No more X10 at Radio Shack?

Not really:

formatting link
Street prices are usually higher than TI's budgetary but I found that directly negotiating with TI gets it back down to what they claimed. Even at qties of only a few thousand.

Reply to
Joerg
Loading thread data ...

I forgot to mention the one with 8052 core on board:

formatting link

Reply to
Joerg

Well, also consider that keeping a device based on RS-232 avoids having to make two units. Just ship one, using serial, and make sure it plays well with various USB-serial adapters. Yeah, it's nice when a unit has a direct USB port on it but I can understand why some vendors might not want to bother. I run most of my serial gear off Edgeport multi-port usb-serial adapters and they work great. Saves a lot of hassles having just one USB port and driver on the PC and not a bunch of cheesy fleabay purchased adapters with conflicting drivers.

-Bill Kearney

Reply to
Bill Kearney

Well, partially. It's true that better made devices utilizing the X10 scheme tend to "suck less" than the retail and online crap that X10 has peddled to the public. But it still doesn't change the fact that modern residences are *going* to have devices present that *will* induce failures in even those better made devices. Thus the partial aspect of the criticism. Better made gear faced with modern setups still makes it a bad idea to continue bothering with X10. At least a bad enough idea that I'd strongly caution anyone attempting HA to just avoid X10 entirely.

Yeah, and as long as you don't use X10's software or X10's own interfaces you're less likely to see most of the problems. Again, a winning point on losing more retail channels peddling the crappy stuff. Still, only "less worse" not anywhere near enough to "better" to make it something advisable for novice users to attempt.

Well, stretching it to "quality" isn't something I agree with.

Ok, fair point and you've done an GREAT job of that. You do see my point however.

If it's going to go into a modern residential environment it should be able to deal with it. It's not a matter of people like me being the problem!

It's my opinion that as it stands today anything based on X10 has no place being sold in the retail channel. And that RadioShack's dropping them is a good thing. That's not the same as saying X10's worth the aggravation.

But hey, a thread full of debate's always a good thing!

-Bill Kearney

Reply to
Bill Kearney

It's possible to support both but that adds the cost of the adapter to all of them adding to the cost for even those who do not need USB.

The USB chips typically cost $3-5 plus a few caps, sometimes a crystal, plus a connector, as well as increasing board size. It adds $15-20 at retail and adds to the support burden.

formatting link
*TUSB3410IVF*&Ntx=mode%2bmatchall&Mkw=TUSB3410IVF&N=1323038&Ntk=Mouser_Wildcards I've always found anything sold by Byterunner is reliable and can be recommended and I usually buy and test anything I recommend. They have a single port adapter that retails for $9.95. Since Charles Sullivan has tested it I won't bother.

formatting link
Anyone who builds it in can't count. ;-)

formatting link
snipped-for-privacy@yahoogroups.com

Reply to
Dave Houston

formatting link
*TUSB3410IVF*&Ntx=mode%2bmatchall&Mkw=TUSB3410IVF&N=1323038&Ntk=Mouser_Wildcards>

As I mentioned before you need to negotiate that. TI lists it at $2.25/1k. That's always my "ammo" when haggling and I usually get things down to that level. Nobody pays retail price ;-)

If it has to be really cheap check out the Thomson ST7260 which lowers the bar to around $1:

formatting link

Reply to
Joerg

Yup. I purchased a couple of UPS's recently with serial ports for monitoring/control. Also each came with a postcard for a free USBRS232 converter. And no, it isn't some special thing. It is a

6inch cable with USB female device connector on one end and 9pin RS232 male on the other. Works great with a USR Courier ca. 1991.

Definitely.

sdb

Reply to
sylvan butler

Yes, that too, but...

What I've found is that the only time an extended status_ack from a PLM22/AM14A module will report "no load" is:

  1. Immediately after applying AC power to the module, with nothing plugged into the module and the module initially Off. -- or --
  2. If a load is unplugged from the module while the module is in the Off state. Once the module has been turned on with no load connected, it continues to report that a load _is_ connected after the module is turned off again.

I've checked several different units and gotten the same results. Under the circumstances, the load-reporting feature of these appliance modules is practically worthless.

By contrast, the load-reporting of the LM14A Lamp Module seems to be reliable.

Regards, Charles Sullivan

Reply to
Charles Sullivan

In article , snipped-for-privacy@triad.rr.com (Charles Sullivan) writes: | On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 06:33:11 +0000, Dan Lanciani wrote: | | > In article , snipped-for-privacy@triad.rr.com (Charles Sullivan) writes: | > | > | The AM14A Appliance Module is supposed to report whether of not | > | the load is connected, but is buggy and (almost) always reports | > | that the load is connected when it's not. | > | > You know that the AM14A can determine whether the load is connected | > only when the relay is off, right? | > | > Dan Lanciani | > ddl@danlan.*com | | Yes, that too, but... | | What I've found is that the only time an extended status_ack from | a PLM22/AM14A module will report "no load" is: | | 1. Immediately after applying AC power to the module, with | nothing plugged into the module and the module initially Off. | -- or -- | 2. If a load is unplugged from the module while the module is in | the Off state. | | Once the module has been turned on with no load connected, it | continues to report that a load _is_ connected after the module | is turned off again.

That seems to explain the behavior I remember. At first I thought it was being helpful by saving the state from off to on and was just buggy or getting latched up later. But it sounds like it is consistent firmware bug. :( It's too bad because I know they could do better. I coded the load detection in my replacement RR501 firmware, and the hardware is pretty much the same. For that matter, I guess anything that could get local control right must also be able to do load detection when the relay is off...

| I've checked several different units and gotten the same results. | Under the circumstances, the load-reporting feature of these | appliance modules is practically worthless. | | By contrast, the load-reporting of the LM14A Lamp Module seems | to be reliable.

I thought I also had some problem with that, but this sounds encouraging. I'll have to do some fresh testing with the 10 LM14As I got on that last special 2-way module sale. :)

Dan Lanciani ddl@danlan.*com

Reply to
Dan Lanciani

The RR501 does even better - it reports status even when the relay has been removed and sent to the landfill. ;)

formatting link
snipped-for-privacy@yahoogroups.com

Reply to
Dave Houston

I've wondered what X-10's intentions are regarding the LM14A/AM14A product lines. That big sale makes me wonder whether they are either abandoning the products or are introducing improved models and just want to clear out their inventory of old stock.

You may or may not have noticed that the Extended Code document formerly named xtc798.doc on X-10's manuals page is now named xtdcode.pdf. A cursory inspection of the differences reveals that the two formerly "don't care" bits in the data byte for the extended code preset (0x31) command are now described as programming a ramp rate. They're still "don't care" for any of the LM14A units I have, so is there a "new and improved" product in the wings or did someone at X-10 start with an obsolete file when generating the PDF document?

I guess we'll find out sooner or later, maybe if a "does not / does too" flamewar breaks out on this newsgroup over the capabilities of the LM14A, but more likely if an attempt to purchase a LM14A _at list price_ from the X-10 website pops up a "Sold Out" message.

Regards, Charles Sullivan

Reply to
Charles Sullivan

| I've wondered what X-10's intentions are regarding the LM14A/AM14A product | lines.

I just wish they would introduce a two-way wall switch with the LM14A/AM14A command set. Nobody seems to make one that I find acceptable. Either they have changed the commands around or they have added gratuitous ON/OFF transmissions that cannot be disabled. ACT came very, very close with the last version of their dimmer, though you had to set a lot of options to get it into a fully compatible mode. But it doesn't have an input for remote n-way switches. Their relay switch (as far as I know) never got upgraded to the improved firmware and sends gratuitous status messages that cannot be disabled. I actually have a beta unit that doesn't do this (it was a bug!) and to which I added a remote input. I'm wondering what I'll replace it with when/if it fails. :(

| That big sale makes me wonder whether they are either abandoning | the products or are introducing improved models and just want to clear out | their inventory of old stock.

X10 has an awful lot of inventory clearance sales (and even going-out-of- business sales)... In any case, I don't really care that much as the current versions work fine for me. (I don't need the load reporting for anything I've don so far.)

| You may or may not have noticed that the Extended Code document formerly | named xtc798.doc on X-10's manuals page is now named xtdcode.pdf. A | cursory inspection of the differences reveals that the two formerly "don't | care" bits in the data byte for the extended code preset (0x31) command | are now described as programming a ramp rate. They're still "don't care" | for any of the LM14A units I have, so is there a "new and improved" | product in the wings or did someone at X-10 start with an obsolete file | when generating the PDF document?

This is (at least) the second time they have done that. See:

formatting link
(I'm assuming those commands never got implemented either.) I think they just keep fiddling with the command set without any specific implementation plans.

Dan Lanciani ddl@danlan.*com

Reply to
Dan Lanciani

I could use something like that around my place. (At least I could if the switch boxes had neutrals, which they don't.) Load sensing would tell me when an exterior bulb had burned out - some are not easily visible from the house.

Regards, Charles Sullivan

Reply to
Charles Sullivan

| I could use something like that around my place. (At least I could if | the switch boxes had neutrals, which they don't.) Load sensing would tell | me when an exterior bulb had burned out - some are not easily visible from | the house.

We should try to get X10 to produce a two-way wall switch that does not require a neutral. It wouldn't need reliable load sensing because once the bulb burned out it would stop responding to status requests and you would know something was wrong. (I'm only half joking; I think it would be a great product.)

Dan Lanciani ddl@danlan.*com

Reply to
Dan Lanciani

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.