I think they've done it again

Megawatt current surges? "Dimming" three space heaters at the same time through a dryer outlet? 600A SCRs?!!!? Bolted together?This a man who enjoys life on the very edge or works in a power substation. (-:

I see more and more people like Douglas Lorenz saying things like: "I see that Smarthome is still trying to sell the "small percentage" story..."

I'm sure that's true in some tangled Clintonian (can you explain what "is" is, please?) sense of the phrase. As in: "The flickering problem only affects a small percentage of the electronic dimmer switches (long pause) ever sold by anyone in the entire world!" (-:

What do you want to bet that they know the exact percentage of returned switches, the cost to *their* bottom line as a result and other detailed information, and on a daily basis, too? It probably goes right to the head honcho at SH every day, with a stack of the latest net traffic. Wave hello to the nice man, Dave. (-:

What I am unsure of is this: Does the flickering problem affect *every* 1st gen. switch, appearing only on loads greater than 250W or are there some switches in the original release that can drive such loads without flickering no matter what the load?

To imply only a "small percentage of the switches is affected" if all of them will flicker under some (common) condition is truly misleading! It implies that only a few switches are bad, not just that only a few installations have yet reached a critical wattage load.

It also fails to account for the normal tendency of people to add more lights to their house rather than remove any. Those people might not experience a failure until their first remodel or upgrade of lighting. They'd be screwed.

The last thing I'd want to have happen is to upgrade to high wattage floodlights outside in response to some local crime wave and have them start to flicker away whenever a light goes on or off inside. That might even get you a visit from the inspector since the flickering might look very much like a loose connection in the wiring capable of starting a fire - especially if more than one bulb flickered in unison.

I'd recommend every Insteon "first gen." switch owner figures out a way to load their switch to the maximum rating (under very carefully controlled conditions - don't stick a 300W photoflood in a socket marked "60 watt maximum for God's sake!!!) to see what happens.

I'd hate to get a call from the new home owner after I moved who was experiencing flickering because they used floods where I had used low wattage bulbs. It comes under the heading of "trouble nobody needs."

All the "Wrong Stuff." You just can't unscrew that pooch, once the word gets out. I actual feel badly for SmartHome. No one wants their product rollout to rollover their customers.

To be fair, the pressure to keep the beta small and secret had to be great. Just given the level of ratf_cking I've read about here in CHA concerning people stealing other people's work, they must have assumed leaks would be a problem.

The corporate thinking is often (and rightfully): if they let the beta test extend too far, they would be sending engineering samples to their competitors. They are in the middle of a VERY competitive race to become the next X-10. You know, "The one that really works" (say, sounds like a similarly named operating system!)

-- Bobby G.

If this guy's analysis (wrong type of triac, too large a current limiting resistor) is correct, then I would expect all that use the same triac and resistor are suspect.

And if he's right, it means replac>What I am unsure of is this: Does the flickering problem affect *every* 1st

Thanks for the explanation. He's promised to dissect the replacement units that they are shipping and report on what's different. It will be interesting what the fix is going to be.

It sounds like the answer to my question is that the ALL the switches from the first batch are likely to flicker if driving large enough loads. What Smarthome is calling a "small percentage" of switches that are affected really means "all switches are defective, but only those who are driving

250W lighting loads are seeing the ill-effects."

More "wrong stuff." )-:

-- Bobby G.

The author of those posts received one of the new "fixed" dimmers and he seems to confirm what I wrote here in his post dated 08/01/2006 : 1:35:25 PM where he says the SmartHome "fix" is a much larger choke that merely masks the underlying flaw.

He has s>> If this guy's analysis (wrong type of triac, too large a current limiting

While it's possible they've decided to explore some of the more onerous provisions of the DMCA and go after him for reverse engineering their design, it's not likely. Threats don't buy nearly as much cooperation as $ does. I get the feeling they've definitely gotten "smarter" about the problem in recent months and taken some smart lawyers on board.

Smart lawyers know that clobbering people with legal goon squad is a short-run tactic that eventually just contributes to an overall impression of "coverup." Maybe they just gave him a box full of all the defective unmodified switches. After all, that's what he was asking for in one of the messages. One of the hardest issues for lawyers in these cases is what to offer as a enticement. This guy answered that question up front. I'm sure they wish they were all that easy.

The disappearing posts and backing off of previously held opinions are the tell-tale signs of an NDA, and therefore, a deal. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. I'm pretty sure that's why the reports of bulb "blow outs" we both seem to have seen weren't there anymore, either. The author of the triac posts is probably now a freelance engineering consultant for them which makes him legally constrained from discussing any engineering issues.

It makes sense. If you want to control the problem, pay off the most strident or devastatingly accurate complainers and make them sign some sort of secrecy or Non-Disclosure Agreement. If you're dealing with someone that can figure out where your engineers went wrong, it's smart to want them on your team! Analysis from non-defective switch owners like us presents somewhat more of a problem. (-: We're the ones likely to get "cease and desist" orders.

The Ford Explorer "blow out" recall was papered over with NDA's and hush-hush settlements until someone decided they wouldn't sign! It's pretty standard stuff. IIRC, Intel had the same sorts of issues when the Pentium floating point error was exposed. Eventually, someone said "no deal."

If *every* switch of the first batch is bad and will flicker under a heavy load, Smarthome knows that keeping that fact quiet is going to save them a lot of warranty exchange costs. They hope that no one's going to notice until they start driving large loads so the game, for them, is to keep customers from noticing or deciding to test their switches with large loads.

The fact that they decided to fix every switch in their possession when the ETL report came back isn't conclusive proof but it lends great support to the contention that ALL the switches in the first batch were bad.

-- Bobby G.

Done what? Start not one, not two, not three, but FOUR threads on this topic as Dave has done so as to parrot misinformation and wallow in schadenfreude ?

It is clear to me that Dave has only a second-hand, partial, qualitative, hypothetical understanding of TRIAC-based dimmer design and that he has swallowed the equally naive speculation of the neophyte he quotes.

Appended below my signature is the useful information that _ought_ to have been passed on in my opinion.

Specifically, that:

1) The simple fix is in 2) It is immediately available 3) with free shipping both ways 4) no need to return the old dimmers first

The fix consists in increasing the choke inductance on the output (as I discussed before in this newsgroup) and will doubtless have the additional benefit of further cleaning up the noise that TRIAC's create (as I wrote before).

A tempest in a teapot for the self-gratification of a few.

.... Marc Marc_F_Hult

From

All,

Thank you for all of the feedback we have received on this flicker issue. I am pleased to share with the community that SmartLabs Design has begun shipping units with the changed component.

As previously stated the load flicker is related to INSTEON-enabled products and not the underlying INSTEON technology. Our engineers have been able to replicate these symptoms in our lab and in the field. We have found that a small percentage of units flicker due to slight variations in the triac. The component that was in question was the choke coil. Repeated INSTEON signals generated by the dimmer or controller were getting into the triac and causing the flicker. We have increased the value of the choke coil to attenuate the INSTEON signals that go into the triac.

We are pleased to have received ETL approval sooner than expected and been able to roll this into production.

The following skus are the first that SmartLabs Design has been able to roll into production. We plan to roll these changes into all dimmable devices in the next few months. Please note the new rev codes on the front of the switches:

#2476D SwitchLinc Rev. 2.5 #2476DH SwitchLinc 1000W Rev. 2.3 Products that shipped on or after Friday July 28, 2006 will have the new Rev codes.

If you have a unit or units that flicker prior to the rev codes above, please call tech support for an exchange (800-762-7846 Option 6). Exchanges will be handled as a standard product return with 2 options to choose from, shipping will be free of charge for both options.

Thank you for your continued support. SmartLabsMike

Trouble is, he doesn't know what he is talking about as evinced by this conclusion, by his bewilderment as to why INSTEON dimmer uses a TRIAC with a logic level gate, and his statement that 'I sure learned a lot about TRIACS' (or some such).

TRIACS used in dimmers can be triggered into conduction either through the gate _or_ the output. The flickering is caused by the latter not the former.

An R-C snubber or inductor is virtually *always* used on the output, not to cover an "underlying flaw" as is stated here, but by design, and on purpose and out of necessity.

That is not to say that there may not have been a shift in parameters of the TRIAC ( I don't know), either by substitution, mistake, or manufacturing tolerances, or some other cause. Only to state that the notion that using a larger inductor to prevent retriggering is entirely conventional and customary and is not covering up an "underlying flaw" as is asserted here by the neophyte as parroted by Dave Houston.

As a coda, it may be useful to note that another retrofit that would both fix the flicker problem and reduce RF and other noise proliferation (US standards on noise emissions are less stringent than European) is to simply add an external choke as previously mentioned. I note with a chuckle that the chokes alone on many DMX dimmers weigh as much as 4 or 5 entire INSTEON or [name any

There's a new post at:

which seems to be Smarthome's official forum but it could also be someone calling themselves that. Anyway, here's the latest, with ["Mike's comments"] so marked.

["As previously stated the load flicker is related to INSTEON-enabled products and not the underlying INSTEON technology."]

What is THAT supposed to mean? We designed it right but built it wrong? That's nice. It smacks of the SODDI defense,

except that there aren't any other "dudes" around!

["Our engineers have been able to replicate these symptoms in our lab and in the field. We have found that a small percentage of units flicker due to slight variations in the triac."]

Sounds like you and the guy with the huge triacs were right. "Slight variations in the triac" means "some triacs are bad" in my downhome, low-tech comprehension of English.

["The component that was in question was the choke coil."]

Could this also mean the cheapest way to fix the problem was not to replace the "slightly varying" triacs but to apply a cheaper patch downstream. Aren't triacs much more expensive (and harder to replace) than choke coils?

["Repeated INSTEON signals generated by the dimmer or controller were getting into the triac and causing the flicker."]

And this wasn't noticed in the beta test? It's certainly being noticed now. Bad beta test.

[" We have increased the value of the choke coil to attenuate the INSTEON signals that go into the triac."]

I wonder if that has any downside, like further attenuating X-10 signals and creating problems for people with hybrid systems. Any time you change even a single component, it can have unwanted side effects elsewhere.

["We are pleased to have received ETL approval sooner than expected and been able to roll this into production."]

Read that to mean "all the chatter about bad Insteon switches spooked us so badly that we paid ETL a rush fee to get a fix out." They know they very much need to quiet what for them must be a most uncomfortable discussion in the midst of a home automation protocol war.

["The following skus are the first that SmartLabs Design has been able to roll into production. We plan to roll these changes into all dimmable devices in the next few months. Please note the new rev codes on the front of the switches:"]

Ah, so we know that if they plan to roll them into ALL dimmable devices, they are very likely ALL defective or will become so under the proper conditions.

["Products that shipped on or after Friday July 28, 2006 will have the new Rev codes."]

Well, at least we know which ones to avoid! Anything BEFORE #2476D SwitchLinc Rev. 2.5 and #2476DH SwitchLinc 1000W Rev. 2.3

["If you have a unit or units that flicker prior to the rev codes above, please call tech support for an exchange (800-762-7846 Option 6). Exchanges will be handled as a standard product return with 2 options to choose from, shipping will be free of charge for both options."]

That's nice, Mr. Mike. What Option do I press to get the free electrician's visit? Oh, wait, there isn't any! Oddly enough, when I went to look in Google for messages about how people with old and brittle wiring might find that settlement less than generous, I found this one:

"If something broke, it was a nightmare." Well, that sums up why *I* think Smarthome is trampling their customers by making them absorb the foreseeable and consequential recall costs. Or don't they know that over-twisting solid copper house wiring leads to metal fatigue?

It's pretty general knowledge jacking switches in and out is neither free, easy nor without risk. The "generous" terms Smarthome offers are what should have been offered during a beta test, not to purchasers who had no reason to suspect Smarthome continued to sell switches with either defective triacs or undersized chokes or both.

Nothing I've seen so far expresses any remorse for selling switches to people who might NOT have bought them had they known they had "slight variations in the triac." They did not have the benefit of making that choice - they had no say in the matter - Smarthome made the choice for them by deciding to keep selling the switches.

Now, Smarthome should be placed in the equally bad position of not having in any say in paying for electrician's bills experienced by people who bought those switches between March 2006 and July 2006.

I don't understand how people can support the actions of a company that would foist defective products on people and just "hope" for the best.

-- Bobby G.

As we Swedes say, "Rädsla mindre , hoppas mer , äta mindre , tugga mer , gnälla mindre , andas mer , samtal mindre , säga mer , hata mindre , älska mer , och alt god sakerna vilja bli din."

(Fear less, hope more; whine less, breathe more; talk less, say more; hate less, love more; and all good things are yours. Swedish proverb)

... Marc Marc_F_Hult

I think this is getting a bit carried away. They found the problem, they fixed the problem and they're replacing the products that have problems. As to the cost of an electrician, I'm guessing few were installed by any but if they were, and the customer brings it up, who's to say that they won't make some kind of adjustment or compensation? They can deal with those requests individually. For most of us, the swap out will mean a weekend of inconvenience - just like the many weekends of inconvenience I've spent debugging X10 stuff. Like I said earlier, pioneers have arrows in their backs.

Bruce, the real issue here is they didn't beta test the product thoroughly enough before releasing it. Whatever word dancing they do, i.e. "slight variations in the triac" - the triac/choke problem should have been discovered in beta. Even worse, they kept selling the switches for months when they KNEW there was a problem.

This becomes a serious issue because it exposes Smarthome's business ethic and concerns *anything* bought from Smarthome in the future. Even when they knew the product had problems, they just kept pushing them out the door, without constructive notice of the defect.

My comments are not meant to be confined just to Smarthome. They are meant to concern every poor schmoe here who has ended up being an unpaid beta tester. Who here hasn't paid money for something that was so buggy that it was useless?

The trend for the entire industry - indeed the entire tech sector - is to shift whatever costs they can to someone else. One way to do that is to get the customer to eat beta test costs. I don't think that's right. Others may think differently. That's Usenet.

I sincerely appreciate your ability to discuss the issues on the merits like a gentlemen without resorting to personal invective. You're a very smart guy with wealth of HA and other technical experience and I value your opinion highly. I've bought a number of HA items based solely on your recommedation and have been very happy with every purchase. I can, believe it or not, see your point of view. I hope that you can see mine.

If a company rushes or perform an incomplete beta test, there are (and should be) consquences. When they happen, most companies do their best to minimize the impact to the *company* and its bottom line, most often to the detriment of the customer who's purchased the defective equipment.

Who's to say? They're to say! If they want to feel like real good guys, act like good guys. "If you have an itemized bill from a licensed electrician for a swap of switches purchased during the "covered period" we'll pay it" would be a good start in that direction. It's the kind of thing I imagine they'd be *forced* to do if a class-action attorney got interested in the case.

Don't they know about Usenet and Google? Why do Dave and *I* have to repost their reports here? We both know the answer: Because Smarthome they really doesn't *want* people to know about the defective switches. They really, really don't, Bruce. That's obvious from their failure to give customers notice. They found out about the problem very soon after the switches appeared. Yet it took nearly four months for them to *stop* selling those switches.

I contend that's because they are in a race for HA supremacy and a "stop sales" or a recall would have hurt them VERY badly. So they *chose* to put that hurt on their customers, instead. It was a voluntary action and it was not smart. It would have saved them money (they're now paying shipping both ways to return items that should never have shipped) and reputation to have stopped selling switches until the problem was fixed. I'm spending so much energy on this thread to hopefully convince them to behave differently in the future. I like them, I've bought from them before and have been happy with the purchases. But now I don't trust them.

It's not just an issue of whether an electrician had to install or replace the switches. I use that as a primary example because that's a cost everyone knows instantly in real-world dollars. I had to suffer through grad school economics classes before I really understood that people tend to minimize non-dollar costs like lost opportunity costs. But they are very real nonetheless.

"Lost opportunities" are what economists and lawyers call the things you

*could* have been doing if you weren't (in this case) jacking bad switches in and out. They are things like earning extra money, recreating with the family or chilling out with a beer and the TV. Smarthome's actions have deprived people of those opportunities.

Beta testers expect that they may be jacking switches in and out as designs are improved and refined. But that's not an expectation a normal customer would have. They expect the damn thing to work right the first time. The highly competitive environment they're in probably contributed to an unwillingness to perform a thorough beta - one that was very likely to catch this problem.

Who should pay for their decision not to do a complete enough beta test? The customers who didn't even know *they* were being conscripted as a unpaid beta test draftee? I think not!

By now it should be obvious to anyone reading that there are risks every time you torture old solid copper wires that one will break off at the wall. If that happens "it's a nightmare" - not my words, but the words of another respected poster here. That could involve electricians, drywall workers and painters to repair. It's not fair to increase people's exposure to those kinds of problems by selling them switches with defects they did not disclose.

Not everyone has a weekend they want to spend with the power off, jackassing switches in and out. Smarthome decided to ignore those consequential costs to the consumer and pushed those switches out the door for four months until the ETL report came back. Then, suddenly, they decided to fix *all* of them. Even the switches in inventory. We can only guess what ETL told them.

You mean quietly, so as not to give other customers the same idea and to limit Smarthome's overall exposure? Do you know of anyone they've actually done that for or is it just a suggestion of how they should act if they were willing to take responsibility for their actions?

In any case, think of me as providing "squeaky wheel" documentation for those without years of expericence working for lawyers, providing litigation support. I'm merely reminding poor Smarthome customers, now and in the future that if they bought Switchlincs from between March and August 2006, they're in a different category than other Switchlinc buyers. They should be able to hire an electrician to do the swap and send the bill to Smarthome, even if they didn't use an electrician in the first place.

Those customers didn't get to decide whether to use switches with a known defect and thereby risk the hidden costs of jacking switches in and out again. But Smarthome knew and continued to ship. That's not fair.

Why am I unwilling to let this just fade? It's an action not likely to be restricted to this switch. We have seen, in gory detail, just how Smarthome operates. I'm sure you've heard the phrase "past behavior is the best predictor of future actions." This is how they are likely to react to ANY defective product they market in the future. Keep selling it until ETL or the Good Electrical Fairy or your corporate counsel tells them "you had better fix *all* of them *before* you sell anymore."

When they heard their third or fourth report - each nearly identical to the other - they should have stopped sales. When they were able to replicate it in their laboratory, they should have *surely* stopped selling. They didn't. They made a business decision that balanced market share and sales against reputation for quality. Like the choice of chokes and triacs, they appear to have made a bad one regarding their reputation.

You're retired, you like to do this stuff, you're qualified to do this stuff and apparently, you appear to live mostly in brand new homes with shiny, non-brittle copper wiring. And frankly, Bruce, you probably place in the

99th percent of wealth if not in CHA, then the whole USA and maybe even the whole world. I'm not sure, but I think you own three houses. Even two would set you a little apart from the average CHA'er. :-)

I don't mean these comments in a negative way, I just want to make sure that readers understand that our differences of opinion result from very different perspectives and life experiences.

You're a former company owner who's manufactured electronic equipment and you've been faced with very similar product defect issues. That's bound to make you more sympathetic to their current circumstances than I am.

You've told us that you've received a substantial discount from Smarthome for the switches you've installed, for all we know you might have been one of the early beta testers and your payment was a discount on the switches you tested. I am not saying you are dishonorable, just that when someone receives something of value from something, even just a discount, it can color their viewpoint.

It is likely if you were such a tester, an NDA prevents you from telling us and that's eminently fair. There are good reasons to keep the identities of beta testers confidential. All of the factors above can, and perhaps do, contribute towards you being more munificent toward them regarding the bad switches than I am willing to be. That's just human nature.

For some people (and at one point in my life that was me) spending a weekend working for Smarthome, gratis, would have meant I would have lost overtime pay or weekend consulting jobs. It would have meant cheating my wife or kids out of a weekend outing.

For those reasons, among others, I don't think it's quite fair to compare having to jack Smarthome's "known defective" switches in and out to X-10 debugging required years, in fact decades, after the original purchase.

I ran X-10 for at least 10 years without any issues whatsoever. Only when the world changed and became filled with signal suckers did X-10's engineering finally need expensive help like a Monterey Poweline Analyzer. X-10 worked, as advertised, for long enough that no court in the world would find they didn't live up to their claims. That's not true of Smarthome and their Switchlincs.

I don't *like* the time I spend debugging current X-10 problems, but I can't realistically compare it removing, returning and reinstalling Smarthome switches that THEY knew were bad but sold anyway. That irks me (in case you hadn't noticed! )

In the case of X-10, I do the debugging and have spent $400 in analysis tools because I have a significant investment in both equipment and wife training that I want to protect. That's very, very different than Smarthome discovering problems months after release that end up with their reworking every switch.

Selling those switches from March to July 2006 that they knew had "slight variations in the triac" is just typical cover-up corporate behavior and I am more than a little sick of it. It's only a notch or two up from oil companies insisting at Senate hearings they were not price gouging after Katrina but posting record profits of 62% for that and subsequent quarters after years of average gains. WTF?

I try to look at what companies DO, not what they say. Smarthome sold duff switches that they didn't test well enough. Worse, still, they've only told the world through second-hand means. If they were "stand up guys" they might have behaved differently and posted here in CHA as soon as they knew there was a problem.

But the less people know about the defect, the less it's going to cost Smarthome. They know that. You know that. I know that. We all know that. They also know Google Groups and Usenet exist and you'd better believe that although they won't post here, they sure do read here. One might even wonder if these very discussions didn't inspire them to finally decide to fix all the switches in inventory and not just sell the bad ones out, as they obviously had been doing before these threads began.

I don't like paying $+3 a gallon for gas, I don't like companies selling defective equipment they know is bad and I *really* don't like companies doing their beta testing on unwitting, paying customers.

Two last questions. In light of articles like this:

"At this point Insteon is competing for market share with legacy X10, Infrared, proprietary RF (Lutron, Zensys), ZigBee, and IEEE 802.15.4 products," says Kirsten West, PhD, founder and Principal Analyst with the high-tech market research firm WTRS."

Doesn't it at least *seem* credible with that kind of competition(some of them reaching market BEFORE Smarthome) that Smarthome might have rushed its product to market so as to gain market share?"

Isn't there a distinction in your mind between the people buying the product when it first came out (true pioneers) and the people who bought the product well after Smarthome knew there was a defect?

-- Bobby G.

(major snip)

Very well thought out and nicely written, sir.

Kind Regards,

Neil

Bobby, I do understand everything you're saying about Smarthome as it relates to this issue and I too enjoy the discourse and have the utmost respect for your positions and the way you present them.

In a perfect world SH would have done more extensive beta testing and stopped sales instantly as you think they should have. I'm not defending their actions but at the same time I'm not condemning them either. On the Appliance Modules with the safety issue they did stop, issued a recall and notified all purchasers - voluntarily. The flicker issue is not a safety issue so it's a little different. This is more like an automotive service bulletin where IF a problem like a strange wind noise or rattle shows up for a customer they tell him the answer and furnish the improved part (and often charge for it!). Maybe not the most forthright manner to handle these things but, nonetheless, not uncommon for most businesses. Products would cost a lot more if a percentage had to be added for every contingency - just look at the light aircraft industry.

Now, as far as Smarthome goes in comparison to it's competition, they have had a far more open and direct way of dealing with users than X10, Leviton, or any of the newer players. The other technologies, which seem to be a lot more closed mouth and don't have an open dialog with the public, make it more difficult to know what ills they suffer from. Let's not forget Leviton's Wall Controllers that were clearly defective inthat almost every one failed from bad codewheels within a year. Their solution? A new model. No warranty extensions. Even the control pads couldn't be reused as they made a change so the new controllers needed a different keypad. And the X10 Wall Outlet Modules? 20 years later and they STILL haven't fixed the problem! The UPB starter kit? Stopped working a week after it arrived. None of these guys are angels!

As for my own switch changeouts I'm going to let the dust settle for 60 days or so before doing any swaps.

For the record, I haven't fully retired quite yet, I am still very much in the telecom business but it requires less of my direct time now. I am building a high-end spec house right now which is very time consuming and very detail oriented so I do value my free time quite highly. As to the discount I got on my Insteon stuff, it was a very short window promotion offered to a number of customers via email - no strings attached as to NDA's, betas or any other limitations. Since ICONs weren't discounted I basically bought more V2's than I had originally planned instead of mostly ICON units. You're right about the 3 houses although one is a 60 year old rental unit on an adjacent property and one is a townhouse in another city where I have an office. I replaced all the switches and outlets in the 60 year old house and was surprised to find the copper wiring in very good condition (some was upgraded 20 years ago). All the outlet boxes were filled with old geckko eggs and dead baby geckko bodies. Yummy!

I agree with Bruce that since this was not a safety issue, expecting a product recall is a bit much. SmartHome has always had a very good (and lenient) return policy. I would not expect them to offer compensation for the time and expense of replacing the switches. With any relatively new product line (especially in the consumer electronics area) the phrase caveat emptor should apply.

I started the thread because I knew a lot of people were trying Insteon because of my earlier review (even some who trashed my review and have a 6-7 year history of trashing anything I post) and because it looked like SH was ignoring the problem - there was a growing rumble of customer discontent. Soon thereafter they announced they had been able to duplicate the flickering and were working it. And now they've announced they are even reworking existing stock. All in all I think their response has been reasonably good - I did commend them for reworking existing stock. I doubt they would have incurred that expense had they not thought the problem serious. (It will be interesting to see whether they also change the triac at some future date.)

I suspect that there were far more people who tried Insteon as a result of the promotion it received in other forums, where SmartHome press releases were the main fare, than as a result of anything posted to CHA.

In fairness to SmartHome, some of the trepidation that I and others had regarding Insteon was the result of a history of poor responses to past SwitchLinc problems _BUT_ that came at a time when SwitchLinc was an independent company with no affiliation to SmartHome. SwitchLinc's past inadequate response may have been due to a lack of resources and that may have led to SmartHome buying them. While one of the original partners in SwitchLinc is now the head of SmartLabs and in charge of development, management is now in different hands.

As for beta testing, I do not know how extensive it was. I was asked to beta test some of their earlier pre-Insteon modules but declined because I was afraid my health issues would have prevented me from devoting the time and effort required to provide good feedback. I've declined other beta-test requests from other companies for the same reason but have usually given them the names of other CHA participants who I thought could and would do a good job.

I've had reports that their HouseL>Bobby, I do understand everything you're saying about Smarthome as it

Yes. I cited it previously to point out that INSTEON now provides instructions with direct phone number and including free shipping on how to exchange units. Excellent, important, timely news for those that actually have INSTEON V2 dimmers

Oh, Lordy. It is, in my opinion, a disservice to folks reading this newsgroup to purposely create uncertainty where there is none about the credibility of this "© 2000-2006 SmartLabs, Inc" Smarthome Forum and the individual SmartLabs Administrator named SmartLabsMike announcing and explaining the INSTEON dimmer return procedure on behalf of Smarthome.

I'll let others decide whether this apparent attempt by Bobby to create FUD and confusion results from 'motivated cognition' (ala Jost et al) or something else. But I will correct the record by pointing out what Bobby could figger out by his lonesome:

1) The forum is prominently labeled as "© 2000-2006 SmartLabs, Inc" 2) A whois search confirms that the domain is managed/owned by SmartHome 3) The site makes copious use of trade-marked SmartHome and INSTEON name and graphics 4) It is prominently labeled "Smarthome Forum" using Smarthome trademark 5) The poster's handle is SmartLabsMike 6) SmartLabsMike is an official Forum Administrator and has posted 478 times 7) SmartLabsMike lists as his home url in his sig which in turn is prominently labeled " ©2004-2006 SmartLabs? Inc. All rights reserved. " In the very post Bobby cites.

And if Bobby actually had a question --which I doubt --, he could use the FAQ at the site that would tell him to email snipped-for-privacy@smarthome.com for further questions.

Why would anyone that actually wants to be _helpful_ suggest that the post was not authoritative? What purpose does Bobby G's smearing of reality serve except to create FUD and to try to discredit the authority of the post that provides the solution to (real) users' (real) needs by providing detailed instructions on how to return defective dimmers? This is not helpful in my opinion.

Bobby's post adds a third hyp-word to those that already characterize the content of many of his other posts because it is Bobby who is challenging SmartLabs credibility while repeatedly damaging his own though his own avoidable actions.

So this post seems (to me) to lack objectivity even from the git-go. It is my conclusion that this sort of post damages the overall credibility of the newsgroup just as do repeated exaggerations. I doubt that Bobby sees it that way, but others do. This is not a personal attack. It is an expression of concern for posts that diminish the usefulness and credibility of the newsgroup.

Pray tell, Bobby, who are the so-called "supporters" of INSTEON? An actual name, please, not hippo-endo. Is Bobby implying that someone who buys INSTEON is a "supporter"? Or is he confusing "supporter" with 'apologist'? I have read nothing in this newsgroup that suggests that _anyone_ "supports" inappropriate behaviour by SmartHome with regard to the INSTEON mess. Why the straw horse?

I note that Bobby posted his message using Microsoft Outlook Express

5.50.4807.1700.

Does not "understand[ing] how people can support the actions of a company that would foist defective products on people and just 'hope' for the best" include not understanding why 90% of the world's computers use Microsoft OS? Or why Bobby himself uses MS products?

(Last week I did a fresh install of MS XP using a Service Pack 2 CD after which I had to update and additional *62* files of patches and fixes (beyond the umpteen already in the SP1 and SP2 rollups already included in the CD). So much for finding all the problems and them fixing the in Beta (or RC1 or RC2, or RTM or SP1 or SP2!) If MS had waited to find all the bugs, we might still be (e.g.) paying Big Blue $5000 per box.

I come to the conclusion that Bobby is doubtless a fine individual with noble intentions who, as noted by others, gets 'carried away' in his advocacy of a position. This is not a personal attack.

But I do from time-to-time note the more obviously factually incorrect things that he writes in this newsgroup and post my views on the matter. He is free to respond. But in my experience, and like the current "Leader of the Free World", he doesn't acknowledge or correct his mistakes. The best solution is not for me to stop commenting on exaggerations and misstatements. The best solution IMO is to stop making them in the first place, but I know better than to expect behaviour to be modified by usenet posts. And however sanctimonious it may sound, in my opinion, it does serve comp.home.automation constructively to have the record corrected so that others are not mislead.

... Marc Marc_F_Hult

[most of 498(!) lines deleted for brevity and clarity ]

Useful summary, Dave. In my case, though, the decision to try INSTEON had next to nothing to do with any posts in comp.home.automation or anywhere else, and everything to do with 1) availability of HA software/firmware support and 2) price. (FWIW, I think some folks have an inflated view of the impact of comp.home.automation. This is jist my impression because I don't actually have any data. I am particularly skeptical of _post hoc ergo propter hoc_ causal relations that I often read about in this newsgroup. This not a personal attack, although my continuing experience has been that this statement will be mischaracterized as such by some regardless of what I actually say or do.)

1) Software: Elk (firmware) and HomeSeer (software) -- both of which I use

-- both support INSTEON. Without software, HA hardware is typically useless. It verges on mantra for me to repeat that X-10 problems aside, most HA problems are software and programming problems in my experience (which is admittedly atypical).

2) Price: INSTEON has, as best I know, offered at less than $20, 300-watt ICON dimmers continuously since their introduction. (I bought some more today.) The ICON pcb and at least most components including case (but not front-piece) and heat sinks appear to me to be identical to those of the 600-watt V2 dimmers that are twice as expensive. Absent the availability of the $20 INSTEONS, I would not have purchased INSTEON.

There is no other X10 alternative that comes anywhere _close_ to being as inexpensive to purchase as INSTEON. That, and software/firmware availability -- not reviews by or tea leaves of others -- was the second necessary and overriding consideration (for me). (No attack; jist the facts.)

The observation that purchasing/buy-in decisions are and were made on the basis of availability of inexpensive ICON dimmers relates directly to the seriousness of the "flicker" debacle because it relates to how many non-ICON (V2) dimmers have been sold. None of us have that data, but SmartHome does.

ICON dimmers are rated at 300 watts. And I avoid using electronic devices at 100% of rated load [add favorite EE dictum here].

[Therefore?] I have no problem with any ICON dimmer, nor, apparently, will anyone else who adheres to an 80% rule, because 80% of 300 watts is 240 watts which is < 250 watts and I have not seen any credible reports of "flicker" below 250 watts. For us, there is no actual performance issue for ICON dimmers.

So, FWIW, and in my opinion, and with the proviso that there are no associated safety issues (which appears to be the case), INSTEON is fully within its proper rights to tell anyone who has an ICON dimmer who claims that it flickers at 301 watts to go fly a kite. And ICONS may be the vast majority of INSTEON dimmers out there. (There's that pesky data v. speculation problem again.) So the problem may be much smaller in terms of the total number of dimmers affected than the discussions here would lead one to believe.

Mis dos centimos ... Marc Marc_F_Hult

*Now* you tell us! ;-) Predictably enough, my responses _have_ been confined to INSTEON technology.

A concern that we mostly all share. One of my horror stories was replacing pistons, by myself, in an unheated garage during -10F Minnesota weekend on a Ford with 15,000 miles on it (warranty ended at 12,000) that I bought brand new (first new car of my life) only to find that the engine self-destructed because Ford bored out a European 4-cylinder design and didn't test it in cold weather. Next year, Wisconsin sued and won for consumers, but that was too late to help me. Every 'spare' dime I didn't have was in the car which I need to transport family including toddler and pregnant wife. The car was a 1975 Pinto [OK. I know that y'all are laughing with me, not at me;-) ] that _also_ had dangerous tires that self destructed that I _also_ had to replace at my own expense. And the sedan (we had a wagon) _also_ had a gas tank that exploded.

I have never again bought an American-made car from an American manufacturer. 31 years and counting. And I have never again allowed myself to get so dependent on cars. Never again. So a agree and live by the/Bobby's? comment that there ought to be consequences.

In the case of INSTEON, I don't have enough facts yet to judge what the consequences ought be. It is not useful to speculate at his point in my opinion with respect to this aspect. This is just my own MO. It is also my opinion that going off half-cocked with speculative data is inappropriate if you are serious. I confess to not taking HA very seriously in the sense that I take my own advocacy work seriously. It is a hobby for me that I engage in sporadically, and not very well if viewed from a scientific/professional perspective.

I can see how someone would view it differently and try to "make a difference" as Bobby seems to be doing. And I/we thank you for that, Bobby. The car industry has improved greatly -- but apparently not enough. Today's New York Times reports that three Toyota officials are under investigation in Japan for concealing defects in Toyotas for eight years. Toyotas recalls have gone up 41-fold since 2001. So much for Toyota as the paradigm of consumer satisfaction and protection ...

Well I for one think that industry as a whole has made enormous progress in consumer protection since the days of Sinclair Lewis. And that the "long curve" of the Internet has made it both easier for problems to be identified and their extent to be known and for the record to be distorted and exaggerated by carelessness and on purpose.

From what I know (and I know next to nothing about the extent of the problem because I know next to nothing about how many defective dimmers have *actually* been sold -- ICON dimmers effectively don't matter IMO as I explain elsewhere) Smarthome's response was reasonably prompt and liberal. I commend them for that. But, dear Bobby, when you imply that I or anyone else condones ("supports") _inappropriate_ behaviour, your acknowledged propensity to exaggerate ( the significance of which we apparently disagree about quite profoundly) and making a gratuitous *personal* attack in my opinion. I am sure that you would like to avoid doing that just as I have significant confidence in the prediction that if you and I were to speak in person, you would be fully assured that my comments are directed to the _content_ of your posts ("hippo-speak" and not at you as a person. Take Care ... Marc (who is "in the book" ) Marc_F_Hult

| (FWIW, I think some folks have an inflated view of the impact of | comp.home.automation. This is jist my impression because I don't actually | have any data. I am particularly skeptical of _post hoc ergo propter hoc_ | causal relations that I often read about in this newsgroup.

I don't know. Back when I was trying to use the original SwitchLinc product and SmartLinc was stonewalling with the usual ``your wiring is too noisy'' line, a posting to comp.home.automation with some speculation on the nature of the bugs actually provoked a phone call from someone claiming to be in the development department at SmartLinc. Granted it turned out that their real motivation was to prevent (or at least delay) me from posting a more complete description of the problems, but they certainly reacted.

Similarly, years earlier a posting in comp.dcom.telecom about bugs in a Vive caller ID box provoked a response from (IIRC) the president after it was somehow brought to the company's attention. Of course, the purpose of the response was mainly to attempt to deflect the criticism and confuse the issue.

Hmm, maybe these examples support your thesis that there isn't much impact. :) But it may be a good way to get the attention of otherwise unresponsive companies, and the availability of archives has made it much more difficult for those companies to use the, ``nobody else is having that problem'' excuse...

Dan Lanciani ddl@danlan.*com