is x10.com dead?

Despite being a hobbyist, I don't think RadioRA is really a hobbyist thing. I think systems tend to be spec'd at once, ordered (in custom colors, no less) and installed together, which is not the X-10 pattern.

Lutron has been around a long time and has a HUGE base of installed commercial and architectural controls. I think it will be a long time before you won't be able to find a replacement part. On the other hand, I don't think it will be cheap.

If your wife lets you drive a Chevy and doesn't mind waiting while you run out for the part....

But there was no way my wife was letting me rewire the new house with X10 after her/our experiences in the last one. :(

It's not hard to wire a switch module to a 99c outlet for non-dimmed loads. (Just check the draw.) I suppose there is some electrical code that outlets can't be wired to a wall dimmer?

Yeah, mine saw the sort of foolishness it took to get it all working at a house I had up in Baltimore. That crinkled nose face made it quite clear it wasn't gonna fly for our new house together in Bethesda. She loves the Lutron stuff, or more accurately, likes the fact it all works without having to THINK about it at all.

-Bill Kearney

I disagree with this analogy on one important factor, reliabilty of automobiles is backed by sound engineering and decades of regulation. Neither exists in X-10. It's crappy engineering, a marvel of cheap s*it being pushed well beyond it's means. I'm not sure the auto analogy can even be applied to it, as cars are considerably more complex and influenced by all manner of different variables.

I don't want bragging rights, I just want something that works reliably without having to jump through a myriad of geek hoops. X-10 has not and fundamentally can not provide that.

Yes, code frowns upon that, apparently. But yes, it does work nicely!

Look, I'm not casting the Lutron stuff as the end-all-be-all solution. It has it's limitations (mainly total device count). But I'm saying that for wall switches and overall reliable functionality that X-10 is a miserably defective solution. I dearly hope alternatives like zigbee and the like gain enough traction to make X-10 a distant bad memory.

That's just it, the reliability difference wasn't marginal. It was 50% (at best) versus 100%.

The point is if X-10 wasn't such a s***ty product it wouldn't HAVE trouble with this sort of thing. Blaming the billions of other devices being made worldwide is NOT a realistic excuse.

Ubiquity on eBay isn't much of a sign. Statistically anything's possible, realistically, however, X-10 is s**te.

Which is doubtless not representative of the typical modern household.

I've seen this trouble is no less than 4 residences, each with otherwise completely reliable electrical service. Graphs from the UPS have show it as such. As for "should" that's baloney. I'm sick of seeing people being suckered into using an aggravatingly useless technology.

Again, that's like saying you have to plan your route out ahead of time in your car because it might randomly just shut down because the color of the bushes on one street weren't right. A device for controlling AC-line devices should never have this sort of chaotic unreliability.

No, they control the circuit from inside. No temperature or moisture issues. And aren't stored in the hot attic either.

The fact that they're cheap doesn't justify their aggravation. Having to keep buying them, at this rate of two each year, is ridiculous. Especially for devices that see two cycles each day for about 2 months!

Over time I've used them in simple setups and they still fail. While I may be using more today that I have in the past, I've certainly used them in what would be considering typical situations. How many times do we see someone new come to the newsgroup and being led down the "filter the crap outta everything" nonsense path?

Ah, here we get back to an important point, X-10 does not represent what's possible with powerline control. Systems like Echelon have done it reliably for quite a while. X-10 has never been reliable and people should give it a wide berth.

Well, excuse the insult, but you've decided that wallowing in the random misery is tolerable. I've chosen otherwise. I know it doesn't sound very nice but honestly, too many geeks keep putting up with this crap and apologizing for it. Enough already.

-Bill Kearney

I can understand your position if truly half of your commands did not work. That is clearly unacceptable.

You mentioned a plethora of electronic equipment. Back when X10 was developed, the house was a much friendly environment. Most electronic equipment we take for granted today was not even thought about. Many manufacturers add a capacitor directly across the AC inlet to get THEIR equipment to pass conducted radiation tests. It's a cheap fix, and does not care about what other products they share the environment with. That is why the filters are necessary. They add the components the equipment manufacturer left out to save costs.

With several hundred X10 command sent daily, and an observable glitch perhaps every couple of months, I can honestly say our reliability is

Jeff

Yeah, honest to god, trying to just do simple stuff was so hit-and-miss that it was impossible to use reliably.

Yes, true. Not a good thing, but a known thing. And that it bedevils X-10 versus other products not having trouble makes it clear that using X-10 is not a good idea.

No argument there, other than to say most folks aren't going to apply that much effort. And it's my contention they shouldn't NEED to bother with that. If a product can't work reliably in the modern household it has no business being sold, let alone promoted by as a solution. There are better offerings, that's all I'm saying.

Robbert,

There's one big problem with the x10 alternatives. Most of the automation packages, such as HAL, do not support them. If I understand the new Smart Home system, it uses the X10 protocol but enhances it by sending it over both the power line and RF methods. This would appear to be a good solution to both the reliability problems and the support issue. Have you, or anyone else, had any experience using this system?

Dennis

Robert L Bass wrote:

The size of the company isn't the issue. It only takes an assessment by the board that their PER would improve if they drop the line and it's gone. For example, consider the case of Aetna insurance. They were making a fine profit on numerous lines but Ron Compton (now ex-CEO) convinced the board of directors that they could increase their price-earnings ratio by dropping more than half of their business. In a very short time they stopped providing coverage to hundreds of thousands of customers.

Jeff,

Your comments regarding the use of the compact florescent lights and the inline filters got my attention. I am building a new house, and will be using these lights extensively and want them to be controllable through an HA system. Could you expand on your explination of how to make this setup more reliable.

Thanks Dennis

Jeff Volp wrote:

HAL 2000 does support Z-Wave:

I'd describe that as supplementing rather than enhancing the X10 signal. At first glance it appears to be a good idea. They may sell lots of them. However, past problems with all things 'Linc give me serious pause before accepting the product line.

Reliability can be improved using multiple protocols. However, if they keep making low quality like other 'Linc products, the problems will persist.

I haven't invested in Insteon. I might just buy a few products to test when I get back to the US in April, 2006. I'm much more interested in Z-Wave.

If you are referring to Insteon, it doesn't use the X-10 protocol (although it can be set to use it) and it only uses RF to couple the phases.

When set for Insteon, all of the modules and switches repeat the signal (up to five times) over the powerline which tends to give good signal strength. And all commands are ACKed, so reliability is excellent. But Insteon will be affected by the same types of signal sinks as X-10. Insteon uses 131.65kHz versus X-10's 120kHz.

When set for X-10, the modules and switches do not repeat the signal.

"Dennis" wrote:

To add one more point to Dave's comments, the main controller doesn't send out RF signals. It only sends out power line signals. The SignaLincs repeat the power line signals via RF. So far there are no RF modules like there are in X10 that can turn on & off (has that changed yet?). The main purpose of the SingaLincs is to 'bridge' the phases of a '2 phase' system and only the Insteon commands not the X10 commands.

I don't think that anyone here who runs X-10 successfully tolerates a 50/50 chance of each command working or not. If that's *really* the kind of reliability you were getting, you probably own some piece of equipment you've been taking around from site to site that's stepping on your X-10 signal.

Hopefully you're just engaging in a little hyperbole and perhaps a subconcious need to justify that the system you spent so much money on was a good investment. If you were getting only 1 command out of every 2 to work, then you were right to switch to a more robust protocol. But your experience doesn't match that of those of us who are very happy with the way X-10 it works. I would never tolerate a 50/50 HA system. I doubt many people here in CHA would.

Bill, X-10 was designed at a time when the average home powerlines looked very different than they do today. It's not realistic to expect a design hardened against threats that didn't exist. It's just part of the double-edged sword of standards. In the beginning they unify and advance progress and towards the end of the cycle they stifle innovation. X-10 did a hell of a job *creating* a large part of the home automation industry.

From where I sit, I saved enough money "making do" with X-10 over something like Lutron RA that I can go out and buy a nice 40" LCD TV. There's no doubt in my mind that a dropped command out of even 100 is well worth the savings.

-- Bobby G.

Hi Dennis,

Some people have reported trouble using Compact Fluorescent bulbs. We had a problem ourselves with a Lights of America CF bulb perhaps 10 years ago. A Google search may turn up that report. As I recall, that bulb had a capacitor directly from the center contact to the screw base, and it placed a heavy load on X10 signals in that circuit. The fix was to add a RF choke in series with the center conductor inside the bulb. None of the other CF bulbs we use have presented any significant problem.

Here I installed the small 5 amp Leviton 6287 "Noise Block" behind the Leviton X10 switches in the circuits that feed our kitchen ceiling cans. This 3 wire filter connects in series between the switch and the first light socket. The third wire is connected to the white common. This filter is designed to isolate those light sockets from the X10 network. I don't know if they were necessary, but I would rather design a reliable system than fight possible reliability problems later.

Jeff

I wouldn't tolerate an error rate of even 5%.

X10 would be like a 19th century automobile. Something that can only do