Why cling to old X10?

I'm not sure what's going to happen when we move. I want to have all the lights and outlets controlled by hardwire, but the expense of switching over is incredibly high. Even with a separate X-10 circuit, I'd always worry that someone was going to plug something like Bruce's now infamous power supply into the wrong outlet and its effect on the system won't be noticed for a long enough time that it might be hard to find when something fails to operate.

Your approach has the high SAF of fewer wall warts around. Adding a filter to every signal sucker or noise maker isn't very pretty. I've resorted to all sorts of methods of concealing the wall warts but I always worry that they may overheat as a result. I may follow your lead and run X-10 specific circuits, perhaps with different types of outlets as a visual reminder that they are specialized circuits.

We've only heard compliments (profuse ones, at that!) and no complaints unless you consider my comment about how my meters are now too sensitive to the whopping big signals from the XTBs. But that's a problem I'm glad to have since before the XTB's, the X-10 signals were also off the scale, but in the wrong direction. That's pretty impressive!

I would have expected them to have done better, what with all the tools and HW available now that Pico didn't have when it designed the X-10 system. There isn't a lot of gear from the 80's that's still relevant. Cassettes are dead, VCR's are dying, records are mostly gone, etc. So many things have disappeared because they've been replaced by newer technologies that are substantial improvements over their predecessors. X-10 hasn't vanished because the technologies meant to replace it don't offer the quantum leap in performance and convenience that something like the transition from LPs to CDs did.

-- Bobby G.

That's not 100% true, I'm afraid, Neil. I just ordered the X-10 Pro Macro Controller that seems to be a fairly new item. It's sort of a cross between a CM11A and an Ocelot, and allows for complex X-10 macros with timers to be initiated from any IR remote. At long last I can use the all of the unused buttons on my remotes to perform complex X-10 macros. Here's the blurb from the manual which can be found at:

Sounds like a pretty interesting tool to me, and oddly enough, it appears to come from the same people who make the Monterey powerline signal analyzer. (Waiting for confirmation on that, though . . .)

If new gear is still coming out, particularly equipment that fills a previously unfilled niche, then I'd still have to say there's some life left in the old gal.

-- Bobby G.

That near perfect interoperability came only after quite a bit of experience had been gained by power users who took the arrows for the rest of us. PCS reinvented the X-10 wheel and caused some serious heartaches both for themselves and their customers.

But your point is well-taken. I think the PCS experience led X-10 compatible makers to steer clear of unusual, obsolete or otherwise problematic code schemes to the benefit of the X-10 protocol in general. Manufacturers are addicted to proprietary enhancements the way some people take to crack. It takes great strength of corporate will to commit to open standards but that's why X-10 now has millions of users.

-- Bobby G.

There always was a small macro box for X10, I remember you would press a "record" button to select a storage bank, go around the house setting all your lights, then press a "stop" button to save the recording. Then each storage bank was mapped to an X10 address, send "on" and it would replay all that you recorded to that bank, "off" turned off all the devices represented in the macro. I dont remember the model number but it is out there, I had one in my first home around 1989. The only problem is that all the commands in the recording were single-threaded. Unlike an Insteon scene where all the lights in the scene react simultaneously for a more dramatic effect, and the entire scene can be dimmed brightened with the scene button, the initial dim level of each item in the scene is preset when you program the scene.

I'll be taking the X-10 gear out of this house before I sell it, but not so much as to save heartaches for the next owner but to either re-use or sell on E-bay! The thriving X-10 market on Ebay tells me there's plenty of life left in X-10. Since I got hold of Jeff Volp's XTB devices, bad signal strength is a thing of the past. As for chattering relays, well, it's mass produced junk from China, what did you expect? If it fails, $5 to $20 gets me back in the game and I have another contribution to the junk box. (-: I'm just happy, that unlike other Chinese products, it doesn't poison any of the occupants here with melamine or lead paint.

But it's important to remember and easy to forget that everyone's HA needs are remarkably diverse. I want to be able to control every major electronic doodad in my house via one remote. So far, not perfect, but close. X-10's breadth of remote control interfaces gives me more flexibility that any other HA system, and I believe that will still be true 10 if not 20 years from now. That's not a typical usage, but it's turned out to be largely possible with X-10 and a little help from other sources. I suspect yours to be the more typical HA usage pattern, and so Insteon is far more attractive to you than it is to me.

I assume the 55 devices you describe are mostly lights. I can't help but noting that X-10 was pretty much 100 percent reliable when it first came out

The faster the pulses are transmitted, the less vulnerable they are to many problems that plague the slower X-10 protocol. The sad part is that it's obvious that switch-mode PS's *can* be made so as not to interfere with X-10, but many of them aren't. That's unfortunately why everyone running an X-10 installation needs a meter or analyzer to keep it running smoothly unless in a past life that person was a dog that liked chasing its tail. (-:

Still, I won't be switching to Insteon any time soon. There's the very significant sunk cost of having installed all this gear and learning to turn lights off by feel even in my sleep. The XTB has given me the luxury of waiting until the market shakes out the weaker contenders.

That "stall for time" is important because I don't think all the current X-10 "heirs apparent" will be around 10 years from now. I'd hate to buy into something that would eventually become obsolete, especially if my house's operation depended on the availability of spares. Worse, still if my heirs were faced with selling it, I'll bet an electrician might charge a pretty penny to restore an HA'ed house to original condition.

I realize my house or even yours wouldn't be as bad as some (anyone remember the guy with three or four huge central lighting panels with true rat's nest wiring?) but we've already seen some of what happens when people buy GELV houses (GE low voltage) from the 1950's. I don't think anyone ever paid a premium for a house with an obsolete HA system. A penalty for the seller is more likely.

Dude, where's the party? (-: I haven't gone Disco'ing since - I can remember the exact date if the neurons didn't die - wait - wait - November

That's commendable. If it's easy to understand and operate, and it's reliable, they might even pay a premium for the feature. But if Smarthome goes bankrupt (and we've seen far bigger fish than them disappear from the world - think Pan Am Airways) then you'll be sticking them with something that they can't get spares for. That's always a concern with something like HA because a close or direct lightning strike can destroy a lot of equipment. You never know when you'll be suddenly called on to replace half or more of your installation.

I think I'd be more comfortable with something like Z-wave or Zigbee that didn't lock the user into a single vendor but they've got a ways to go to catch up with Insteon reliability. But low-power RF based installations have their own boogiemen, and they live in the unforeseeable future, too. If it's a "you must accept harmful interference" device, you might just end up having to do just that and replace all your devices with those that work on a different frequency.

And when it does, the Insteon system will be far more attractive to me than it is now. There's still nothing that compares with the breadth of offerings that X-10, from temperature senders to pool controllers to sprinkler systems to drapery controllers to dawn/dusk sensors to stand-alone macro controllers to sophisticated control systems like the Ocelot. I suspect some contenders will never reach the bar set by X-10 because they'll just fold up.

My candidates, in order, for bellying up by 2017 are UPB and Z-wave. I don't know enough about Smarthome's corporate structure to know if, like so many other small businesses, they'll experience difficulty when the founders founder. But all in all, I think they're a good bet because IMnsHO they have the greatest understanding of the HA market of all the contenders to the X-10 throne.

I don't doubt that. The reasons are complex, though, and they include the Insteon system's RF repeater, primarily, for getting the signals get through with greater reliability than X-10. The RF repeater solved a dreadful problem with X-10, namely repeaters needing to be installed in the main circuit panel, hopefully by a qualified installer. As I said previously, had the X-10 designers been faced with UPS's and CFLs, they might have been able to design around them.

I'm just happy that I have ways to work around such problems, with Jeff's XTB earning the top spot as the most important weapon in my "work around" arsenal. It's easier to plug in some XTB's and some filters than it is to yank every switch and module in the house and replace them with Insteon. A new house would be a different matter, and I might very well follow in your footsteps with Insteon when the time comes.

-- Bobby G.

No, I just recognize the value of my time (and patience) over garbage technology. It does me no good to 'save' money on crappy X-10 based gear if it drives me and my wife crazy having to cobble together endless work-around. I'm not happy about the price premium of RadioRA gear. But I'm absolutely DELIGHTED with how reliably it's functioned. I've probably got one type of every wifi, cordless phone, rf remote and countless bits of improperly shielded computer gear and not once have the RadioRA devices failed to work properly.

My wife and I teach ballroom dance on the side and I DJ at some local ballroom dance studios, so the basement evolved into a dance floor instead of your more-typical billiards room. Yes, all the devices are to control lights, with Insteon there are no more dedicated wall transmitters, even the keypads can control a single load. With 55 devices and growing I am sure I'm probably loading down the line for good PL transmission already, so most of my communication, I would gather, is taking the RF route instead. But I like the concept of having the same mesh network living in both the RF and PLC physical domain, and the backwards compatibility with X10 (but that part was marketing genious that probably a certain other company wished they had followed, namely UPB).

Except that the duality is all marketing hype with little to no substance. The SignaLincs (since replaced with a new model due to flaws in the initial design) only send/receive RF with each other - there's no RF mesh network - the other switches and modules neither send nor receive RF.

Very little necessary communication is taking the RF route. It's only needed to couple the phases although some people may choose to add RF points to overcome PLC propagation problems which could probably be fixed with filters on signal sinks in the same manner as with X-10.

Wow sounds like fraud more than hype, how do you know these things? Why has my reliability been so good? The documentation says that each device is an RF repeater. Also if it's not going RF why is it so much faster than X10? I have no filters in the house and no SignalLinc in the basement at all, just on the 2nd floor. On one branch circuit I'm running about 15 or more devices, it was my understanding that Leviton X10 recommends a max of 4 devices for a branch circuit before signal absorption. All this evidence led me to believe it was going RF, now I'd be disappointed if it's not. Are these bugs documented anywhere?

I didn't say it's unreliable, I just said there's no RF mesh network.

All of the Insteon details were thoroughly documented in a PDF white paper that was available on

"All INSTEON devices that are plugged into the powerline communicate with each other using the INSTEON Powerline protocol. INSTEON devices with radios, whether they are plugged into the powerline or handheld, use the INSTEON RF (radio frequency) protocol to communicate with other INSTEON devices that have radios. Not all INSTEON devices are required to have radios."

Which is highly misleading because, to date, only the SignaLincs (replaced by Access Points) and Remotes have "radios".

Once they started shipping, I got a starter kit (on loan from a dealer) and posted a serial review here in comp.home.automation over about a 10 day period. There's a very brief synopsis on my webpage at...

If you mean the SignaLinc bugs, see...

Signal absorption is not a problem for Insteon since each device repeats the powerline signal. It is a problem for any X-10 devices in the system as the Insteon devices absorb X-10 but do not repeat X-10.

Thanks,

I did read those papers.

Now that I remember the wall units did not appear to have an RF unit in them, now I see they didn't. I will be adding the remote/access eventually so that I'll have at least one RF device in the basement some day. Since all 55 devices are on the same basement subpanel, I'm probably getting real good repeating over PL. The whole basement is about 50 feet by 60 feet rectangular with an 80 amp 12 breaker subpanel (off main panel). All wiring is in steel conduit (its code) stranded (for easier pulling). And the switches are clustered in about 7 locations, but some fixtures use in-line units. I'm very happy with the performance. There is a Triplite UPS on one of the subpanel brannches, but does not seem to be an issue. It would probably behoove me to add the access point/remote sooner rather than later just to get some RF action going with the SignalLinc (newer one) upstairs.

Oops, I guess even my new SignalLinks should be upgraded, but they have a special deal for free remote, and I wanted a remote anyway:

That limit concerns X10 transmitters, not ordinary lamp and appliance modules, or wall switches.

While all modules absorb some energy, the transmitters absorb the most. All Insteon devices are also transmitters, so that is why X10 signals degrade rapidly as Insteon devices are added to an installation.

FYI, one central circuit here has nine X10 devices, including several transmitters. While low, signal levels on that circuit were adequate for reliable operation when the entire house was driven from a standard TW523 without any booster or repeater.

Jeff

You and Bill Kerney should start an "X10 Hate Club". What neither of you seem to comprehend, or are simply incapable of accepting, is; there are plenty users out there that are quite happy with X10. I'm one of them.

Lots of people sell X10, and there are a very wide range of modules. It's cheaper than any alternatives I've seen. It works for me (never had any problems with it).

So why would I change to anything else?

You guys know best, I'm just a consumer who had problems with X10 for years, but now I have no problems, this system is rock solid so far. I dont hate X10, it has just been undependable for me and I've had a lot of problems with relay chatter and devices failing, as well as flashing lights where you have to hit the button 5 times hoping the light lands the way you want it after it stops flashing, (maybe Chinese manufacturing but failed nonetheless). I still use some X10 in fact because my DSC alarm and dusk/dawn porch lights are X10. I dont want to play with gear, I just want to install it and forget it, and have it do my scenes. The RF bridge is ingenious because it bridges through a medium that is not the same medium that could have the problem it's bridging (catch 22), when I get my two access points I'll make sure I have them listening on each side of the split phase.

You're completely entitled to spend your money any way you want. In the face of declining X-10 performance, it was an entirely logical and reasonable thing to do. Plenty of people HA-smarter than both of us went that route. X-10 didn't do anything to address the problem so there wasn't really anything to do but switch up - unless you wanted to become an electronic Sherlock Holmes, buy a meter or an analyzer (I bought both!) and crawl around plugging and unplugging things until you find articles about "divorce" appearing on your breakfast table. (-: Not really, but you know the pattern.

If HA isn't a hobby to you, then you certainly made the right choice. There's a big difference between "set and forget" and "customize to the last byte" users and vendors and what's good for one may not be so good for the other. I try to keep that in mind regarding SAF (spouse approval factor). My wife doesn't want to futz with this stuff, she just wants it to work. It hardly gets noticed when it works, but it sure as hell does when it fails.

The fact that X-10 didn't come up with it certainly support's Neil C's assertion that not much new except wireless cams comes out of X-10 these days. Maybe there will be an XTB-III from Jeff that doesn't have to been installed in the panel. That would certainly make it appeal to people without electrosmarts who need a big boost to save their X-10 installation.

I just got a new X-10 device in today, a macro controller that accepts IR input triggers and it reminded that there's still a lot of juice left in the old protocol. When Insteon has an 8 by 8 video matrix switcher, a speaker selector, a thermostatic set back, a screw-in lamp module, a universal module, a powerflash module, a chime module, a siren module, a dawn/dusk module, a REX-10 dog emulator, a hand held analyzer, a few dozen styles of remotes, a number of other vendors making devices and load control as low as $5 a module, I'll certainly reconsider!

-- Bobby G.

I've found cutting the x-10 sense circuit ends the cfl flashing

Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/

I believe you might be talking about the flashing that occurs after some CFL's are turned off. In this case, the lamp flashed while the switch was on and could only be turned off by operating the slide switch that allows for safe bulb changes.. It could not be turned off remotely and not even by the switch paddle.

Just for my information, are you talking about appliance modules, and if so, what method do you use? I used to snip the vertically-mounted diode but have found that doesn't work anymore with the latest batch of N-Vision CFL bulbs. I am aware that there's more than one current "sensectomy" surgery and more than one style of appliance module, so that complicates the matter. I had, at one point, thought about actually trying to measure the leakage current through the circuit but decided it might not yield meaningful results. I recall discussing in email with one of the regulars that snipping may indeed defeat local sense, but there's still a small trickle current flowing through the module. Not enough to kick over the "local sense" anymore, but enough to cause flashing in some of the newer bulb designs.

There always seems to be a tradeoff of some kind. )-: The N-Vision bulbs don't require an X-10 filter, but they flash when extinguished. The previous batch of GE bulbs didn't flash, but required a filter to isolate their bad effects on X-10 from the rest of the house wiring.

In any event, the front porch fixture's running from a WS467 wall switch and I haven't seen any mods on disabling local sense for those, although I admit I haven't looked. I believe the general opinion of the experts here was that running CFL bulbs on light circuits without a neutral wire going to the switch box are likely to give trouble no matter what. I agree with that diagnosis because the very same bulb ran fine on a lamp module that was plugged into an outlet that obviously supplied the unit with a neutral connection. It's only the overhead lights in each room and the porch fixtures that won't work well with CFL's, and they are all wired without a neutral.

-- Bobby G.