Re: Justify Upgrade from X-10 to Z-Wave?
- From: "BadDog" <noway@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:31:45 -0500
"Tom" <insync50@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:GID8k.13353$PZ6.1042@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
There is no doubt in my mind that z-wave is superior to x-10 but x-10's
advantage is cost. Even with the extended x-10's protocol, it still falls
short for complex applications. In my situation, I have a few x-10
recievers controlling a few lamps around the home. I basically use it to
turn on/off lights in the room I'm in. I don't have a need for pre-set
lighting moods (complete with the hide-away bar that appears with Burt
Bacharach music that starts to play.) I really don't see a need for
lighting computer interface for how I currently use the system. My house
is basically square with one floor at about 1800 sf. My real motivation is
to perpetuate my couch-potato lifestyle by not needing to budge from the
chair to operate room lighting or to turn-off lights in another room. I'm
now getting ready to hardwire wall switches to control ceiling fans and
lights along with some lights for the pool area.
What I'm asking of you folks here is a justification for one or the other
based on how I use wireless techology. I'm not interested in entertaining
other technologies and would strongly prefer to hear about just the two.
Some may balk at this, but my experience is that a well installed X10
lighting system can be close to 100% reliable. So, IMHO, the added expense
of ZWave would not be worth a small, potential improvement in reliability
(assuming ZWave is capable of 100% reliability). I must admit, though, that
I have not experimented with ZWave.
Below is a list of the key steps I found that helped improve X10 reliability
(previous CHA posts led me to many of these solutions...Thanks Y'All!).
Controller - A rock solid controller is critical. My preference here is for
the Ocelot from Adicon. The Ocelot can run indefinitely without hanging or
needing a reset, and all macros execute flawlessly. The one caveat is that
you will need to program the Ocelot in ladder logic using its CMax language.
Some may find this daunting.
Signal Strength - Standard X10 signal strength won't cut it; you will need
to boost the X10 signals. As with others here, I've had great success with
the XTB-IIR from Jeff Volp. The XTB-IIR booms out strong signals to the
farthest corners of the house. In fact, the XTB-IIR is so powerful, I can
control common area lighting in my condo building, which is outside of my
unit and on a completely separate service panel from my own!
Signal Collisions - If you use X10 motion detectors to trigger lights, you
should try and keep their signals off the power line. Unless everyone in the
house is willing to stand perfectly still while lighting macros execute,
there will be signal collisions from the motion detectors, and results can
be unpredictable. Unfortunately, there may not always be an easy way of
isolating the motion detectors. In my case, I use a WGL W800RF32 attached
to an Elk M1 security panel to receive signals from ActiveEyes. The Elk then
relays this information to the Ocelot via a serial connection. The
ActiveEye signals never hit the power line.
Scenes - Lighting modules that accept scenes (i.e., multiple X10 codes)
allow you to selectively control individual lights, a room of lights, or an
entire floor of lights with a single X10 code. If your modules can't accept
multiple X10 codes, then your macros will need to send out many more X10
codes to achieve a particular goal. In addition to slowing response time,
long macros increase the chance of reliability problems.
BD
.
- References:
- Justify Upgrade from X-10 to Z-Wave?
- From: Tom
- Justify Upgrade from X-10 to Z-Wave?
- Prev by Date: Re: Justify Upgrade from X-10 to Z-Wave?
- Next by Date: Re: Justify Upgrade from X-10 to Z-Wave?
- Previous by thread: Re: Justify Upgrade from X-10 to Z-Wave?
- Next by thread: Panasonic Reveals Atom-based Toughbook UMPC, Mini-notebooks Shrug
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
