A question or two about WGL's V572A

Hi everyone and David!

So, as you know, I have made the decision to go for a whole-house transceiver, complete with an external whip antenna. Cool!

Now, I was just wondering two things:

1 - I know I need another piece to make it work... the PSC05 or a Powerlinc module. I understand that the PowerLinc module is better since it Transmits & receives extended X10 codes. I hate to sound like a noob, but just how important are these extended codes. Right now, I am really just using the usual housecodes with 16 devices on each.

However, I _do_ plan to set up my cameras soon, complete with pan/tilt/etc. Do the cameras use extended codes? I really am not sure how important they are...

Sounds to me like I should spend the extra $15 and go for a PowerLinc rather than the PSC05, correct?

2 - I notice there are different PowerLincs. The 1132CU, 1132CUP, 1132U, etc. Are all these compatible with the WGLV572A? Some are USB, some are serial, some have memory built-in, etc.

I will be using the CM15A to store macros, so I guess I don't need that functionality.

Any words of wisdom are welcome. I'd love to make the purchase, but I won't do so without your advice!

Thanks!

Mike

Reply to
Michael G.
Loading thread data ...

Hi Dave,

You've got to englighten me here...!

What device is illegal?

Weren't you the one who recommended the whole-house transceiver in the other thread? Or are the Powerlincs illegal...

Please do englighten me!!

Thanks!

Reply to
Michael G.

Yeah Dave...

I too just decided to buy product from WGL & Associates.

I made a different choice, I bought the W800RF32A, with it's external antenna as well.

I too am dumbfounded by your terse statement earlier.

And I too bought on, if not this group's recommendation - their heads-up.

I never would have known of the product if not for recent mention here.

So what is it that is illegal? And just how illegal IS it?

Are they infringing on a patent...? Did they overlook FCC approval, or something...??

And like Mike, I don't know who you're calling illegal. WGL or SmartHome?

'Cause I now own BOTH...!!

Is it UL approval then?

Yes, Dave... If you wouldn't mind...

PLEASE fill us in.

Thanks!

Jack :)

P.S.

Mike,

Earlier you asked WHICH Powerlinc to buy... Well I asked WGL a few questions earlier, and I learned that they can power the V572 off of a Powerlinc.

I bought Smart Home's X10 tester, and it came with a Powerlinc - and IT powers the tester, etc.

Nice to eliminate a wall-wart, whenever possible - I always say!

Reply to
Jack Edin

Reply to
Dave Houston

FCC Registration (no such thing as approval). Dave believes they need it, WGL doesn't believe they do. So far the FCC has been too busy reviewing the "wardrobe malfunction" tapes to really give a hoot.

From:Jack Edin snipped-for-privacy@logicunlimited.com

Reply to
BruceR

Reply to
Dave Houston

I _know_ they need it. WGL also knows they need it and deliberately chose not to do the required testing (it's costly). Should the FCC ever start enforcing their rules again, Mr. Lohoff will be making license plates and all of his distributors will be bankrupt.

And, no, receivers do not require registrati>FCC Registration (no such thing as approval). Dave believes they need

Reply to
Dave Houston

I bought the V572A/1132B kit from Smarthome. The main reason for choosing the 1132B over the PSC05 was one less wall-wart power supply to deal with. But I also have a PSC05 so tried both.

Although the 1132B _in itself_ can in fact handle X10 Extended Codes, these are useful only for modules like the X10 LM14A 2-way Lamp Module. I have no idea whether there exists a transmitter which can send these Extended Codes as RF (maybe the CM15A?), or whether the V572A could receive them.

The X10 cameras are activated via their power supplies, which respond to the normal X10 Housecode|Unit On/Off power line signals. The X10 "Ninja" Pan/Tilt platforms are strictly RF receivers, so the V572A and/or 1132B would be of little use with them.

Except for the wall-wart issue, I'm not overly impressed by the

1132B for this application. The PSC05 works as well. As far as I know, the combo is limited to just the standard X10 commands. The kit from Smarthome comes with a special serial cable so you can operate the 1132B from your PC, but the Windows software ("Synapse") for it hardly worked at all on my Win XP system.

I think you're limited to the 1132B for use with the V572A.

Regards, Charles Sullivan

Reply to
Charles Sullivan

Thanks for the answers!!

I placed the order.

Believe it or not, the V572A kit WITH the PSC05 was only $10.00 more.

I bought that kit, AND the 1132B. You are correct, by the way, it's apparently the only one that works.

I should get the stuff by next week.

Thanks for all your help... I now understand everything there is to understand!

I sure hope my slim remotes start working better now!

Mike

Reply to
Michael G.

Dave designed (with input from comp.home.automation discussions) built, marketed, and recommended the BX24-AHT which, as he notes, did not have FCC certification.

Unassembled kits ("home built") units apparently do not require FCC certification. His son and grandson set up a web store to sell BX24-AHT parts in the US.

The company that then (as now) hosted Dave's web site at wwww.laser.com/houston/ sold assembled units worldwide including the US. Dave posted prominently on his web site that the devices were available from

formatting link

So Dave recommended a device (the BX24-AHT). In my inexpert personal opinion, depending on which avenue any given consumer chose for purchasing Dave's device (unassembled or assembled), the device obtained was either legal or illegal for use in the US.

Marc Marc_F_Hult

formatting link

Reply to
MFHult

Been gone from the forum for a while and come back to see Dave is still bitching about WGL and FCC certification.

Reply to
nobody

Given that someone has chosen (anonymosly) to quote this bullshit, I guess I must respond once again.

There was _no_ design input from anybody in CHA (and this lying SOB cannot reference a single message to support his lies). After I announced it and sent beta boards (sans BX-24 chips) to three beta testers, one (John Jones) provided some excellent feedback. One other beta tester never had anything to say until long after the beta period, and the third got too busy with a real world project to offer much feedback.

Nobody in North America _EVER_ sold kits for the BX24-AHT. Initially, my grandson sold bare boards and listed Laipac (Canada) as a source for RF receivers. Neither my grandson nor my son ever sold any other components for the BX24-AHT.

Laipac had a $25 minimum (plus S&H) so, when people complained, I first asked Reynolds Electronics, who sells a 433MHz version of the receiver, to stock the 315MHz version. They agreed - if someone would guarantee them 1000 units. I found the Taiwanese manufacturer and my grandson started selling

310MHz receivers for $7.50 (a $2.50 markup).

Laser bought bare boards from my grandson (10% markup), bought 433MHz receivers from LaiPac, bought BX-24's from Peter Anderson and all of the other components came from Mouser as it was easier for them to do that than try to cross reference the P/N list and buy from Maplin or some other European source. They assembled the units and sold them pretty much at their cost (they had to pay a 17% VAT) because they have always had an interest in advancing HA in general. I think they sold all twenty.

The FCC puts the burden on the manufacturer and/or dealer. It is illegal to sell Part 15 devices like these that have not undergone prescribed tests in FCC accredited labs. Europe puts the burden on the user. It's legal to sell things like this there as long as the dealer says it is "not for use in EU countries."

As best I recall, Laser sold 2 assembled units to N. America. AFAIK, those sales violated no rules either in Europe or in N. America. In any case, I had no invovlement. I sold nothing to Laser (nor to anyone, anywhere) and I received no money from Laser (nor anyone, anywhere).

When I announced the BX24-AHT, I made it plain that it would never be a commercial product and that it was primarily intended to be a demonstration project and, secondarily, to help Peter Anderson sell more BX-24 chips. I repeated that several times whenever anyone whined that they wanted to buy it assembled.

Those who approached me with a request to build it and market it, were told that I doubted the market would return the cost of FCC testing but if they wanted to do the FCC testing I would give them any details they needed.

WGL decided to sell a similar device without testing and even tried to persuade Laser to handle it while boasting that they "were not worried by FCC rules". Kwong Li, who happens to be a licensed ham, told him "No."

Any>On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 15:32:47 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@nothydrologistnot.com wrote: >

Reply to
Dave Houston

Thanks for the info Dave, Well, I had very little time this weekend to experiment and/or write some webpage stuff but I did get over one hurdle though. I discovered my problem with decoding the RF stream from the older wall-mountable 3/4 switch remotes. Actually, the problem is with all X-10 RF remotes (transmitters) that use a small DIP switch for setting starting Unit numbers. These remotes include all older wall mountable wallswitch remotes and most older keyfob remotes (not including the new slim models that are user programmable using button pushes,..these work fine). Now to the problem.

In investigating the problem, I captured the two word (32 low bits) RF envelope using debug on the Stamp. AHHH! Upon investigation, it appears that X-10 decided to use a spare bit (bit4 of first received word) for further decoding the unit code for these specific unit. It appears that if this bit is set, then you have to add four (4) to the unit code previously decoded using the regular convention described in Dr. Ed's X-10 RF theory notes. Well, to make a long story short, after adding some code to check this bit, all is working fine again. Another thing I would like to add is that this multihousecode transceiver has much better range than the TM741. This could be contributed to possibly a couple of factors. One being that since the derived power for the TM751 daughterboard is now coming from an isolated source (mini 12V Xformer with bridge rect. and cap), I can now safetly us the 22pF cap mod which supposingly extend the range a bit. The other factor could be that the power source for the daughterboard is better filtered and most likely of higher amperage (now, 400ma). Nevertheless, it still working strong.

(Now, to flip the page to the "RF Transmitter" section....) Dave, I had experimented with a small section (PCB) of the MS-12A occupancy sensor. This section is mainly the RF section which takes a binary input and generates the required 310MHz RF X10-coded envelope (got from one of the many MS12As I had ruined accidently during my "Mad Scientist" experiments months ago). I had a little success months ago but decided to work on my much needed multihousecode transceiver project. Your notes on the Ming are interesting. I'll also have to take a look at the RF board included in the X-10 SuperRemotes (I know I received a few free ones over a year ago,.. just have to find it). My intent is to get rid of the slow "Firecracker" unit I am currently using on my pen-based tablet I often carry around the house (it's basically a Compaq Concerto with a wireless modem for internet access and other phone control stuff). What I also want to do is build a wireless two-way link (maybe even using the TM751 daughterboard and a modified 310Mhz transmitter) for not only controlling X-10 stuff, but for also receiving X-10 signals from such units as motion sensors and wallswitch transmitters to name a few. A fully dynamic wireless X-10 display & control tablet is the end product I'd like to acheive.

y/r

Reply to
MFHult

See my previous post in this thread in which I reference specific messages.

I did not state that anyone sold kits in the US. Read what I wrote.

And it is demonstrably false that the web store operated by your son and grandson

formatting link
did not offer for sale parts for the BX24-AHT. The fact they offered for sale receivers, RS485 IC's, antennas, and cables can be substantiated here.

link to "BX24-AHT Parts"

formatting link
"BX24-AHT Printed Circuit Boards and components"
formatting link
"

Apparently these were among the parts your son and grandson sold that you claim in the paragraph above that they didn't.

Laser sold the BX24-AHT for $220 + shipping + VAT where applicable, so it is not surprising that sales were slow. Nothing you write here refutes anything I've written.

I didn't say anything to the contrary. I did say that there was legal and ethical dodgem, and this supports that observation.

It is preposterous for you to state that you had no involvement. The license on your web site prohibits the sorts of sales that Laser made. So you had a different agreement with them unless you are now claiming that there sales were unauthorized. If you gave authorization to Laser to produce and sell a product that is your intellectual property, you were/are involved with them.

I never said anything to the contrary about your stated intentions. I have simply posted facts. Peter is a good person and it a shame to drag him into this. I've purchased stuff from him since at least 1998. Your support of his work is commendable.

But ABIK, you have not released the source code for the firmware or the PC code. And you retain copyright and authorize only private use on your web site. Apparently you did authorize the commercial use, including sale of assembled units to

formatting link
I have made no statements whatsoever regarding whether you received any funds. ABIK nothing prevents you from obtaining from royalties from such an arrangement with Laser or anyone else (but I make no claim to being an expert on these matters).

So? From what I understand you to say, the FCC status of the assembled commercial BX-AHT's that Laser did sell through agreement with you was the exactly the same as the FCC status of the WGL product.

Typo. Of course it was

formatting link
(~3000 google hits in comp.home.automation.com ) IIRC, you have indicated in another post that you had the archive copies of laser.com/dhouston/ removed from
formatting link
My computer had previously retained my visit to
formatting link
and so I can document my statements.

You haven't refuted a single thing I wrote except to point out the triviality that I mistyped the url for

formatting link
by dropping the "d".

And you keep adding to the list of statements demonstrated to be false and shrill accusations without showing that a single one of my statements is incorrect (because they aren't). Have you rationally assessed the cumulative impact of this?

Marc Marc_F_Hult

formatting link

Reply to
Marc F Hult

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.