Justify Upgrade from X-10 to Z-Wave?
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Jeff Volp on July 1, 2008, 1:34 pm
Please log in for more thread options Since the XTB-IIR power supply is not regulated, it will droop as the transmitter is pulling current from the 4700uF energy storage capacitor. (The TW523 has 470uF.) Measurements here show about 5% droop over a single transmission. (You can see that in the Hometoys workbench photo.) The droop does depend on how nasty a load is being driven. More current will be pulled from the supply when driving a heavy load, which will cause more droop. Sustained transmission into a 4.8 ohm resistive load will result in about 30% droop (and a very hot load resistor.) The version 1.2 board supports a full-wave bridge power supply, which has slightly better regulation. The total energy delivered is about the same, but there is less change in burst amplitude over the transmission. That was first incorporated into the 3-phase unit, but it will be ported over to 2-phase unit when the new transformers arrive. While I’m not quite sure how the measurements were made, I suspect that you had a XTB driving the same phase that the Monterey was monitoring. I would expect that to be a stronger signal than when the XTB-IIR is driving both phases, especially if the opposite phase contains more “signal suckers”. In any case, that is a pretty respectable signal being punched through that filter. Jeff | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Jeff Volp on June 27, 2008, 10:36 am
Please log in for more thread options >I read both of your reviews. They answered quite a few questions and
>addressed several concerns. Right now, all my modules work anywhere in the >house (when conditions are ideal) which makes me assume that all the >outlets are on the same leg such that coupling between the two legs isn't >necessary - is this a correct assumption? Assuming that the house is all on >one leg, could I not install, using a standard wall plug and outlet, the >XTB-IIR anywhere in the house? It is unusual for all of a residence to be on a single phase. If the house has any 240V receptacles - for a dryer or stove - then it is supplied with 120/240V split phase. Back in the early days of X10, most smaller homes didn't even need signal couplers. There were virtually no "signal suckers", so even the relatively small amount of signal that coupled through the utility transformer was adequate to drive modules on the opposite phase. Such a situation is relatively rare today, but you may have an installation where your worst "signal suckers" are on the driven phase so the little signal that makes it to the opposite phase is not further attenuated. While optimum performance is obtained with the XTB-IIR near the distribution panel where it can directly drive both phases, it is certainly possible to install it anywhere in the home. A number of people have wired it to a dryer plug. That will also drive both phases, and there will not be too much signal lost if the run to the main distribution panel is relatively short. The XTB-IIR can certainly be plugged into just a single phase. If you do have all your X10 devices on one phase as we do here, then it isn't even necessary to include a passive coupler to propagate its strong signal over to the opposite phase. Because X10 signal strengths decrease as they move away from any X10 transmitter, the closer the XTB-IIR is to the main distribution panel, the stronger signals will be throughout the entire home. Jeff | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Robert Green on June 26, 2008, 10:28 am
Please log in for more thread options > Stick with X10 and solve your signal integrity problems with Jeff Volp's
> XTB-IIR. > See http://jeffvolp.home.att.net/xtb_files.htm Good advice. Since you're into wireless, I'd add a good RF transceiver to the XTB as well because the stock X-10 RF units have abysmal range compared to something like WGL's line of gear. You can read my review of the XTB here: http://www.hometoys.com/ezine/08.04/green/xtb.htm and the VS572 here: http://www.hometoys.com/ezine/08.06/green/wgl.htm While Z-Wave may eventually "conquer the world" there are still a lot more control options available in the X-10 world, from remotes to sensors to whatever and at far lower prices than you'll pay for Z-wave gear. It's not immune to problems, either: http://www.google.com/search?q=zwave+problems and it's proprietary. In one way it's quite inferior to X10. Z-Wave is *only* RF whereas X-10 has three types of control signal technologies: RF-PLC, IR-PLC and PLC-PLC. If EMI ever got so high aroudn here it blocked X-10 RF signals, I could still control most of my gear via the powerline or a handheld IR controller. IIRC, Z-Wave uses the license-exempt 900MHz ISM band. EMI only seems to be growing, so how or if it will effect either protocol's RF transmissions remains to be seen. Lots of people are happy with it but lots of people also didn't know how easy it was to turbocharge an X-10 setup with XTB and WGL gear. There's no denying that ZWave or something like it will be the future of HA. In the meantime, as competition increases, prices for Zwave gear will fall and device quality and variety will improve. Since I am now in a position to wait it out to see who survives, I will stick with X-10. I'm hoping that a open standards platform is the ultimate winner, but it may not turn out that way. -- Bobby G. > > There is no doubt in my mind that z-wave is superior to x-10 but
> > x-10's advantage is cost. Even with the extended x-10's protocol, it > > still falls short for complex applications. In my situation, I have a > > few x-10 recievers controlling a few lamps around the home. I > > basically use it to turn on/off lights in the room I'm in. I don't > > have a need for pre-set lighting moods (complete with the hide-away > > bar that appears with Burt Bacharach music that starts to play.) I > > really don't see a need for lighting computer interface for how I > > currently use the system. My house is basically square with one floor > > at about 1800 sf. My real motivation is to perpetuate my couch-potato > > lifestyle by not needing to budge from the chair to operate room > > lighting or to turn-off lights in another room. I'm now getting ready > > to hardwire wall switches to control ceiling fans and lights along > > with some lights for the pool area. > > > > What I'm asking of you folks here is a justification for one or the > > other based on how I use wireless techology. I'm not interested in > > entertaining other technologies and would strongly prefer to hear > > about just the two. > > >
> | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Tom on June 26, 2008, 11:52 am
Please log in for more thread options I hadn't thought about the transceiver but that does make sense given what I
know about the stock unit. I'm doing integration piecmeal... can't afford to it all at once. I plan to add a few wired switches at watch to see what problems I run into. I'm just using modules right now and have had little or not problems other than two different types of controllers that worked poorly from day one. I have two other controllers that have never yielded a single problem in the 7 years I had everything. So, the question is, as I start to encounter problems, which would be the first step - the transceiver or the amp? I'm assuming the transceiver but I might be missing something. >> Stick with X10 and solve your signal integrity problems with Jeff Volp's
>> XTB-IIR. >> See http://jeffvolp.home.att.net/xtb_files.htm >
> Good advice. Since you're into wireless, I'd add a good RF transceiver to > the XTB as well because the stock X-10 RF units have abysmal range > compared > to something like WGL's line of gear. You can read my review of the XTB > here: > > http://www.hometoys.com/ezine/08.04/green/xtb.htm > > and the VS572 here: > > http://www.hometoys.com/ezine/08.06/green/wgl.htm > > While Z-Wave may eventually "conquer the world" there are still a lot more > control options available in the X-10 world, from remotes to sensors to > whatever and at far lower prices than you'll pay for Z-wave gear. It's > not > immune to problems, either: > > http://www.google.com/search?q=zwave+problems > > and it's proprietary. In one way it's quite inferior to X10. Z-Wave is > *only* RF whereas X-10 has three types of control signal technologies: > RF-PLC, IR-PLC and PLC-PLC. If EMI ever got so high aroudn here it > blocked > X-10 RF signals, I could still control most of my gear via the powerline > or > a handheld IR controller. IIRC, Z-Wave uses the license-exempt 900MHz ISM > band. EMI only seems to be growing, so how or if it will effect either > protocol's RF transmissions remains to be seen. Lots of people are happy > with it but lots of people also didn't know how easy it was to turbocharge > an X-10 setup with XTB and WGL gear. > > There's no denying that ZWave or something like it will be the future of > HA. > In the meantime, as competition increases, prices for Zwave gear will fall > and device quality and variety will improve. Since I am now in a position > to wait it out to see who survives, I will stick with X-10. I'm hoping > that > a open standards platform is the ultimate winner, but it may not turn out > that way. > > -- > Bobby G. > >> > There is no doubt in my mind that z-wave is superior to x-10 but
>> > x-10's advantage is cost. Even with the extended x-10's protocol, it >> > still falls short for complex applications. In my situation, I have a >> > few x-10 recievers controlling a few lamps around the home. I >> > basically use it to turn on/off lights in the room I'm in. I don't >> > have a need for pre-set lighting moods (complete with the hide-away >> > bar that appears with Burt Bacharach music that starts to play.) I >> > really don't see a need for lighting computer interface for how I >> > currently use the system. My house is basically square with one floor >> > at about 1800 sf. My real motivation is to perpetuate my couch-potato >> > lifestyle by not needing to budge from the chair to operate room >> > lighting or to turn-off lights in another room. I'm now getting ready >> > to hardwire wall switches to control ceiling fans and lights along >> > with some lights for the pool area. >> > >> > What I'm asking of you folks here is a justification for one or the >> > other based on how I use wireless techology. I'm not interested in >> > entertaining other technologies and would strongly prefer to hear >> > about just the two. >> > >>
>> >
> | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Bobby Green on June 26, 2008, 8:31 pm
Please log in for more thread options > I hadn't thought about the transceiver but that does make sense given what
I
> know about the stock unit. I'm doing integration piecmeal... can't afford
to
> it all at once. I plan to add a few wired switches at watch to see what
or
> problems I run into. I'm just using modules right now and have had little > not problems other than two different types of controllers that worked
> poorly from day one. Which controllers have you had trouble with? > I have two other controllers that have never yielded a
> single problem in the 7 years I had everything. Conversely, what model/type controller has been successful for you? It would help to know details. > So, the question is, as I
transceiver
> start to encounter problems, which would be the first step - the > or the amp? I'm assuming the transceiver but I might be missing something.
If installing the XTB-IIR across both phases is not a problem for you (and I am assuming it's not because you were talking about the simililarly installed HCA) then that's where I would start. The WGL unit plugs directly into the XTB's digital jack, so you can save yourself a few bucks (20 I think) by buying the more stripped down WGL All Housecode transceiver without the powerline interface. -- Bobby G. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| Justify Upgrade from X-10 to Z-Wave? | June 25, 2008, 11:08 pm |
| Upgrade KT7 motherboard | April 30, 2005, 4:28 pm |
| ELK M1 Upgrade Software Available | July 18, 2005, 2:59 pm |
| Upgrade HomeSeer to 2.0 ? | September 8, 2005, 4:42 pm |
| New ELK M1 Software Upgrade Available, Version 4.3.8 | October 28, 2005, 3:58 pm |
| Elk and Zwave | March 18, 2007, 12:40 pm |
| Insteon vs UPB vs Zwave | February 18, 2006, 10:32 pm |
| Insteon or Zwave? | May 15, 2006, 7:49 am |
| Looking at Zwave products and need recommendations? | August 28, 2005, 8:10 pm |
| Software for Insteon and Zwave | May 25, 2007, 3:30 am |
| Harmony Remote supports Zwave | September 7, 2005, 2:35 pm |
| Zwave Prices going up & Free Home Automation Auction | March 4, 2005, 1:31 pm |
| Zwave In-Wall Switch/Dimmer with RF Remote Control Capabilities | January 7, 2007, 9:42 pm |
> I hooked up the Monterey PLSA behind an AF120 15A filter and got some
> interesting readings. The WGL received an RF command and put it through a
> TW523 onto the house wiring. The Monterey showed normal commands being
> received (at .15 volts, even behind the filter!) with one exception: The
> display showed them all in lower case, which means it only saw the second,
> repeated half of the command. That makes perfect sense. The II is
> stronger
> than the original XTB and the XTB/TW523 combo was on another circuit.
> Only
> the repeated signal could punch through the filter, as would be expected.
>
> The next test is to see whether the WGL's TW-523 alone gives the same
> readings. If it's higher without the XTB, then there's cancellation going
> on. If it's higher *with* the XTB then the two signals are combining.
> IIRC, the IIR alone can't punch through the AF120. The fact that is does
> so
> when it's amplifying an already boosted signal from the XTB seems to
> indicate that the end voltage of an XTB that's repeated by the XTB-IIR is
> considerably higher than either unit alone.
>
> I tried doing some "signal dissect" runs where the Monterey looks at each
> of
> the 22 cycles and records 0's and 1's and their voltage during each cycle
> and that gave me information that seems to imply cancellation is
> occurring.
>
> Cycle
> 01 1 .42 1 .43
> 02 1 .39 0 03m
> 03 0 02m 1 .42
> 04 1 .38 0 03m
> 05 1 .38 0 02m
> 06 0 02m 1 .41
> 07 0 02m 1 .41
> 08 0 02m 1 .41
> 09 1 .37 0 03m
> 10 1 .37 0 03m
> 11 1 .38 0 02m
> 12 1 .25 1 .24
> 13 1 .22 0 03m
> 14 0 03m 1 .22
> 15 1 .21 0 03m
> 16 1 .20 0 03m
> 17 0 03m 1 .20
> 18 0 02m 1 .19
> 19 0 02m 1 .19
> 20 1 .18 0 03m
> 21 1 .18 0 02m
> 22 1 .17 0 03m
>
> Now that I've transcribed that lengthy list two things seem to jump out.
> First, the noise level is very low, probably the result of the Monterey
> sitting behind the AF120 filter. The second is that the repeated frame is
> seems to be actually weaker than the first copy of the X-10 command.
>
> Obviously I need to run more tests with both the XTB and the XTB-IIR but
> it
> looks like we're seeing some fade in the voltage as the command
> progresses.
> Looks fairly linear, too.
>