound up buying and
installing at least 20 more X-10 items during that period, most of which
worked fine until the fluorescent lighting and switched power supplies
began to multiply in my home.
>> 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 particularly began to experience severe signal attenuation as I began
using power strips, or otherwise loading my branch circuits. I
attributed this to shunt capacitance but may not be correct in this
assumption. I briefly played with different power strips, but as I got
less control of distant devices, my solution also became more localized
(and thus less useful).
>> 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 am really beyond an X-10 line carrier solution. I have also
unsuccessfully tried other power line carrier devices, including
intercoms, CCTV surveillance cameras, and Ethernet extenders, and not a
single device I have tried works reliably when my fluorescent lighting
is turned on. Some of it does not work even when the fluorescent
lighting is turned off.
>> 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.
>
No apologies needed Bobby, and I was merely trying to make the point
that I am not over my head with this stuff, and have spent a lot of
hours with logic analyzers, DSOs, spectrum analyzers, and much home
built RF gear, and find the X-10 problem to be much better solved with
other methods rather than X-10. I sincerely do believe that all the
false triggering of my lights whenever the CFLs are turned on is
entirely a noise issue, and that a longer code or better protected code
would minimize or prevent this problem entirely. There are no collisions
of actual X-10 in this situation since no deliberate X-10 transmissions
are being sent. The X-10 receivers are totally responding to the noise
and interpreting it as if it were X-10, and my lights come on all over
the place with regularity and relatively annoying frequency within
seconds or minutes after certain CFLs are switched on manually in other
parts of the house.
>> 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.
>  From what I was told a long time ago (hence very unreliable!) you need a
> scope with digital storage and even then you'd have to count hex to decode
> what you were seeing.  Analyzers like the Monterey do all that grunt work
> (alas with no easy recordabilty until now for me*) and present a decoded (or
> not) human understandable display of what commands were sent and, depending
> on the meter, a lot more.  You can read the strength of each bit in a single
> frame.  The noise level at different "windows" of the AC cycles, the
> frequency of that noise, whether the frame you were measuring was the first
> frame, the second frame, or a repeater-enhanced second frame.  Why would you
> care?  Well, when two transmitters collide, a bit by bit voltage map will
> show that and give you a relative idea how far from the meter each device
> is.  Meters can detect many other conditions that the best ham radio
> operator in the world would have to laboriously decode manually.  That's why
> the X-10 meter has been invented over and over again in so many different
> formats!
>
> What I am trying to say is that unless you have some pretty specialized
> tools in your radio shack, investigating serious X-10 problems isn't very
> easy with a scope, even if only you need to drag it to a few different
> outlets or get 100' long extension cords.
>
I agree and I have never brought any big guns into this problem solving.
I fundamentally say that turning on a noise source causes frequent false
triggering, with no X-10 traffic, and thus I must either reduce the
noise or improve the receiver / detector. Deliberate X-10 triggering is
an entirely different matter, also suffering from severe probability of
detection versus false alarm rate issues. In this latter case, SNR is
indeed an issue, and power density per bit, SNR across bits, frames,
etc. would be meaningful to measure and talk about, but my most severe
issues were entirely false triggering with no X-10 traffic present. This
is what prompted my comment regard code design / code length /
protection bits / etc. in the common situation I experience where random
lights turned on very often but only when CFLs where pumping out noise.
>> 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.
> Well, you're clearly out of my league.  (-:  Maybe Jeff will chime in and
> talk about all the troublesome installations he's tamed.  I realize you've
> taken another path with Ethernet and I believe that some form or wireless
> Ethernet home automation solution will dominate the market - the "highway"
> is already built and is usually power-failure protected and standalone (no
> PC required).  Until X-10 for Ethernet appears, I'm going to stick with X-10
> for lights, fans and other non-critical appliances.  For the rest of the
> stuff, I've got a HomeVision expansion board with relay and sensor chain
> channels.  Not quite as plug and play as the Ethernet but sufficient to
> monitor and execute criminal (oops, I meant critical!) functions in the
> house.  Since Ethernet is workable world-wide, it's going to overtake any
> proprietary protocol.  Why build another highway when so many layers of the
> OSI network are already built, usually with enormous overcapacity (at least
> 1GB nets in the house, anyway)?
>> 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.
> I'm amazed they survived the recession.  Lots of similar "modern living"
> stores folded during that time.  I've been stranded by companies going out
> of business before.  Their proprietary nature gives me pause.  But I agree,
> they seem to be the only contender out of many that appeared around the year
> 2000, except for hoary old CeBuS (cough) that still has defenders throughout
> the world but that never lived up to the hype.
>
> Sorry if I offended you.  My proselytizing is better aimed at people who
> haven't yet converted away from X-10.  Maybe that number is shrinking
> because a lot of people have disconnected back to ground zero or who just
> use a minitimer to control some lights when they are away
>
> --
> Bobby G.
>
Bobby, your comments and suggestions regarding X-10 are very insightful,
and no offense of any kind is taken. I also hope my comments are not
seen as offensive in any way. My lack of enthusiasm has mostly to do
with the timing of any X-10 improvements, which for me would have made
sense perhaps a year or two ago, but now seem pretty irrelevant. I have
disconnected and removed many devices, and still own and use a few
localized X-10 systems where they continue to work reliably.


> than $20) that is recorded on the fourth channel of my CCTV recorder.  This
> way I can call up the video and play it in slo mo, reviewing all the
> commands received in the last week.  I can also see real-time readings of
> X-10 from any TV in the house.
>
>
This is a very ingenious and inexpensive alternative to a DSO or logic
analyzer. What a clever approach!