Re: Need some antenna advice (for my CM15A, of course)

[Dave Houston]

>>If I understand correctly, your unit had a built-in signal strength
>>meter. I submit that's really the only way to lend some objectivity
to >>claims of enhanced reception. A lot of the posts I've read have
been >>lacking that real world quantifier: is the signal really
stronger >>after an antenna change? Since you've got an iron-clad way
to test >>for improvement, once again I have to defer to your knowledge.
How >>much better is the eggbeater than the turnstile in practical
terms? >>Is the BX24-AHT still available anywhere?

>The RSSI measurement of the receiver linear output made with the
>BX24-AHT wasn't really useful for making definitive comparisons
between >antennas because the RF receiver module had AGC which reduces
the gain >as the signal gets stronger. It was useful for fine tuning the
>receiver. Lacking expensive lab style equipment, the most reliable
>measurement is to compare range.

I forgot that one of the pages on my web site has some screenshots that
might be helpful in understanding this.

http://www.mbx-usa.com/rf-noise.htm

The first picture shows both the linear and digital outputs of the RF
receiver with a relatively weak RF signal. I used one of the BX-24 ADC
inputs to measure the amplitude of the lead-in pulse.The RSSI
measurement was only output if the signal that followed was a valid X-10
signal. (The one shown was not.)

You can readily see the effects of the AGC circuits in the slope of the
pulse top. With stronger signals, the linear output looks more and more
like the digital output. Comparisons between strong signals is difficult
because there is no simple way to know where the threshold is nor what
the gain level is.

I did make comparisons between antennas by running tests where the
antennas were placed in the "same" location and I sent signals from
certain locations about the building, always using the same Palmpad and
using the "same" locations. The locations were far enough away from the
antenna to guarantee a moderate signal level. From these it seemed clear
that the eggbeater was better but there are too many uncontrolled
factors to supply a definitive percentage of "betterness". Minor
differences in the antenna and Palmpad orientations and things like air
temperature and humidity can affect signal strength so it was impossible
to make a definitive measurement.

Anyway, an MMIC similar to that used in the TenTec preamp retails for
just over $1 in small quantities. They are cascadable so it's both easy
and cheap to add enough gain that there are no weak signals at the RF
receiver. (You do need a receiver with good out-of-band rejection to
avoid overwhelming it but those are also cheap (under $5 for QTY 1).

[Robert Green]

"Dave Houston" <ydobon@erewhon.com> wrote in message

>>The RSSI measurement of the receiver linear output made with the
>>BX24-AHT wasn't really useful for making definitive comparisons
>>between antennas because the RF receiver module had AGC which
>>reduces the gain as the signal gets stronger. It was useful for fine
>>tuning the receiver. Lacking expensive lab style equipment, the
>>most reliable measurement is to compare range.

I see. Sort of like a VU meter on an AGC tape recorder always showing a
strong signal as long as the source is within a certain range.

As long as the distance tests are rigorous enough, they're what really
counts to the end user. It's just that in so many posts I see less than
optimal testing procedures. I would assume you'd have to take a least four
different readings (one from each compass point) to make even a marginally
useful range map.

> I forgot that one of the pages on my web site has some screenshots that
> might be helpful in understanding this.
>
> http://www.mbx-usa.com/rf-noise.htm
>

Yes, thanks. That's very informative and leads me to wonder how UPB handles
noise. At the site above you wrote:

"Closely spaced pulses affect the AGC and the capacitor on the comparator
input differently than widely spaced pulses."

What do UPB pulses, which (IIRC) are variably spaced, look like to an X-10
transceiver? It's alleged that UPB works with everything except the Lutron
Homeworx product lines. I wonder why? There's some interesting reading at:

http://www.hometoys.com/htinews/jun04/articles/upb/upb.htm

where they say: "Case Study: Web Mountain has installed UPB devices in
approximately 15 homes. With the exception of one outlet in one large house,
we installed the devices, powered them up and they worked. The one outlet
that didn’t work was fixed by adding a phase coupler. No noise filters were
needed and no troubleshooting was required. Only one of the 15 homes (>6500
sq feet) required the UPB phase coupler."

> I did make comparisons between antennas by running tests where the
> antennas were placed in the "same" location and I sent signals from
> certain locations about the building, always using the same Palmpad and
> using the "same" locations. The locations were far enough away from the
> antenna to guarantee a moderate signal level. From these it seemed clear
> that the eggbeater was better but there are too many uncontrolled
> factors to supply a definitive percentage of "betterness".

Your test setup seems quite rigorous so I'm assuming yours are real-world
estimates, unlike the overly optimistic figures given by X-10 and some X-10
enthusiasts.

Have you ever looked at Leviton's HCPRF All-housecode transceiver with the
built-in lamp control module? It's got a little wire pigtail antenna that's
not very effective. It's a unit that can certainly stand a "hearing aid" of
some sort but I believe it's based on the older, AC hot = ground principle
because the insulated pigtail has no shield - just a single wire connected
to the PCB.

I took it off line a month ago in an effort to stop a collision problem I
was having. Unplugging the transceiver stopped the problem, but it
reappeared a month later. More detective work required. I am frustrated
because I have reached the limit of what my trusty ESM1 can tell me about
the powerline signal. Today, I saw a 1.4V good signal followed by 1.4v
noise followed by a .40 good signal after using a credit card RF X-20
transmitter. Very repeatable. Very weird.

I'm wondering if I should buy a used o'scope or pony up for one of the
signal analyzers. Any suggestions? Both Lynx and Monterey look like
they'll give me at lot more useful information about the boogie men in my
X-10 setup. I bought a dozen new filters and am determined to clear the
lines of all the noisemakers and signal suckers. It just seems that it *is*
possible to have a fairly reliable X-10 system because enough people manage
to do it. If a better meter or o'scope doesn't work, it will be time for
Zigbee!

Thanks for all the work in putting those pages together with screen shots,
etc. It really helps explain what's been a pretty amorphous concept. Do
you think you might ever do a similar analysis for UPB? I'd really like to
know whether their "Pulse Position Modulation" scheme is as robust as they
claim.

--
Bobby G.

[Dave Houston]

This has drifted rather far afield from the original thread.

I have one of the Leviton HCPRF transceivers but don't recall that it has a
built-in lamp module. At least not a dimmer - mine has a solid state relay.
It's RF range seems comparable to standard X-10 transceivers. Unfortunately,
there's no room within the case to add a connector for an external antenna
so I did not try to trace the circuit to see whether they are using the hot
side as electronic ground. Without knowing that I cannot make any antenna
recommendation.

There should be no collisions as the Leviton will back off and wait for a
clean line before it sends PLC. You will get duplicates of all signals. If
you have marginal coupling between phases you might see different results at
different times. If the Leviton can't "hear" the other transceiver, there
will be collisions.

Don't confuse the UPB PLC pulses with RF. They're different species.

IMO, AGC doesn't do much for PLC. AGC was invented for AM radio as a way to
maintain a steady volume. It does this by reducing gain as signal strenth
increases.

Automatic Threshold Control is slightly different. It raises the threshold
so that only stronger pulses are effective. If the signal is stronger than
the noise, the output is clean. The page I referenced illustrates this. The
comparator circuit is called a "data-slicer" because, in effect, it slices
off the bottom half of the pulses, omitting most of the noise and passing
only the cleaner top half along.

I'm not at all sure what UPB pulses are composed of. PCS specs say they are
capicitor discharges or, in other words, noise. The page you cited implies
they are something else entirely. The page you cited also spews a lot of
male bovine excrement about PLC noise. A bigger problem is the line filters
added to AV equipment, to meet FCC requirements, that attenuate PLC signals.

The data on the UPB tests by PCS would seem to indicate that they get most
of their reliability from having a much stronger pulse and from having a
two-way protocol so that any mangled signals are repeated. However, I
question the validity of a test that did not use actual dimmers, etc. Triac
noise looks a lot like their pulses.

Your ESM1 tests sound like collisions.

I think the Monterey is vastly overpriced. It falsely reports every 1110
sequence not followed by a valid X-10 sequence as a "bad start code" when
they are usually the results of collisions between signals offset by 1/2
cycle. The TesterLinc is cheaper. I think Bruce Robin posted comparisons of
all of the available testers.

This is a good choice for a "scope"...

http://www.usb-instruments.com/documents/small_stingray.pdf

You should also get ACT's Scope-Test2 if you want to look at X-10 PLC
signals.

I doubt I'll do anything with UPB. The prices are too high. I get good
reliability with X-10.

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote:

>"Dave Houston" <ydobon@erewhon.com> wrote in message
>
>>>The RSSI measurement of the receiver linear output made with the
>>>BX24-AHT wasn't really useful for making definitive comparisons
>>>between antennas because the RF receiver module had AGC which
>>>reduces the gain as the signal gets stronger. It was useful for fine
>>>tuning the receiver. Lacking expensive lab style equipment, the
>>>most reliable measurement is to compare range.
>
>I see. Sort of like a VU meter on an AGC tape recorder always showing a
>strong signal as long as the source is within a certain range.
>
>As long as the distance tests are rigorous enough, they're what really
>counts to the end user. It's just that in so many posts I see less than
>optimal testing procedures. I would assume you'd have to take a least four
>different readings (one from each compass point) to make even a marginally
>useful range map.
>
>> I forgot that one of the pages on my web site has some screenshots that
>> might be helpful in understanding this.
>>
>> http://www.mbx-usa.com/rf-noise.htm
>>
>
>Yes, thanks. That's very informative and leads me to wonder how UPB handles
>noise. At the site above you wrote:
>
>"Closely spaced pulses affect the AGC and the capacitor on the comparator
>input differently than widely spaced pulses."
>
>What do UPB pulses, which (IIRC) are variably spaced, look like to an X-10
>transceiver? It's alleged that UPB works with everything except the Lutron
>Homeworx product lines. I wonder why? There's some interesting reading at:
>
>http://www.hometoys.com/htinews/jun04/articles/upb/upb.htm
>
>where they say: "Case Study: Web Mountain has installed UPB devices in
>approximately 15 homes. With the exception of one outlet in one large house,
>we installed the devices, powered them up and they worked. The one outlet
>that didn’t work was fixed by adding a phase coupler. No noise filters were
>needed and no troubleshooting was required. Only one of the 15 homes (>6500
>sq feet) required the UPB phase coupler."
>
>> I did make comparisons between antennas by running tests where the
>> antennas were placed in the "same" location and I sent signals from
>> certain locations about the building, always using the same Palmpad and
>> using the "same" locations. The locations were far enough away from the
>> antenna to guarantee a moderate signal level. From these it seemed clear
>> that the eggbeater was better but there are too many uncontrolled
>> factors to supply a definitive percentage of "betterness".
>
>Your test setup seems quite rigorous so I'm assuming yours are real-world
>estimates, unlike the overly optimistic figures given by X-10 and some X-10
>enthusiasts.
>
>Have you ever looked at Leviton's HCPRF All-housecode transceiver with the
>built-in lamp control module? It's got a little wire pigtail antenna that's
>not very effective. It's a unit that can certainly stand a "hearing aid" of
>some sort but I believe it's based on the older, AC hot = ground principle
>because the insulated pigtail has no shield - just a single wire connected
>to the PCB.
>
>I took it off line a month ago in an effort to stop a collision problem I
>was having. Unplugging the transceiver stopped the problem, but it
>reappeared a month later. More detective work required. I am frustrated
>because I have reached the limit of what my trusty ESM1 can tell me about
>the powerline signal. Today, I saw a 1.4V good signal followed by 1.4v
>noise followed by a .40 good signal after using a credit card RF X-20
>transmitter. Very repeatable. Very weird.
>
>I'm wondering if I should buy a used o'scope or pony up for one of the
>signal analyzers. Any suggestions? Both Lynx and Monterey look like
>they'll give me at lot more useful information about the boogie men in my
>X-10 setup. I bought a dozen new filters and am determined to clear the
>lines of all the noisemakers and signal suckers. It just seems that it *is*
>possible to have a fairly reliable X-10 system because enough people manage
>to do it. If a better meter or o'scope doesn't work, it will be time for
>Zigbee!
>
>Thanks for all the work in putting those pages together with screen shots,
>etc. It really helps explain what's been a pretty amorphous concept. Do
>you think you might ever do a similar analysis for UPB? I'd really like to
>know whether their "Pulse Position Modulation" scheme is as robust as they
>claim.

[Michael G.]

Indeed, we have sure veered far from the original thread -- but it sure
is interesting.

I don't know how to explain this (sorry to go back to my amateurish
discussion), but my eggbeater antenna is working better than ever!

I threw it over an old exercise bike in one my closets here in my
basement -- 100 feet of cox cable in a knot.

The antenna is hanging upside down, with the eggbeaters resembling 85
year old breasts (I'm a paramedic -- I see them regularly).

One of the leads actually ripped off, so it's actually more like one
breast.

Lo and behold, my slimline remotes are working 3 floors up. ...there
is no method to this madness!

I did order an old fashioned transceiver today, anyhow. $20.00 with a
chiming module and an Active Eye PIR sensor... what the heck!

Okay, sorry for my update... back to the more interesting stuff.

David, I'm sorry to hear that health reasons have prohibited you from
helping with my assembly. One day I'll get someone over here, and
we'll put in the amplifier, too.

Thanks!

Mike

[Robert Green]

"Dave Houston" <nobody@whocares.com> wrote in message

> This has drifted rather far afield from the original thread.

Agreed. And I am going to break it out into two messages because the thread
splits again!

> I have one of the Leviton HCPRF transceivers but don't recall that it has
a
> built-in lamp module. At least not a dimmer - mine has a solid state
relay.

Correct. Although the one I have says "300W max., 60W min. Incandescent
load" and responds to the ALL LIGHTS ON command - it does not respond to DIM
or BRIGHT commands. I assumed that made it more of a lamp module than an
appliance module. They confuse the issue pretty solidly by stating, in one
part of the documentation:

NOTE: If a power interruption should occur while the device
in ON, the light load will return to its previous light level when
power is restored.

That's a neat trick for a module that doesn't seem to respond to DIM
commands sent by Palmpad, Sticka Switch, Credit Card/Keychain type
controllers and Mini-controllers. The HCPRF PDF file goes on to say: "It
can also be programmed to respond to scene commands from scene controllers."
Perhaps if it dims, only Leviton controllers can activate that function.

However, further on down when they discuss testing, they seem to contradict
themselves by saying:

"3. Transmit DIM and BRIGHT commands. The device will not
react, but will transmit the DIM or BRIGHT command through
the house wiring; all units set to the same code will respond."

So, I'm not quite sure *what* it is. I'd consider it a "non-dimmable" lamp
module, but it's definitely a weird duck. It *always* collides with the
TM751s that are set to matching housecodes and it doesn't accept commands
from the older-style transmitters that came with the RR501s (which had the
somewhat useful 4 position unit slide switch).

The HCPRF got retired because of the interactions with other transceivers
but I'd sure like to know what it's putting on the line. The Decora unit
makes the ESM1 do a weird little dance whenever it's activated on a
housecode with dedicated TM751 around.

> It's RF range seems comparable to standard X-10 transceivers.
Unfortunately,
> there's no room within the case to add a connector for an external antenna
> so I did not try to trace the circuit to see whether they are using the
hot
> side as electronic ground. Without knowing that I cannot make any antenna
> recommendation.

Yes, it's quite crowded in there. I suspect that if the HCPRF ever DID dim,
they disabled that function to limit heat build-up inside such a small unit.
I'd spring for the CM15A with its far roomier cabinet. It might be possible
to remount the HCPRF in an old RR501 case, but it hardly seems worth the
effort since it doesn't play nice with the TM751's I use.

> There should be no collisions as the Leviton will back off and wait for a
> clean line before it sends PLC. You will get duplicates of all signals. If
> you have marginal coupling between phases you might see different results
at
> different times. If the Leviton can't "hear" the other transceiver, there
> will be collisions.

I suspect this is what's going on with the ESM1 showing a definite second
signal at a lower voltage after it reports a good signal and then a strong
noise block. This is what I'd like to be able to "see" in some sort of
detailed display.

> Your ESM1 tests sound like collisions.
>
> I think the Monterey is vastly overpriced. It falsely reports every 1110
> sequence not followed by a valid X-10 sequence as a "bad start code" when
> they are usually the results of collisions between signals offset by 1/2
> cycle. The TesterLinc is cheaper. I think Bruce Robin posted comparisons
of
> all of the available testers.

I've read through comments by you and others about the Monterey and decided
to pass on it. While it stores captured PLC data, there's NO WAY to output
it to a PC for analysis. I ordered the LynX-TOOLS Power Line Analyzer.

http://www.marrickltd.com/lynx_tools.htm

We'll soon see what it says about the Decora's dawdling. Interestingly
enough, the ESM1's strength LEDs seem to follow the Decora's status light
blinks by about 1/2 a second. I'm determined to figure out why the ESM1
shows 1.4 volts or the first series of blinks and only .4 volts for the
second "good" signal.

> This is a good choice for a "scope"...
>
> http://www.usb-instruments.com/documents/small_stingray.pdf
>
> You should also get ACT's Scope-Test2 if you want to look at X-10 PLC
> signals.

I got the strong sense that were a traditional "scope" to appear, I would
find myself in the doghouse with SWMBO. The Stingray looks awfully sweet
and if the Lynx doesn't do what I hope it will do, I'll seriously consider
it. I'm really looking forward to seeing what's really on the line, not
just whether the signal's strong or not.

Thanks again for your comments, Dave

--
Bobby G.

[BruceR]

I have the Lynx which shows a lot of interesting detail but hasn't
really helped me do much troubleshooting. I spent an hour with the
engineer who designed it at an EHXpo 2 years ago and he showed me how to
read it. He talked about updating the software to make it a little more
useful for field work but nothing came of it.
The ESM is handy for a quick test particularly when you want to look
across a room and see if a signal is getting through. I like the
Monterey but it is somewhat error prone as Dave mentioned. It is still
useful and was my favorite UNTIL I got my hands on the ACT 004 tester.
Not cheap, it is, (saw StarWars the other night) but for the money it's
a better unit than the Monterey and is my current favorite. I still
have my old Leviton tester too, now about 20 years old, and it still
does the job in a primitive sort of way.
If I could only have one, it would be the ACT 004. (Home Controls had
the best price on it at the time).



From:Robert Green
ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM

> "Dave Houston" <nobody@whocares.com> wrote in message
>
>> This has drifted rather far afield from the original thread.
>
> Agreed. And I am going to break it out into two messages because the
> thread splits again!
>
>> I have one of the Leviton HCPRF transceivers but don't recall that
>> it has a built-in lamp module. At least not a dimmer - mine has a
>> solid state relay.
>
> Correct. Although the one I have says "300W max., 60W min.
> Incandescent load" and responds to the ALL LIGHTS ON command - it
> does not respond to DIM or BRIGHT commands. I assumed that made it
> more of a lamp module than an appliance module. They confuse the
> issue pretty solidly by stating, in one part of the documentation:
>
> NOTE: If a power interruption should occur while the device
> in ON, the light load will return to its previous light level when
> power is restored.
>
> That's a neat trick for a module that doesn't seem to respond to DIM
> commands sent by Palmpad, Sticka Switch, Credit Card/Keychain type
> controllers and Mini-controllers. The HCPRF PDF file goes on to say:
> "It can also be programmed to respond to scene commands from scene
> controllers." Perhaps if it dims, only Leviton controllers can
> activate that function.
>
> However, further on down when they discuss testing, they seem to
> contradict themselves by saying:
>
> "3. Transmit DIM and BRIGHT commands. The device will not
> react, but will transmit the DIM or BRIGHT command through
> the house wiring; all units set to the same code will respond."
>
> So, I'm not quite sure *what* it is. I'd consider it a
> "non-dimmable" lamp module, but it's definitely a weird duck. It
> *always* collides with the TM751s that are set to matching housecodes
> and it doesn't accept commands from the older-style transmitters that
> came with the RR501s (which had the somewhat useful 4 position unit
> slide switch).
>
> The HCPRF got retired because of the interactions with other
> transceivers but I'd sure like to know what it's putting on the line.
> The Decora unit makes the ESM1 do a weird little dance whenever it's
> activated on a housecode with dedicated TM751 around.
>
>> It's RF range seems comparable to standard X-10 transceivers.
>> Unfortunately, there's no room within the case to add a connector
>> for an external antenna so I did not try to trace the circuit to see
>> whether they are using the hot side as electronic ground. Without
>> knowing that I cannot make any antenna recommendation.
>
> Yes, it's quite crowded in there. I suspect that if the HCPRF ever
> DID dim, they disabled that function to limit heat build-up inside
> such a small unit. I'd spring for the CM15A with its far roomier
> cabinet. It might be possible to remount the HCPRF in an old RR501
> case, but it hardly seems worth the effort since it doesn't play nice
> with the TM751's I use.
>
>> There should be no collisions as the Leviton will back off and wait
>> for a clean line before it sends PLC. You will get duplicates of all
>> signals. If you have marginal coupling between phases you might see
>> different results at different times. If the Leviton can't "hear"
>> the other transceiver, there will be collisions.
>
> I suspect this is what's going on with the ESM1 showing a definite
> second signal at a lower voltage after it reports a good signal and
> then a strong noise block. This is what I'd like to be able to "see"
> in some sort of detailed display.
>
>> Your ESM1 tests sound like collisions.
>>
>> I think the Monterey is vastly overpriced. It falsely reports every
>> 1110 sequence not followed by a valid X-10 sequence as a "bad start
>> code" when they are usually the results of collisions between
>> signals offset by 1/2 cycle. The TesterLinc is cheaper. I think
>> Bruce Robin posted comparisons of all of the available testers.
>
> I've read through comments by you and others about the Monterey and
> decided to pass on it. While it stores captured PLC data, there's NO
> WAY to output it to a PC for analysis. I ordered the LynX-TOOLS
> Power Line Analyzer.
>
> http://www.marrickltd.com/lynx_tools.htm
>
> We'll soon see what it says about the Decora's dawdling.
> Interestingly enough, the ESM1's strength LEDs seem to follow the
> Decora's status light blinks by about 1/2 a second. I'm determined
> to figure out why the ESM1 shows 1.4 volts or the first series of
> blinks and only .4 volts for the second "good" signal.
>
>> This is a good choice for a "scope"...
>>
>> http://www.usb-instruments.com/documents/small_stingray.pdf
>>
>> You should also get ACT's Scope-Test2 if you want to look at X-10 PLC
>> signals.
>
> I got the strong sense that were a traditional "scope" to appear, I
> would find myself in the doghouse with SWMBO. The Stingray looks
> awfully sweet and if the Lynx doesn't do what I hope it will do, I'll
> seriously consider it. I'm really looking forward to seeing what's
> really on the line, not just whether the signal's strong or not.
>
> Thanks again for your comments, Dave
>
> --
> Bobby G.

[Dave Houston]

Reading the docs, are we? Geesh - no wonder things are so confused. ;)

I did not do extensive testing with the HCPRF. Once I saw there was no room
to add an external antenna jack, I lost interest.

What unit codes are you seeing the strange behavior on?

www.mbx-usa.com/multiples.htm gives a very brief summary of what you'll see
with multiple transceivers.

While some have collision avoidance, there are still collisions as there
must be a collision in order for them to detect it and back off. This is one
reason for there being two copies of the X-10 PLC code. If the first gets
corrupted, the second will be OK (assuming that one of the transmitters
backs off). The price is duplicate commands - if the unit that backed off
then resumes transmitting once the line is clear. I consider units that do
automatic retransmission as brain dead. It's easy to envision duel-to-death
powerline storms from two such units. When I design something I limit the
number of times it will try to retransmit before throwing in the towel.

If there's no collision, the codes coincide and all's well.

The TM751 does not have collision detection or avoidance. Since it does not
"listen" to the powerline, it is oblivious to what's coming from other PLC
transmitters. When it receives an RF code for its housecode, its action
depends on the unit code. If it's for units 1 or 9, it has to wait for a
rising edge on the 60Hz in order to trigger the SCR that drives the relay,
before it relays the command to the powerline. For all other units, it just
sends the code at the next ZC regardless of whether it's a rising or falling
edge. If there are two transmitters on different phases, the signals will be
1/2 cycle off for units 1 & 9 but will coincide for all others.

Before ELK bought the design, I was in communication with Paul Beam, the
designer of the ESM1. We were discussing turning it in to a more
sophisticated device with an RS-232 connection and I offered to write a
Windows interface for it. Once ELK bought it, those discussions ended but I
did learn some of the details of the ESM1. It does not do any sophisticated
anaysis of the signal but if it sees a 1110 followed by an appropriate
number of 10 and 01 sequences, it turns on the "X10 Good" LED. If it does
not see a legal sequence, it does not illuminate the LED. So, you will
always see the signal in the LED bar for one full sequence before the "X10
Good" LED lights as the ESM1 has to see a full signal before it can make a
judgement.

Now, even with something that will show you the PLC signal, it's difficult
to identify where a specific burst of 120kHz originated. If we're looking at
two TM751s or a mix of TM751 and some other transmitter, about the only clue
is the amplitude of the signal and that's not always definitive especially
when all of the signal strength meters fail to show the true amplitude for
strong signals. All of them (including the newer ACT) top out below 5Vpp
while most of the older X-10 devices transmit 10Vpp. I have a pre-ELK ESM1
which was calibrated to show 10Vpp as fullscale. The ELK models are
calibrated using a Monterey so fullscale is something less than 5Vpp.

As you can see from the page I cited, I did not do much testing with the
HCPRF. Specifically, I did not test it with other transceivers on opposite
phases which is where most of the interesting things happen. I tested it
using the CM15A as my tarot card. With the Cypress MCU moved to a breadboard
and a ribbon cable from the breadboard to the CM15A MCU socket I could
monitor PLC receptions while disabling the the CM15A's PLC transmissions.

As an aside, the TW523 does not report all powerline activity. Specific to
this topic, it only reports the second half of its own transmissions.
Consequently, it cannot be used to avoid collisions. Anybody who thinks that
it can listen for a clean line doesn't understand how it works. If it is
used as part of a transceiver, there will be lots and lots of collisions
with any other transceivers on opposite phases.

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote:

>"Dave Houston" <nobody@whocares.com> wrote in message
>
>> This has drifted rather far afield from the original thread.
>
>Agreed. And I am going to break it out into two messages because the thread
>splits again!
>
>> I have one of the Leviton HCPRF transceivers but don't recall that it has
>a
>> built-in lamp module. At least not a dimmer - mine has a solid state
>relay.
>
>Correct. Although the one I have says "300W max., 60W min. Incandescent
>load" and responds to the ALL LIGHTS ON command - it does not respond to DIM
>or BRIGHT commands. I assumed that made it more of a lamp module than an
>appliance module. They confuse the issue pretty solidly by stating, in one
>part of the documentation:
>
> NOTE: If a power interruption should occur while the device
> in ON, the light load will return to its previous light level when
> power is restored.
>
>That's a neat trick for a module that doesn't seem to respond to DIM
>commands sent by Palmpad, Sticka Switch, Credit Card/Keychain type
>controllers and Mini-controllers. The HCPRF PDF file goes on to say: "It
>can also be programmed to respond to scene commands from scene controllers."
>Perhaps if it dims, only Leviton controllers can activate that function.
>
>However, further on down when they discuss testing, they seem to contradict
>themselves by saying:
>
> "3. Transmit DIM and BRIGHT commands. The device will not
> react, but will transmit the DIM or BRIGHT command through
> the house wiring; all units set to the same code will respond."
>
>So, I'm not quite sure *what* it is. I'd consider it a "non-dimmable" lamp
>module, but it's definitely a weird duck. It *always* collides with the
>TM751s that are set to matching housecodes and it doesn't accept commands
>from the older-style transmitters that came with the RR501s (which had the
>somewhat useful 4 position unit slide switch).
>
>The HCPRF got retired because of the interactions with other transceivers
>but I'd sure like to know what it's putting on the line. The Decora unit
>makes the ESM1 do a weird little dance whenever it's activated on a
>housecode with dedicated TM751 around.
>
>> It's RF range seems comparable to standard X-10 transceivers.
>Unfortunately,
>> there's no room within the case to add a connector for an external antenna
>> so I did not try to trace the circuit to see whether they are using the
>hot
>> side as electronic ground. Without knowing that I cannot make any antenna
>> recommendation.
>
>Yes, it's quite crowded in there. I suspect that if the HCPRF ever DID dim,
>they disabled that function to limit heat build-up inside such a small unit.
>I'd spring for the CM15A with its far roomier cabinet. It might be possible
>to remount the HCPRF in an old RR501 case, but it hardly seems worth the
>effort since it doesn't play nice with the TM751's I use.
>
>> There should be no collisions as the Leviton will back off and wait for a
>> clean line before it sends PLC. You will get duplicates of all signals. If
>> you have marginal coupling between phases you might see different results
>at
>> different times. If the Leviton can't "hear" the other transceiver, there
>> will be collisions.
>
>I suspect this is what's going on with the ESM1 showing a definite second
>signal at a lower voltage after it reports a good signal and then a strong
>noise block. This is what I'd like to be able to "see" in some sort of
>detailed display.
>
>> Your ESM1 tests sound like collisions.
>>
>> I think the Monterey is vastly overpriced. It falsely reports every 1110
>> sequence not followed by a valid X-10 sequence as a "bad start code" when
>> they are usually the results of collisions between signals offset by 1/2
>> cycle. The TesterLinc is cheaper. I think Bruce Robin posted comparisons
>of
>> all of the available testers.
>
>I've read through comments by you and others about the Monterey and decided
>to pass on it. While it stores captured PLC data, there's NO WAY to output
>it to a PC for analysis. I ordered the LynX-TOOLS Power Line Analyzer.
>
>http://www.marrickltd.com/lynx_tools.htm
>
>We'll soon see what it says about the Decora's dawdling. Interestingly
>enough, the ESM1's strength LEDs seem to follow the Decora's status light
>blinks by about 1/2 a second. I'm determined to figure out why the ESM1
>shows 1.4 volts or the first series of blinks and only .4 volts for the
>second "good" signal.
>
>> This is a good choice for a "scope"...
>>
>> http://www.usb-instruments.com/documents/small_stingray.pdf
>>
>> You should also get ACT's Scope-Test2 if you want to look at X-10 PLC
>> signals.
>
>I got the strong sense that were a traditional "scope" to appear, I would
>find myself in the doghouse with SWMBO. The Stingray looks awfully sweet
>and if the Lynx doesn't do what I hope it will do, I'll seriously consider
>it. I'm really looking forward to seeing what's really on the line, not
>just whether the signal's strong or not.
>
>Thanks again for your comments, Dave

[Dave Houston]

I have the LynX-10 PLC but they wouldn't give me the details needed to write
diagnostic software for it, probably because they were planning their own,
so it's in my junk box.

"BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com> wrote:

>I have the Lynx which shows a lot of interesting detail but hasn't
>really helped me do much troubleshooting. I spent an hour with the
>engineer who designed it at an EHXpo 2 years ago and he showed me how to
>read it. He talked about updating the software to make it a little more
>useful for field work but nothing came of it.
>The ESM is handy for a quick test particularly when you want to look
>across a room and see if a signal is getting through. I like the
>Monterey but it is somewhat error prone as Dave mentioned. It is still
>useful and was my favorite UNTIL I got my hands on the ACT 004 tester.
>Not cheap, it is, (saw StarWars the other night) but for the money it's
>a better unit than the Monterey and is my current favorite. I still
>have my old Leviton tester too, now about 20 years old, and it still
>does the job in a primitive sort of way.
> If I could only have one, it would be the ACT 004. (Home Controls had
>the best price on it at the time).
>
>
>
>From:Robert Green
>ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM
>
>> "Dave Houston" <nobody@whocares.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> This has drifted rather far afield from the original thread.
>>
>> Agreed. And I am going to break it out into two messages because the
>> thread splits again!
>>
>>> I have one of the Leviton HCPRF transceivers but don't recall that
>>> it has a built-in lamp module. At least not a dimmer - mine has a
>>> solid state relay.
>>
>> Correct. Although the one I have says "300W max., 60W min.
>> Incandescent load" and responds to the ALL LIGHTS ON command - it
>> does not respond to DIM or BRIGHT commands. I assumed that made it
>> more of a lamp module than an appliance module. They confuse the
>> issue pretty solidly by stating, in one part of the documentation:
>>
>> NOTE: If a power interruption should occur while the device
>> in ON, the light load will return to its previous light level when
>> power is restored.
>>
>> That's a neat trick for a module that doesn't seem to respond to DIM
>> commands sent by Palmpad, Sticka Switch, Credit Card/Keychain type
>> controllers and Mini-controllers. The HCPRF PDF file goes on to say:
>> "It can also be programmed to respond to scene commands from scene
>> controllers." Perhaps if it dims, only Leviton controllers can
>> activate that function.
>>
>> However, further on down when they discuss testing, they seem to
>> contradict themselves by saying:
>>
>> "3. Transmit DIM and BRIGHT commands. The device will not
>> react, but will transmit the DIM or BRIGHT command through
>> the house wiring; all units set to the same code will respond."
>>
>> So, I'm not quite sure *what* it is. I'd consider it a
>> "non-dimmable" lamp module, but it's definitely a weird duck. It
>> *always* collides with the TM751s that are set to matching housecodes
>> and it doesn't accept commands from the older-style transmitters that
>> came with the RR501s (which had the somewhat useful 4 position unit
>> slide switch).
>>
>> The HCPRF got retired because of the interactions with other
>> transceivers but I'd sure like to know what it's putting on the line.
>> The Decora unit makes the ESM1 do a weird little dance whenever it's
>> activated on a housecode with dedicated TM751 around.
>>
>>> It's RF range seems comparable to standard X-10 transceivers.
>>> Unfortunately, there's no room within the case to add a connector
>>> for an external antenna so I did not try to trace the circuit to see
>>> whether they are using the hot side as electronic ground. Without
>>> knowing that I cannot make any antenna recommendation.
>>
>> Yes, it's quite crowded in there. I suspect that if the HCPRF ever
>> DID dim, they disabled that function to limit heat build-up inside
>> such a small unit. I'd spring for the CM15A with its far roomier
>> cabinet. It might be possible to remount the HCPRF in an old RR501
>> case, but it hardly seems worth the effort since it doesn't play nice
>> with the TM751's I use.
>>
>>> There should be no collisions as the Leviton will back off and wait
>>> for a clean line before it sends PLC. You will get duplicates of all
>>> signals. If you have marginal coupling between phases you might see
>>> different results at different times. If the Leviton can't "hear"
>>> the other transceiver, there will be collisions.
>>
>> I suspect this is what's going on with the ESM1 showing a definite
>> second signal at a lower voltage after it reports a good signal and
>> then a strong noise block. This is what I'd like to be able to "see"
>> in some sort of detailed display.
>>
>>> Your ESM1 tests sound like collisions.
>>>
>>> I think the Monterey is vastly overpriced. It falsely reports every
>>> 1110 sequence not followed by a valid X-10 sequence as a "bad start
>>> code" when they are usually the results of collisions between
>>> signals offset by 1/2 cycle. The TesterLinc is cheaper. I think
>>> Bruce Robin posted comparisons of all of the available testers.
>>
>> I've read through comments by you and others about the Monterey and
>> decided to pass on it. While it stores captured PLC data, there's NO
>> WAY to output it to a PC for analysis. I ordered the LynX-TOOLS
>> Power Line Analyzer.
>>
>> http://www.marrickltd.com/lynx_tools.htm
>>
>> We'll soon see what it says about the Decora's dawdling.
>> Interestingly enough, the ESM1's strength LEDs seem to follow the
>> Decora's status light blinks by about 1/2 a second. I'm determined
>> to figure out why the ESM1 shows 1.4 volts or the first series of
>> blinks and only .4 volts for the second "good" signal.
>>
>>> This is a good choice for a "scope"...
>>>
>>> http://www.usb-instruments.com/documents/small_stingray.pdf
>>>
>>> You should also get ACT's Scope-Test2 if you want to look at X-10 PLC
>>> signals.
>>
>> I got the strong sense that were a traditional "scope" to appear, I
>> would find myself in the doghouse with SWMBO. The Stingray looks
>> awfully sweet and if the Lynx doesn't do what I hope it will do, I'll
>> seriously consider it. I'm really looking forward to seeing what's
>> really on the line, not just whether the signal's strong or not.
>>
>> Thanks again for your comments, Dave
>>
>> --
>> Bobby G.
>

[Dave Houston]

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote:

>Correct. Although the one I have says "300W max., 60W min. Incandescent
>load" and responds to the ALL LIGHTS ON command - it does not respond to DIM
>or BRIGHT commands. I assumed that made it more of a lamp module than an
>appliance module. They confuse the issue pretty solidly by stating, in one
>part of the documentation:
>
> NOTE: If a power interruption should occur while the device
> in ON, the light load will return to its previous light level when
> power is restored.

Leviton's web page says, "...incorporates a built-in outlet suitable for
"ON"/"OFF" switching of incandescent lamps rated up to 300W"

http://www.levitonproducts.com/Catalog/Model_HCPRF.htm?sid=H8VPL1GKVSSF9LC43DB51198GL0G9S H2&PID=1208

The TM751 label says it can handle 500W incandescent and has other ratings
for other types of loads.

[Robert Green]

"Dave Houston" <nobody@whocares.com> wrote in message

> Reading the docs, are we? Geesh - no wonder things are so confused. ;)

Yes, I'm going to go offline a bit to read up some more. There's a lot of
homework involved in (me) trying to understand what you're saying. Your
..mbx site is informative and well-presented but my brain has become highly
insulated so it takes a while to soak through.

I've been rummaging around X-10 sites so I can hope to ask the right
questions to help me hunt down the X-10 weirdness that's been plaguing me.
I have to install the Lynx gizmo (on an old Armada without a CD drive or a
USB port or network card from a CD) and "take a look around" to figure out
what's happening. Hopefully I can capture readings that make sense and not
just flashes from my Elk meter.

The quick answer to one of your questions is: "The haunted lamp lives at
B13" and when I was recording from the line via (in)ActiveHome I recall
seeing a lot of M13's and status requests.

I can't believe how much hope I have imbued in the Lynx analyzer, sort of
like getting a electronic X-10 Rosetta stone.

Thanks for your help, again, Dave. Now back to Reading The (many) Fine
Manual(s) . . .

--
Bobby G.

[Robert Green]

"Dave Houston" <nobody@whocares.com> wrote in message

> Reading the docs, are we? Geesh - no wonder things are so confused. ;)

I had to go through a bit of a search to get them, too. I lost the little
paper insert and then realized that the house and unit code are set via the
programming button. I didn't remember how to do that. (old age, I guess).
Leviton never replied to support emails but I finally found the PDF imbedded
in one of their catalogs (had to DL 60MB by modem to do it!). The funny
part is that I had finally found a use for HCPRF, but that was based on the
mistaken assumption that it was a old-fashioned relay module like the TM751
and RR501 and not a solid state relay for incandescent loads. I was going
to use it to control some fluorescent lights! :-( No such luck! The one
thing the module has going for it, as opposed to the TM751 is that it's
silent. My MIL finds the TM751's relay clacking objectionable.

> I did not do extensive testing with the HCPRF. Once I saw there was no
room
> to add an external antenna jack, I lost interest.

Too bad. I can afford to experiment on mine and might have taken a whack at
modifying it just out of curiosity. It's definitely not happy within my
current setup.

> What unit codes are you seeing the strange behavior on?

On a number of different codes. B13 is the most popular inadvertent turn on
(and off) but others do it as well. I should add that these units are
controlled by the infamous Hawkeye PIRs. As I wrote that, I realize I may
have blown a couple of 100 bucks on the Lynx. The collisions may be
occurring in the RF portion of the "control sequence." :-( I used to keep
the CM11A active, just logging the weird signals but I stopped using it when
it started showing signs of overheating.

> www.mbx-usa.com/multiples.htm gives a very brief summary of what you'll
see
> with multiple transceivers.

Yes, I've been spending a lot of time there, sifting through the diagrams
and data.

Am I right in assuming that there's no error checking like a CRC check of
the *complete* X-10 signal? I see it as a series of 120KHz tones
synchronized to the zero crossing. When a receiver sees 3 or more tone-free
AC cycles it is then "primed" to look for a "start code" of "1110" which,
for a standard X-10 transmitter, is a series of 9 pulses, total. Six of
those pulses are ignored, as they are for split phase systems zero
crossings. The Powerlinc appears to differ in that it only sends pulses on
one phase, so the scope trace looks a lot like the actual binary string
transmitted.

My understanding is that whatever error checking occurs, it's in
representing a 4 bit binary number like 1001 in 8 bits using a bit's
complement to guard against errors. So 1001 would become 10010110. The
only place this does NOT occur is in the start code, which is just 1110 that
follows at least three signal-free AC cycles.

FWIW, I can't seem to reach the Power Line Communication Bibliography
referenced on http://www.mbx-usa.com/x10-sig.htm
I don't know whether it's me or they've disappeared. I searched the Wayback
machine for it:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040606020312/http://info.iet.unipi.it/~filippo/
documenti/powerlines/PowerLineCom/FrameRIF.html

otherwise known as http://tinyurl.com/8ghye

and I can retrieve the bibliography list, but the URLs they refer to are
gone, too. I've tried to pull them one at a time out of the Wayback and
then tried using Google to see if the site's simply been relocated but I
can't seem to find a new version of the site. :-(

--
Bobby G.

[Dave Houston]

The only error checking is the Manchester encoding wherein each 1 bit is 10
on the powerline and each 0 bit is 01 on the powerline. If you analyze it,
after the start code (1110) there's no way you can have a "legal" run of
more than 11 or 00 within the code. That's fairly robust. The probability
that a ~120kHz "noise" source will create such a pattern out of whole cloth
is nil.

I don't think there is a requirement that a 3 cycle silence precede a start
code. The second copy of the code follows without such a gap.

The likelihood of RF collisions that create valid codes is very, very, very
low. The RF codes also incorporate error checking. If two motion sensors see
the same motion, the transceiver will likely see a corrupted RF code and
will ignore it. The transceiver receives the RF, decodes it and then (if
it's OK) sends it to the powerline. There is no one-to-one correspondence
between the RF code bits and the PLC bits. Some transceivers will relay
certain commands that others do not - All Units On, All Lights On, All
Lights Off are not universal.

However, if you have multiple transceivers and multiple motion detectors you
might see some really complex behavior where one transceiver "hears" from
one motion sensor and another transceiver "hears" from another a few ms
later. That could cause PLC collisions. It all depends on the strength of
the RF signals (as seen at the transceivers) and the timing between when the
motion is detected by the sensors. The AGC/ATC in the RF receiver circuits
will pick out a stronger signal that overlays a weaker signal. The RF code
is about 105ms long. Once a valid code is being sent to the powerline, a
transceiver is deaf to RF until the PLC cycle completes but a stronger RF
code can override a weaker one if it starts before the first RF code
competes.

It's a shame that the Power Line Communication Bibliography disappeared. It
had links to some excellent white papers. I think all were stored on the
same server so they probably decided to free up some space. I wish I had
saved copies of a few key papers.

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote:

>"Dave Houston" <nobody@whocares.com> wrote in message
>
>> Reading the docs, are we? Geesh - no wonder things are so confused. ;)
>
>I had to go through a bit of a search to get them, too. I lost the little
>paper insert and then realized that the house and unit code are set via the
>programming button. I didn't remember how to do that. (old age, I guess).
>Leviton never replied to support emails but I finally found the PDF imbedded
>in one of their catalogs (had to DL 60MB by modem to do it!). The funny
>part is that I had finally found a use for HCPRF, but that was based on the
>mistaken assumption that it was a old-fashioned relay module like the TM751
>and RR501 and not a solid state relay for incandescent loads. I was going
>to use it to control some fluorescent lights! :-( No such luck! The one
>thing the module has going for it, as opposed to the TM751 is that it's
>silent. My MIL finds the TM751's relay clacking objectionable.
>
>> I did not do extensive testing with the HCPRF. Once I saw there was no
>room
>> to add an external antenna jack, I lost interest.
>
>Too bad. I can afford to experiment on mine and might have taken a whack at
>modifying it just out of curiosity. It's definitely not happy within my
>current setup.
>
>> What unit codes are you seeing the strange behavior on?
>
>On a number of different codes. B13 is the most popular inadvertent turn on
>(and off) but others do it as well. I should add that these units are
>controlled by the infamous Hawkeye PIRs. As I wrote that, I realize I may
>have blown a couple of 100 bucks on the Lynx. The collisions may be
>occurring in the RF portion of the "control sequence." :-( I used to keep
>the CM11A active, just logging the weird signals but I stopped using it when
>it started showing signs of overheating.
>
>> www.mbx-usa.com/multiples.htm gives a very brief summary of what you'll
>see
>> with multiple transceivers.
>
>Yes, I've been spending a lot of time there, sifting through the diagrams
>and data.
>
>Am I right in assuming that there's no error checking like a CRC check of
>the *complete* X-10 signal? I see it as a series of 120KHz tones
>synchronized to the zero crossing. When a receiver sees 3 or more tone-free
>AC cycles it is then "primed" to look for a "start code" of "1110" which,
>for a standard X-10 transmitter, is a series of 9 pulses, total. Six of
>those pulses are ignored, as they are for split phase systems zero
>crossings. The Powerlinc appears to differ in that it only sends pulses on
>one phase, so the scope trace looks a lot like the actual binary string
>transmitted.
>
>My understanding is that whatever error checking occurs, it's in
>representing a 4 bit binary number like 1001 in 8 bits using a bit's
>complement to guard against errors. So 1001 would become 10010110. The
>only place this does NOT occur is in the start code, which is just 1110 that
>follows at least three signal-free AC cycles.
>
>FWIW, I can't seem to reach the Power Line Communication Bibliography
>referenced on http://www.mbx-usa.com/x10-sig.htm
>I don't know whether it's me or they've disappeared. I searched the Wayback
>machine for it:
>
>http://web.archive.org/web/20040606020312/http://info.iet.unipi.it/~filippo/
>documenti/powerlines/PowerLineCom/FrameRIF.html
>
>otherwise known as http://tinyurl.com/8ghye
>
>and I can retrieve the bibliography list, but the URLs they refer to are
>gone, too. I've tried to pull them one at a time out of the Wayback and
>then tried using Google to see if the site's simply been relocated but I
>can't seem to find a new version of the site. :-(

[Dave Houston]

nobody@whocares.com (Dave Houston) wrote:

>...a stronger RF code can override a weaker one if it starts before the
>first RF code competes.

Should have been "completes".

[Robert Green]

Dave Houston wrote:

> The only error checking is the Manchester encoding wherein each 1 bit is
10
> on the powerline and each 0 bit is 01 on the powerline. If you analyze it,
> after the start code (1110) there's no way you can have a "legal" run of
> more than 11 or 00 within the code. That's fairly robust. The probability
> that a ~120kHz "noise" source will create such a pattern out of whole
cloth
> is nil.

I agree that it's unlikely a valid code would come from random noise burst.
I suspect that in cases where oddball codes appear to come from nowhere
people are actually seeing interactions between various modules. I have a
couple of power strips that make the ESM1 meter light up ever so faintly
when I plug them into or unplug them from a nearby power outlet. It's one
of the things I hope LynxTools will help me analyze. I also note that the
LM14A module makes the ESM1 show a strong signal when I first plug it into
the wall.

This makes me wonder if the weirdness people see isn't related to small
powerline interruptions that often occur late at night when the power
companies do maintenance. If units that transmit upon activation all fire
together there could be an awful lot of powerline traffic generated from a
very short interruption. I'm assuming I can simulate this with a quick
flick of the main breaker switch. In any event, I'm trying to figure out an
"experiment design" that can replicate the oddball behavior consistently.

As you said in an early message, though, it may be very difficult to
determine which unit in a collison sent which bit other than by amplitude,
which is unreliable. From what I saw at your site, a collision between a
CM11A and a TM751 might be distinguishable because the bit "signature" of
each unit is different. The CM11A shows a distinct "fall off" - I'm not
sure the Lynx can detect that although I suspect an oscilloscope should. I'm
hoping that the Lynx will read out signal strength precisely enough to "get
a fix" on the source at the bit level. The more I read, the more I wish I
had purchased the scope and interface you recommended. If the Lynx doesn't
lead to answers, I may well yet purchase the scope.

> I don't think there is a requirement that a 3 cycle silence precede a
start
> code. The second copy of the code follows without such a gap.

Yes, sorry. I see that now. I was confused by the line from the X-10 site
says: "This complete block, (Start Code, House Code, Key Code) should always
be transmitted in groups of 2 with 3 power line cycles between each group of
2 codes." I confess that I didn't clearly understand the implication of
the Manchester coding until you explained it in this very message, at least
in terms of how unique it would make the '1110' pattern of the start code.
Thanks for revealing that particular mystery! I'm still a little hazy about
the "Bad Start Codes" that the Monterey analyzer reports. Does that mean
they detected a valid '1110' sequence but that the data that follows is NOT
legitimate X-10 data?

> The likelihood of RF collisions that create valid codes is very, very,
very
> low. The RF codes also incorporate error checking. If two motion sensors
see
> the same motion, the transceiver will likely see a corrupted RF code and
> will ignore it. The transceiver receives the RF, decodes it and then (if
> it's OK) sends it to the powerline. There is no one-to-one correspondence
> between the RF code bits and the PLC bits. Some transceivers will relay
> certain commands that others do not - All Units On, All Lights On, All
> Lights Off are not universal.
>
> However, if you have multiple transceivers and multiple motion detectors
you
> might see some really complex behavior where one transceiver "hears" from
> one motion sensor and another transceiver "hears" from another a few ms
> later. That could cause PLC collisions. It all depends on the strength of
> the RF signals (as seen at the transceivers) and the timing between when
the
> motion is detected by the sensors. The AGC/ATC in the RF receiver circuits
> will pick out a stronger signal that overlays a weaker signal. The RF code
> is about 105ms long. Once a valid code is being sent to the powerline, a
> transceiver is deaf to RF until the PLC cycle completes but a stronger RF
> code can override a weaker one if it starts before the first RF code
> competes.

I really think the behavior above describes the process that creates the
unusual junk people see in their Activehome logs. I'm pretty sure I can
recreate the situation by going into my box of Hawkeyes and putting some old
RR501's, the Decora HCPRF, my CM11A and a few TW523's on-line responding to
a dozen or PIRs.

I remember the day I was determined to put all the gear I had inherited to
use. I put a number of lights on modules geared to respond to Hawkeyes so
that anyone walking around at night wouldn't have to fumble for
lightswitches. Things worked fairly well if only one person was moving
about. As soon as two people were triggering different PIR's at the same
time, the fun began. A person walking from the kitchen toward the LR and a
person walking from the bedroom area to the LR at the same time could and
would turn the porch lights on. Those lights were on an entirely different
housecode than the rest of the house.

> It's a shame that the Power Line Communication Bibliography disappeared.
It
> had links to some excellent white papers. I think all were stored on the
> same server so they probably decided to free up some space. I wish I had
> saved copies of a few key papers.

I've found a number of the originals, but it's very slowly going. It's too
bad. The bibliography I got from Wayback looked very interesting.

--
Bobby G.

> "Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote:
>
> >"Dave Houston" <nobody@whocares.com> wrote in message
> >
> >> Reading the docs, are we? Geesh - no wonder things are so confused. ;)
> >
> >I had to go through a bit of a search to get them, too. I lost the
little
> >paper insert and then realized that the house and unit code are set via
the
> >programming button. I didn't remember how to do that. (old age, I
guess).
> >Leviton never replied to support emails but I finally found the PDF
imbedded
> >in one of their catalogs (had to DL 60MB by modem to do it!). The funny
> >part is that I had finally found a use for HCPRF, but that was based on
the
> >mistaken assumption that it was a old-fashioned relay module like the
TM751
> >and RR501 and not a solid state relay for incandescent loads. I was
going
> >to use it to control some fluorescent lights! :-( No such luck! The
one
> >thing the module has going for it, as opposed to the TM751 is that it's
> >silent. My MIL finds the TM751's relay clacking objectionable.
> >
> >> I did not do extensive testing with the HCPRF. Once I saw there was no
> >room
> >> to add an external antenna jack, I lost interest.
> >
> >Too bad. I can afford to experiment on mine and might have taken a whack
at
> >modifying it just out of curiosity. It's definitely not happy within my
> >current setup.
> >
> >> What unit codes are you seeing the strange behavior on?
> >
> >On a number of different codes. B13 is the most popular inadvertent turn
on
> >(and off) but others do it as well. I should add that these units are
> >controlled by the infamous Hawkeye PIRs. As I wrote that, I realize I
may
> >have blown a couple of 100 bucks on the Lynx. The collisions may be
> >occurring in the RF portion of the "control sequence." :-( I used to
keep
> >the CM11A active, just logging the weird signals but I stopped using it
when
> >it started showing signs of overheating.
> >
> >> www.mbx-usa.com/multiples.htm gives a very brief summary of what you'll
> >see
> >> with multiple transceivers.
> >
> >Yes, I've been spending a lot of time there, sifting through the diagrams
> >and data.
> >
> >Am I right in assuming that there's no error checking like a CRC check of
> >the *complete* X-10 signal? I see it as a series of 120KHz tones
> >synchronized to the zero crossing. When a receiver sees 3 or more
tone-free
> >AC cycles it is then "primed" to look for a "start code" of "1110"
which,
> >for a standard X-10 transmitter, is a series of 9 pulses, total. Six of
> >those pulses are ignored, as they are for split phase systems zero
> >crossings. The Powerlinc appears to differ in that it only sends pulses
on
> >one phase, so the scope trace looks a lot like the actual binary string
> >transmitted.
> >
> >My understanding is that whatever error checking occurs, it's in
> >representing a 4 bit binary number like 1001 in 8 bits using a bit's
> >complement to guard against errors. So 1001 would become 10010110. The
> >only place this does NOT occur is in the start code, which is just 1110
that
> >follows at least three signal-free AC cycles.
> >
> >FWIW, I can't seem to reach the Power Line Communication Bibliography
> >referenced on http://www.mbx-usa.com/x10-sig.htm
> >I don't know whether it's me or they've disappeared. I searched the
Wayback
> >machine for it:
> >
>
>http://web.archive.org/web/20040606020312/http://info.iet.unipi.it/~filippo
/
> >documenti/powerlines/PowerLineCom/FrameRIF.html
> >
> >otherwise known as http://tinyurl.com/8ghye
> >
> >and I can retrieve the bibliography list, but the URLs they refer to are
> >gone, too. I've tried to pull them one at a time out of the Wayback and
> >then tried using Google to see if the site's simply been relocated but I
> >can't seem to find a new version of the site. :-(
>

[Dave Houston]

The LM14A transmits its ID (as an extended code which is longer than
standard codes) when it powers up. The LM14A only sends this if it has been
without power for some length of time so brief power glitches will not
trigger it.

However, the recent thread from 'AZ Woody' about phantom codes being logged
when he ran his paper shredder, is probably a precursor of more such
reports. The shredder motor was causing his two-way switchlinc to 'think'
its load had cycled and it was sending the codes. This may also explain the
reports of phantom codes from a noisy PC power suppy. (However, the details
of that one changed considerably over time so I think that poster was just
confused.)

The Monterey just applies the label "Bad Start Code" to any sequence of 1110
that is not followed by a valid code. As a result, you'll see messages
posted here from Monterey users saying things like "tons of BSCs" from a
collision like the one I describe in the "Multiple Transceivers" app note.
I've color coded the sequence seen at the receiver to highlight all the 1110
sequences that result from a collision between codes that are identical but
1/2 a powerline cycle out of sync.

The terms "valid 1110" and "Bad Start Code" are really a bit meaningless.
From the receiver point of view, whether a 1110 sequence is a start code
depends on whether it starts something (i.e. whether a valid code follows)
and not all 1110 sequences are start codes (good, bad or ethically neutral).


Multiple transceivers with multiple motion sensors will likely lead to
cacophony. I still think the approach I took with the BX24-AHT was the best
solution. One central RF receiver with a good antenna gives adequate range.
With a CM11A as its X10 interface, it avoided collisions because the CM11A
stops sending PLC whenever it sees a 1 when it sent a 0. It did not
retransmit (probability is very high that any collisions are with a second
transceiver) so it can coexist with one other transceiver. Initially, I
planned to support two CM11As (one on each phase) but it's software UART
wasn't capable of that. I still hope to design a brain transplant for the
CM15A that will incorporate most of the BX24-AHT features but my health now
makes it tougher to handle lengthy projects like this.

The Powerline Communications papers were mostly pitched towards BPL but
several did give excellent descriptions of the types of noise encountered.
It was also a little more European oriented and their electrical grid is
quite different with 100s of residences sharing a stepdown transformer. You
can find some of the same data from companies like Intellon who are building
the BPL chipsets. There are also several academic theses that cover the same
ground.

I don't recall whether the LynX-10 PLC can measure signal strength. Even if
it does, it may give an average or peak reading so it may not be useful for
seeing the CM11A signal degradation. A scope is the easiest way to detect
that.

I plan to have a raw diagnostic mode in my rebraining of the CM15A but it
will not be able to measure amplitude or PLC frequency just output all of
the 1 and 0 half-bits.

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote:

>Dave Houston wrote:
>
>> The only error checking is the Manchester encoding wherein each 1 bit is
>10
>> on the powerline and each 0 bit is 01 on the powerline. If you analyze it,
>> after the start code (1110) there's no way you can have a "legal" run of
>> more than 11 or 00 within the code. That's fairly robust. The probability
>> that a ~120kHz "noise" source will create such a pattern out of whole
>cloth
>> is nil.
>
>I agree that it's unlikely a valid code would come from random noise burst.
>I suspect that in cases where oddball codes appear to come from nowhere
>people are actually seeing interactions between various modules. I have a
>couple of power strips that make the ESM1 meter light up ever so faintly
>when I plug them into or unplug them from a nearby power outlet. It's one
>of the things I hope LynxTools will help me analyze. I also note that the
>LM14A module makes the ESM1 show a strong signal when I first plug it into
>the wall.
>
>This makes me wonder if the weirdness people see isn't related to small
>powerline interruptions that often occur late at night when the power
>companies do maintenance. If units that transmit upon activation all fire
>together there could be an awful lot of powerline traffic generated from a
>very short interruption. I'm assuming I can simulate this with a quick
>flick of the main breaker switch. In any event, I'm trying to figure out an
>"experiment design" that can replicate the oddball behavior consistently.
>
>As you said in an early message, though, it may be very difficult to
>determine which unit in a collison sent which bit other than by amplitude,
>which is unreliable. From what I saw at your site, a collision between a
>CM11A and a TM751 might be distinguishable because the bit "signature" of
>each unit is different. The CM11A shows a distinct "fall off" - I'm not
>sure the Lynx can detect that although I suspect an oscilloscope should. I'm
>hoping that the Lynx will read out signal strength precisely enough to "get
>a fix" on the source at the bit level. The more I read, the more I wish I
>had purchased the scope and interface you recommended. If the Lynx doesn't
>lead to answers, I may well yet purchase the scope.
>
>> I don't think there is a requirement that a 3 cycle silence precede a
>start
>> code. The second copy of the code follows without such a gap.
>
>Yes, sorry. I see that now. I was confused by the line from the X-10 site
>says: "This complete block, (Start Code, House Code, Key Code) should always
>be transmitted in groups of 2 with 3 power line cycles between each group of
>2 codes." I confess that I didn't clearly understand the implication of
>the Manchester coding until you explained it in this very message, at least
>in terms of how unique it would make the '1110' pattern of the start code.
>Thanks for revealing that particular mystery! I'm still a little hazy about
>the "Bad Start Codes" that the Monterey analyzer reports. Does that mean
>they detected a valid '1110' sequence but that the data that follows is NOT
>legitimate X-10 data?
>
>> The likelihood of RF collisions that create valid codes is very, very,
>very
>> low. The RF codes also incorporate error checking. If two motion sensors
>see
>> the same motion, the transceiver will likely see a corrupted RF code and
>> will ignore it. The transceiver receives the RF, decodes it and then (if
>> it's OK) sends it to the powerline. There is no one-to-one correspondence
>> between the RF code bits and the PLC bits. Some transceivers will relay
>> certain commands that others do not - All Units On, All Lights On, All
>> Lights Off are not universal.
>>
>> However, if you have multiple transceivers and multiple motion detectors
>you
>> might see some really complex behavior where one transceiver "hears" from
>> one motion sensor and another transceiver "hears" from another a few ms
>> later. That could cause PLC collisions. It all depends on the strength of
>> the RF signals (as seen at the transceivers) and the timing between when
>the
>> motion is detected by the sensors. The AGC/ATC in the RF receiver circuits
>> will pick out a stronger signal that overlays a weaker signal. The RF code
>> is about 105ms long. Once a valid code is being sent to the powerline, a
>> transceiver is deaf to RF until the PLC cycle completes but a stronger RF
>> code can override a weaker one if it starts before the first RF code
>> competes.
>
>I really think the behavior above describes the process that creates the
>unusual junk people see in their Activehome logs. I'm pretty sure I can
>recreate the situation by going into my box of Hawkeyes and putting some old
>RR501's, the Decora HCPRF, my CM11A and a few TW523's on-line responding to
>a dozen or PIRs.
>
>I remember the day I was determined to put all the gear I had inherited to
>use. I put a number of lights on modules geared to respond to Hawkeyes so
>that anyone walking around at night wouldn't have to fumble for
>lightswitches. Things worked fairly well if only one person was moving
>about. As soon as two people were triggering different PIR's at the same
>time, the fun began. A person walking from the kitchen toward the LR and a
>person walking from the bedroom area to the LR at the same time could and
>would turn the porch lights on. Those lights were on an entirely different
>housecode than the rest of the house.
>
>> It's a shame that the Power Line Communication Bibliography disappeared.
>It
>> had links to some excellent white papers. I think all were stored on the
>> same server so they probably decided to free up some space. I wish I had
>> saved copies of a few key papers.
>
>I've found a number of the originals, but it's very slowly going. It's too
>bad. The bibliography I got from Wayback looked very interesting.

[Dave Houston]

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote:

>I agree that it's unlikely a valid code would come from random noise burst.
>I suspect that in cases where oddball codes appear to come from nowhere
>people are actually seeing interactions between various modules. I have a
>couple of power strips that make the ESM1 meter light up ever so faintly
>when I plug them into or unplug them from a nearby power outlet. It's one
>of the things I hope LynxTools will help me analyze. I also note that the
>LM14A module makes the ESM1 show a strong signal when I first plug it into
>the wall.

Another point that should be made is that powerline collisions sometimes
result in valid codes that differ from either of the originals but can
affect other devices in the X-10 address space. In these cases there will be
valid signals of unknown origin in the logs. The original Ocelot firmware
would detect collisions but did not report them. I convinced ADI that, they
needed to report any that resulted in valid X-10 commands. I shudder to
think of the phantom event reports we'd be seeing if they had stayed with
the original firmware. ;)

It's also possible for power spikes and brownouts to directly affect X-10
modules and switches. In these case there will be no codes in the logs.

Finally, with SmartHome selling the two-way *Linc devices that send their
own Address and On/Off codes when the load is cycled, there will be codes
logged. As we've seen, these can apparently be fooled by things like motor
noise.

SmartHome also uses the old style preset dim codes which can mysteriously
affect modules in other housecodes.

[Robert Green]

"BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com> wrote in message

> I have the Lynx which shows a lot of interesting detail but hasn't
> really helped me do much troubleshooting.

I spent a while fretting about how I would load the Lynx program CD onto the
old Compaq Armada I had earmarked for it (no CD drive!). Then I looked at
the files on the clearly limited-edition paper-labeled CDR disk and saw they
were from 1998 and 2002 and would all easily fit on a floppy. It installed
nicely, although it took me a while to realize it was "locked" and I had to
enter my CD-Key to activate it.

At first I was both overwhelmed by the complexity of the screens and
underwhelmed by things like simple signal strength measurement. It can draw
all sorts of fancy phase angle graphs and pseudo-oscilloscope output, but I
didn't see anything that would really help me get to the bottom of the
Phantom Menace that's been haunting my X-10 setup.

Then, just to see how it would react, I decided to press two keychain
remotes simultaneously, one set to housecode "B" and the other set to "D."
Lo and behold! Now I had a grid the showed the breakout of what the Lynx
receiver saw on the powerline, bit by bit, and it showed, embedded in the
middle of lots of what it labels "code fragments" was a DIM command for
Housecode M, Unit 16. Bingo! There's no M housecode in use in my system
anywhere. I'll run a few more tests and even set up a few lamp modules on
the M housecode to see if I can't get it to activate by pressing
transmitters on D and A codes.

> I spent an hour with the engineer who designed it at an EHXpo 2
> years ago and he showed me how to read it.

From what I see, in the display that looks a little like what Disk
Defragmenter shows, there's one line with the actual powerline bits, another
line that shows them mapping into X-10 binary codes and another line that
shows the actual X-10 commands. I was hoping that I could read the power
level of each bit but I haven't found that function, if it indeed exists.
It does seem able to tell me the location of each bit along the AC cycle,
which I assume is really just the number of milliseconds past the zero
crossing point That could end up being as valuable in figuring out the
mechanics of such collisions. Did you take notes at the EHXpo? :-)

> He talked about updating the software to make it a little more
> useful for field work but nothing came of it.

I thought that loading the SW on a laptop would make it a useful tool, too
but it's too clunky for fieldwork. Actually, when buyer's remorse was at a
peak this morning, I came across the Smarthome Monterey clone that's on sale
here (no affiliation) for $89

http://www.homeautomationnet.com/shopping/shopexd.asp?id=921

and thought that was what I really needed. I can't see much difference from
the Monterey when I compare the specs - except maybe the Testerlinc is 200
bucks cheaper! Well, one thing that's odd is they use a "quality count"
rather than display signal voltage. But again, the Testerlinc does not log
to a PC.

> The ESM is handy for a quick test particularly when you want to look >
across a room and see if a signal is getting through. I like the
> Monterey but it is somewhat error prone as Dave mentioned.

I'll bet the Testerlinc suffers from similar issues. One thing that freaked
me (and Dave, if you are reading, please correct me if I am wrong) is that I
think Dave said they used the Monterey to *calibrate* the ESM1. How bad
could the Monterey be if they use it to calibrate other meters!!!? :-)
FWIW, as soon as I opened the Lynx box, a little voice said "you should have
bought the Monterey or the Testerlinc!"

I'd like to figure out how to "broadcast" the output of the ESM1. I'd like
to be able to bring it up as a system tray icon so that every time an X-10
command was sent, I could see its strength. Maybe I'll just set up an old
CCTV camera and broadcast it via cable TV modulator. Now showing on channel
111! X-10 Signal Strength!

> It is still useful and was my favorite UNTIL I got my hands on the
> ACT 004 tester.

Don't make me spend any more money!!!!!! I've already decided I have to get
that little USB scope that Dave mentioned earlier. I just haven't found the
cheapest price for it yet.

http://www.usb-instruments.com/buy.html

lists only one dealer which means they can command list price. Still, it's
an OK deal for $220 since it includes the software.

> Not cheap, it is, (saw StarWars the other night) but for the money it's
> a better unit than the Monterey and is my current favorite. I still
> have my old Leviton tester too, now about 20 years old, and it still
> does the job in a primitive sort of way.

What does it do that the Monterey doesn't?

> If I could only have one, it would be the ACT 004. (Home Controls had
> the best price on it at the time).

Maybe providence and the spirit that protects wallets and bank accounts has
made the ACT 004 impossible to find on Google. No, wait, oh, darn, here it
is:

http://www.homeautomationnet.com/shopping/shopexd.asp?id=214

For $250, it might be worth it if I did installs and needed to leave
something overnight to log data. But it's got the same damn Achilles' Heel
that the Testerlinc and the Monterey have - no way to log to a PC. It's got
lots more neat buttons and features, though. Next time I save myself a lot
of money buying Minicontrollers for $2 each I'll be able to justify buying
the ACT. There's something perverse about spending all the money I save
buying cheap X-10 gear on expensive X-10 test equipment.

--
Bobby G.

[BruceR]

You're heading down the same tester path I took. The TesterLinc at $89
is probably too good to pass up. The "quality" level it reports is
interesting but I like to see what's happening. The Monterey is
certainly a good unit but when there's a problem it reports lots of
"BSC" (Bad Start Code) messages when that's not really the problem. I
think that's the same issue Dave pointed out. The ACT 004 not only
provides accurate readings but can test 220 volt lines if you need to
(using a different plug in power connector) and also has a transmit
function with selective signal output levels.
I haven't really needed to log data to a PC to shoot trouble so that's
not part of my criteria.
See: http://www.act-solutions.com/PCCSpecFrame.htm for a spec sheet and
here's where the manual is found:
http://www.act-solutions.com/PCCInstFrame.htm Click on AT004 on these
pages. CAUTION: I think a read of the manual might get you diving into
the seat cushions looking for spare change to add to your tester budget!

From:Robert Green
ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM

> "BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com> wrote in message
>
>> I have the Lynx which shows a lot of interesting detail but hasn't
>> really helped me do much troubleshooting.
>
> I spent a while fretting about how I would load the Lynx program CD
> onto the old Compaq Armada I had earmarked for it (no CD drive!).
> Then I looked at the files on the clearly limited-edition
> paper-labeled CDR disk and saw they were from 1998 and 2002 and would
> all easily fit on a floppy. It installed nicely, although it took me
> a while to realize it was "locked" and I had to enter my CD-Key to
> activate it.
>
> At first I was both overwhelmed by the complexity of the screens and
> underwhelmed by things like simple signal strength measurement. It
> can draw all sorts of fancy phase angle graphs and
> pseudo-oscilloscope output, but I didn't see anything that would
> really help me get to the bottom of the Phantom Menace that's been
> haunting my X-10 setup.
>
> Then, just to see how it would react, I decided to press two keychain
> remotes simultaneously, one set to housecode "B" and the other set to
> "D." Lo and behold! Now I had a grid the showed the breakout of what
> the Lynx receiver saw on the powerline, bit by bit, and it showed,
> embedded in the middle of lots of what it labels "code fragments" was
> a DIM command for Housecode M, Unit 16. Bingo! There's no M
> housecode in use in my system anywhere. I'll run a few more tests
> and even set up a few lamp modules on the M housecode to see if I
> can't get it to activate by pressing transmitters on D and A codes.
>
>> I spent an hour with the engineer who designed it at an EHXpo 2
>> years ago and he showed me how to read it.
>
> From what I see, in the display that looks a little like what Disk
> Defragmenter shows, there's one line with the actual powerline bits,
> another line that shows them mapping into X-10 binary codes and
> another line that shows the actual X-10 commands. I was hoping that
> I could read the power level of each bit but I haven't found that
> function, if it indeed exists. It does seem able to tell me the
> location of each bit along the AC cycle, which I assume is really
> just the number of milliseconds past the zero crossing point That
> could end up being as valuable in figuring out the mechanics of such
> collisions. Did you take notes at the EHXpo? :-)
>
>> He talked about updating the software to make it a little more
>> useful for field work but nothing came of it.
>
> I thought that loading the SW on a laptop would make it a useful
> tool, too but it's too clunky for fieldwork. Actually, when buyer's
> remorse was at a peak this morning, I came across the Smarthome
> Monterey clone that's on sale here (no affiliation) for $89
>
> http://www.homeautomationnet.com/shopping/shopexd.asp?id=921
>
> and thought that was what I really needed. I can't see much
> difference from the Monterey when I compare the specs - except maybe
> the Testerlinc is 200 bucks cheaper! Well, one thing that's odd is
> they use a "quality count" rather than display signal voltage. But
> again, the Testerlinc does not log to a PC.
>
>> The ESM is handy for a quick test particularly when you want to look
>> >
> across a room and see if a signal is getting through. I like the
>> Monterey but it is somewhat error prone as Dave mentioned.
>
> I'll bet the Testerlinc suffers from similar issues. One thing that
> freaked me (and Dave, if you are reading, please correct me if I am
> wrong) is that I think Dave said they used the Monterey to
> *calibrate* the ESM1. How bad could the Monterey be if they use it
> to calibrate other meters!!!? :-) FWIW, as soon as I opened the Lynx
> box, a little voice said "you should have bought the Monterey or the
> Testerlinc!"
>
> I'd like to figure out how to "broadcast" the output of the ESM1.
> I'd like to be able to bring it up as a system tray icon so that
> every time an X-10 command was sent, I could see its strength. Maybe
> I'll just set up an old CCTV camera and broadcast it via cable TV
> modulator. Now showing on channel 111! X-10 Signal Strength!
>
>> It is still useful and was my favorite UNTIL I got my hands on the
>> ACT 004 tester.
>
> Don't make me spend any more money!!!!!! I've already decided I have
> to get that little USB scope that Dave mentioned earlier. I just
> haven't found the cheapest price for it yet.
>
> http://www.usb-instruments.com/buy.html
>
> lists only one dealer which means they can command list price.
> Still, it's an OK deal for $220 since it includes the software.
>
>> Not cheap, it is, (saw StarWars the other night) but for the money
>> it's a better unit than the Monterey and is my current favorite. I
>> still have my old Leviton tester too, now about 20 years old, and it
>> still does the job in a primitive sort of way.
>
> What does it do that the Monterey doesn't?
>
>> If I could only have one, it would be the ACT 004. (Home Controls
>> had the best price on it at the time).
>
> Maybe providence and the spirit that protects wallets and bank
> accounts has made the ACT 004 impossible to find on Google. No,
> wait, oh, darn, here it is:
>
> http://www.homeautomationnet.com/shopping/shopexd.asp?id=214
>
> For $250, it might be worth it if I did installs and needed to leave
> something overnight to log data. But it's got the same damn
> Achilles' Heel that the Testerlinc and the Monterey have - no way to
> log to a PC. It's got lots more neat buttons and features, though.
> Next time I save myself a lot of money buying Minicontrollers for $2
> each I'll be able to justify buying the ACT. There's something
> perverse about spending all the money I save buying cheap X-10 gear
> on expensive X-10 test equipment.
>
> --
> Bobby G.

[Robert Green]

"BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com> wrote in message

> You're heading down the same tester path I took.

I'm beginning to notice that!

> The TesterLinc at $89 is probably too good to pass up.
> The "quality" level it reports is interesting but I like to
> see what's happening. The Monterey is certainly a good
> unit but when there's a problem it reports lots of
> "BSC" (Bad Start Code) messages when that's not really the problem.

I'll probably end up with the Testerlinc, too, because it's a lot easier to
justify than the Monterey and seems to be remarkably similar as well. The
Lynx is not practical for moving around much. In fact, my plans to run it
on an old laptop were not well-reasoned. The software looks as if it would
run best on a very large display. Also, when I went to check it just now,
it was flashing the screen on and off, with a WIN32 message about a
parameter problem. Not a good sign. I'm going to try it on another
machine.

>I think that's the same issue Dave pointed out. The ACT 004 not only
> provides accurate readings but can test 220 volt lines if you need to
> (using a different plug in power connector) and also has a transmit
> function with selective signal output levels.

That's something I've needed on several occasions I can fake it with a neat
pair of spring clips that can keep a transmit button on a minicontroller
mashed down and a surge protector that's known to attenuate the signal by
1volt. But the ACT looks far classier.

> I haven't really needed to log data to a PC to shoot trouble so that's
> not part of my criteria.

It shouldn't really be part of mine, but I'd like to be able to port the
information I discover to a format that's postable on the web. I'm not sure
what I am doing will come to anything, but I can't help wondering if some
housecodes are more prone to colliding than others. There have been so many
strange reports here over the years it's almost like CHA's own version of
UFO sightings. Having the ability to transfer readings to messages will
make it easier to get feedback from the CHA brain trust. I lost a lot of
banked SAF with the "Hawkeyes in every room" experiment. It was pretty
nightmarish having the wrong lights turn on while the right lights wouldn't.

> See: http://www.act-solutions.com/PCCSpecFrame.htm for a spec sheet and
> here's where the manual is found:
> http://www.act-solutions.com/PCCInstFrame.htm Click on AT004 on these
> pages. CAUTION: I think a read of the manual might get you diving into
> the seat cushions looking for spare change to add to your tester budget!

Thanks for the citations. Well, there's a website selling Leviton DHC
rocker switches 5 for $100. That's a savings of $250!! Just enough to buy
the meter!!!

The ACT004's a nice unit, but the Testerlinc might satisfy my tester needs
better if used along with the Lynx unit (if I ever get it working
correctly - time to RTFM).

Thanks for your input, Bruce

--
Bobby G.

[Robert Green]

"Dave Houston" <nobody@whocares.com> wrote in message

Hmm. There's lots of opportunity for mayhem on the powerline. How can BPL
be (apparently) so much more reliable at slinging incredibly greater data
streams?

--
Bobby G.

> Another point that should be made is that powerline collisions sometimes
> result in valid codes that differ from either of the originals but can
> affect other devices in the X-10 address space. In these cases there will
be
> valid signals of unknown origin in the logs. The original Ocelot firmware
> would detect collisions but did not report them. I convinced ADI that,
they
> needed to report any that resulted in valid X-10 commands. I shudder to
> think of the phantom event reports we'd be seeing if they had stayed with
> the original firmware. ;)
>
> It's also possible for power spikes and brownouts to directly affect X-10
> modules and switches. In these case there will be no codes in the logs.
>
> Finally, with SmartHome selling the two-way *Linc devices that send their
> own Address and On/Off codes when the load is cycled, there will be codes
> logged. As we've seen, these can apparently be fooled by things like motor
> noise.
>
> SmartHome also uses the old style preset dim codes which can mysteriously
> affect modules in other housecodes.

[Robert Green]

"Dave Houston" <nobody@whocares.com> wrote in message

> The LM14A transmits its ID (as an extended code which is longer than
> standard codes) when it powers up. The LM14A only sends this if it has
been
> without power for some length of time so brief power glitches will not
> trigger it.

You are correct, again. My testing procedure was faulty. I plugged in the
ESM1 and then the LM14A and saw the transmission. Then I tried again and
did NOT see it so I took another LM14A out of the box and tried that, and
it, of course worked. Then I fiddled around for a few minutes and by the
time I got back to the first one, enough time had passed for it to transmit
again. Proof positive that it takes more than one or two observations to
form a valid conclusion!

> However, the recent thread from 'AZ Woody' about phantom codes being
logged
> when he ran his paper shredder, is probably a precursor of more such
> reports. The shredder motor was causing his two-way switchlinc to 'think'
> its load had cycled and it was sending the codes. This may also explain
the
> reports of phantom codes from a noisy PC power suppy. (However, the
details
> of that one changed considerably over time so I think that poster was just
> confused.)

I may just have to fish through Google to see what phantom codes these
people were reporting. I'm wondering whether certain housecodes are more
prone to collision issues than others both as sources and unintended output.

> The Monterey just applies the label "Bad Start Code" to any sequence of
1110
> that is not followed by a valid code. As a result, you'll see messages
> posted here from Monterey users saying things like "tons of BSCs" from a
> collision like the one I describe in the "Multiple Transceivers" app note.
> I've color coded the sequence seen at the receiver to highlight all the
1110
> sequences that result from a collision between codes that are identical
but
> 1/2 a powerline cycle out of sync.

From what little I can tell of my first series of Lynx tests using two key
chain transmitters and two TM-751's on housecodes B and D transmitting
simultaneously, B and D seem to readily create M house code fragments and
even entire commands. I should be able to do exactly what you've done with
your illustration. Display Code 1 on line one, Code 2 on line two and the
result of the combination on the third line. Lynx takes the complimentary
approach to Monterey's Bad Start Code. They consider any pattern of "1110"
as a Start Code and if what follows is nonsense or corrupted, they call it a
"command fragment" and try to decipher what those fragments are.

> The terms "valid 1110" and "Bad Start Code" are really a bit meaningless.
> From the receiver point of view, whether a 1110 sequence is a start code
> depends on whether it starts something (i.e. whether a valid code follows)
> and not all 1110 sequences are start codes (good, bad or ethically
neutral).

I suppose they had to do it that way for brevity's sake. This sort of data
looks a lot more comprehensible in full screen format. Does it make sense
to say that their Bad Start Code could really be renamed Good Start Code
followed by Code Fragments?

> Multiple transceivers with multiple motion sensors will likely lead to
> cacophony.

Right again. I hope to have some time this weekend to see if there's any
order in the chaos. Based on X-10's fondness for giving away buckets of
Hawkeyes and TM-751s for next to nothing, I'll bet a lot of people have
multiple PIRs and multiple TM-751s. The secret may be the multiple
housecodes. If I remember I'll try tuning them all to the same housecode to
see if it's as easy to create a third code from TM-751s all set the same
way.

> I still think the approach I took with the BX24-AHT was the best
> solution. One central RF receiver with a good antenna gives
> adequate range.

Yes, I agree. It's too bad I caught you too late in the cycle to acquire
one. <sigh>

> With a CM11A as its X10 interface, it avoided collisions because the CM11A
> stops sending PLC whenever it sees a 1 when it sent a 0. It did not
> retransmit (probability is very high that any collisions are with a second
> transceiver) so it can coexist with one other transceiver. Initially, I
> planned to support two CM11As (one on each phase) but it's software UART
> wasn't capable of that. I still hope to design a brain transplant for the
> CM15A that will incorporate most of the BX24-AHT features but my health
now
> makes it tougher to handle lengthy projects like this.

I'm sorry to hear that. I hope your health improves.

> I don't recall whether the LynX-10 PLC can measure signal strength. Even
if
> it does, it may give an average or peak reading so it may not be useful
for
> seeing the CM11A signal degradation. A scope is the easiest way to detect
> that.

It can measure the time past the zero crossing but not, apparently, signal
strength. At least not as far as I can see but I've hardly looked at the
manual yet. With all the things on my to-do list this weekend, it may take
a while before I really get the hang of the Lynx analysis software.

> I plan to have a raw diagnostic mode in my rebraining of the CM15A but it
> will not be able to measure amplitude or PLC frequency just output all of
> the 1 and 0 half-bits.

Half-bits. Sounds like some people I know. :-)

--
Bobby G.

[Dave Houston]

The TesterLinc also requires the latest model of their PLC interface. Sorry,
but it's pre-coffee in the morning so I can't recall its name (nor mine).

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote:

>"BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com> wrote in message
>
>> You're heading down the same tester path I took.
>
>I'm beginning to notice that!
>
>> The TesterLinc at $89 is probably too good to pass up.
>> The "quality" level it reports is interesting but I like to
>> see what's happening. The Monterey is certainly a good
>> unit but when there's a problem it reports lots of
>> "BSC" (Bad Start Code) messages when that's not really the problem.
>
>I'll probably end up with the Testerlinc, too, because it's a lot easier to
>justify than the Monterey and seems to be remarkably similar as well. The
>Lynx is not practical for moving around much. In fact, my plans to run it
>on an old laptop were not well-reasoned. The software looks as if it would
>run best on a very large display. Also, when I went to check it just now,
>it was flashing the screen on and off, with a WIN32 message about a
>parameter problem. Not a good sign. I'm going to try it on another
>machine.
>
>>I think that's the same issue Dave pointed out. The ACT 004 not only
>> provides accurate readings but can test 220 volt lines if you need to
>> (using a different plug in power connector) and also has a transmit
>> function with selective signal output levels.
>
>That's something I've needed on several occasions I can fake it with a neat
>pair of spring clips that can keep a transmit button on a minicontroller
>mashed down and a surge protector that's known to attenuate the signal by
>1volt. But the ACT looks far classier.
>
>> I haven't really needed to log data to a PC to shoot trouble so that's
>> not part of my criteria.
>
>It shouldn't really be part of mine, but I'd like to be able to port the
>information I discover to a format that's postable on the web. I'm not sure
>what I am doing will come to anything, but I can't help wondering if some
>housecodes are more prone to colliding than others. There have been so many
>strange reports here over the years it's almost like CHA's own version of
>UFO sightings. Having the ability to transfer readings to messages will
>make it easier to get feedback from the CHA brain trust. I lost a lot of
>banked SAF with the "Hawkeyes in every room" experiment. It was pretty
>nightmarish having the wrong lights turn on while the right lights wouldn't.
>
>> See: http://www.act-solutions.com/PCCSpecFrame.htm for a spec sheet and
>> here's where the manual is found:
>> http://www.act-solutions.com/PCCInstFrame.htm Click on AT004 on these
>> pages. CAUTION: I think a read of the manual might get you diving into
>> the seat cushions looking for spare change to add to your tester budget!
>
>Thanks for the citations. Well, there's a website selling Leviton DHC
>rocker switches 5 for $100. That's a savings of $250!! Just enough to buy
>the meter!!!
>
>The ACT004's a nice unit, but the Testerlinc might satisfy my tester needs
>better if used along with the Lynx unit (if I ever get it working
>correctly - time to RTFM).
>
>Thanks for your input, Bruce

[Dave Houston]

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote:

>"Dave Houston" <nobody@whocares.com> wrote in message
>
>Hmm. There's lots of opportunity for mayhem on the powerline. How can BPL
>be (apparently) so much more reliable at slinging incredibly greater data
>streams?

BPL does the same thing as DSL, modulating several different frequencies so
that, in effect, they have several parallel channels with each carrying a
portion of the message. That gives them the speed (soon to be much, much
faster). While I think they can turn individual frequencies on/off to avoid
any excessive noise at that frequency, the robustness is mostly because they
are using the same methods as Ethernet with the receiver asking for repeats
when there are errors.

[Dave Houston]

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote:

>Then, just to see how it would react, I decided to press two keychain
>remotes simultaneously, one set to housecode "B" and the other set to "D."
>Lo and behold! Now I had a grid the showed the breakout of what the Lynx
>receiver saw on the powerline, bit by bit, and it showed, embedded in the
>middle of lots of what it labels "code fragments" was a DIM command for
>Housecode M, Unit 16. Bingo! There's no M housecode in use in my system
>anywhere. I'll run a few more tests and even set up a few lamp modules on
>the M housecode to see if I can't get it to activate by pressing
>transmitters on D and A codes.

Can you post the actual powerline bitstream?

>I'll bet the Testerlinc suffers from similar issues. One thing that freaked
>me (and Dave, if you are reading, please correct me if I am wrong) is that I
>think Dave said they used the Monterey to *calibrate* the ESM1. How bad
>could the Monterey be if they use it to calibrate other meters!!!? :-)
>FWIW, as soon as I opened the Lynx box, a little voice said "you should have
>bought the Monterey or the Testerlinc!"

You're reading more into 'calibrate' than it really means. In this case,
they merely adjust the ESM1 so that it's fullscale reading is the same as
the Monterey fullscale reading. Now both are in error by more than 50%
whereas the initial ESM1 shows the true peak-to-peak level.

There is one benefit in that it may let you see weaker signals than before.

[Dave Houston]

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote:

>"Dave Houston" <nobody@whocares.com> wrote in message
>
>> The terms "valid 1110" and "Bad Start Code" are really a bit meaningless.
>> From the receiver point of view, whether a 1110 sequence is a start code
>> depends on whether it starts something (i.e. whether a valid code follows)
>> and not all 1110 sequences are start codes (good, bad or ethically
>> neutral).
>
>I suppose they had to do it that way for brevity's sake. This sort of data
>looks a lot more comprehensible in full screen format. Does it make sense
>to say that their Bad Start Code could really be renamed Good Start Code
>followed by Code Fragments?

It should merely be called 1110. Some are intended to be startcodes by the
transmitter, some become startcodes because they are created by collisions
that also create a valid sequence following them, some are merely collision
debris as there is no valid code that follows.

>It can measure the time past the zero crossing but not, apparently, signal
>strength. At least not as far as I can see but I've hardly looked at the
>manual yet. With all the things on my to-do list this weekend, it may take
>a while before I really get the hang of the Lynx analysis software.

In a split-phase residence, all zero crossings coincide. Half are going
positive while the other half are going negative. The only time the phase
matters is when a transmitter waits for a positive going zero crossing
(needed to trigger the relay on a transceiver).

[Robert Green]

"Dave Houston" <nobody@whocares.com> wrote in message

> The TesterLinc also requires the latest model of their PLC interface.
Sorry,
> but it's pre-coffee in the morning so I can't recall its name (nor mine).

You're Dave and the required adapter is labeled "PowerLinc II Model 1132B
computer interface" which is listed here:

http://www.smarthome.com/1132b.html

where they also remind the buyer, in big red letters: "Due to the nature of
this product, Smarthome cannot offer programming support. We cannot assist
in the troubleshooting or development of applications and/or code for this
product."

I assume that's because unlike the CM11A, the TW523 and its clones speak a
very low level form of X-10.

I became curious about what else was needed because the Smarthome picture
shows the TesterLinc curiously devoid of any wires - I wanted to know if it
had a wall wart or just a line cord, like the Monterey has. I'm not as hot
for the TesterLinc now that I know it's got to be used in tandem with the
1132B. I found it amusing that they hype this one the same way MicroSoft
hawks Windows upgrades: "This one really works, honest!" Here's the comment
from the site:

"much better value than the previous powerlinc package" - MARK --
SUNRISE, FL

--
Bobby G.

[Robert Green]

"Dave Houston" <nobody@whocares.com> wrote in message

> "Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote:
>
> >Then, just to see how it would react, I decided to press two keychain
> >remotes simultaneously, one set to housecode "B" and the other set to
"D."
> >Lo and behold! Now I had a grid the showed the breakout of what the Lynx
> >receiver saw on the powerline, bit by bit, and it showed, embedded in the
> >middle of lots of what it labels "code fragments" was a DIM command for
> >Housecode M, Unit 16. Bingo! There's no M housecode in use in my system
> >anywhere. I'll run a few more tests and even set up a few lamp modules
on
> >the M housecode to see if I can't get it to activate by pressing
> >transmitters on D and A codes.
>
> Can you post the actual powerline bitstream?

I'm going to try to do that when I reload the software onto a different
machine. So far, all I've been able to do is take limited screen shots that
only show half of the screen (small monitor set to 640 by 480 - should
improve when I change to 1024 by 768).

Since it's a JPG file, it wouldn't be kosher to post them to the newsgroup.
The Lynx SW depends heavily on color and graphics to display the bitstream,
using different forms of shading and different colors to represent various
items. If I can't figure out how to post them to my Yahoo site so that
others can see them, I'm open to suggestions as to where to post them.

> >I'll bet the Testerlinc suffers from similar issues. One thing that
freaked
> >me (and Dave, if you are reading, please correct me if I am wrong) is
that I
> >think Dave said they used the Monterey to *calibrate* the ESM1. How bad
> >could the Monterey be if they use it to calibrate other meters!!!? :-)
> >FWIW, as soon as I opened the Lynx box, a little voice said "you should
have
> >bought the Monterey or the Testerlinc!"
>
> You're reading more into 'calibrate' than it really means. In this case,
> they merely adjust the ESM1 so that it's fullscale reading is the same as
> the Monterey fullscale reading. Now both are in error by more than 50%
> whereas the initial ESM1 shows the true peak-to-peak level.

I'm a little confused (well maybe more than a little). Do both meters now
NOT read peak-to-peak and only peak to baseline?

> There is one benefit in that it may let you see weaker signals than
before.

I'm assuming that's merely the side effect of expanding the scale.

--
Bobby G.

[Dave Houston]

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote:

>"Dave Houston" <nobody@whocares.com> wrote in message
>
>> You're reading more into 'calibrate' than it really means. In this case,
>> they merely adjust the ESM1 so that it's fullscale reading is the same as
>> the Monterey fullscale reading. Now both are in error by more than 50%
>> whereas the initial ESM1 shows the true peak-to-peak level.
>
>I'm a little confused (well maybe more than a little). Do both meters now
>NOT read peak-to-peak and only peak to baseline?

It's not exactly straightforward since both (I assume) rectify the signal
and only measure the positive half.

My pre-ELK ESM1 reads full scale when plugged into the same powerstrip as a
TW523 or any other pre-CM11A X-10 PLC transmitter. All of these output about
10Vpp. The bargraph really represents 0.2Vpp to 10Vpp.

The ELK ESM1 reads fullscale when plugged into the same powerstrip as a
CM11A which outputs about 5Vpp (actually, a bit less). IIRC, the Monterey is
fullscale @ 4.096Vpp.

There's a potentiometer inside the ESM1 that is used to set fullscale.

>> There is one benefit in that it may let you see weaker signals than
>before.
>
>I'm assuming that's merely the side effect of expanding the scale.

Yes, the effect is to make the first bar twice as sensitive as the original
design. It also doubles the noise sensitivity.

Since it is more likely that you'll want to compare weak signals than 10Vpp
signals I can't argue with their decision. But, none of the testers give a
complete picture.

[Dave Houston]

The original PowerLinc did not output all of the bits but only those that
represented a valid signal. That's less than ideal for troubleshooting. It
also had some 'hearing' problems, frequently going deaf to the powerline.

I think the programming disclaimer is probably because they were overwhelmed
with questions from amateur programmers. It may also be because there's a
USB version and low level USB programming is not simple. They published the
serial protocol for the first PowerLinc but it was TTL/RS232 only; there was
no USB version.

On the deafness problem, I saw the same problem with the LampLinc 2000STW.
All three that I have would stop responding and the LED would blink at
random. LM14As worked fine in the same circuits and I could see nothing
amiss with my scope/Scope-Test2. If it was noise, it was out of the
frequency band of the Scope-Test2. The LampLinc was OK if used on the
building.

The recent thread about phantom signals when a paper shredder ran caused me
to test the LampLincs again. For the past couple of weeks they've been OK in
the same circuits which gave them trouble before. The only change I'm aware
of is that I gave an older desktop machine to a niece. There have also been
2-3 changes in occupants of other apartments so it may have been something
that one of them had. But I suspect it was the power supply of the PC that I
gave away. I think they may be overly sensitive to out-of-band noise.

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote:

>"Dave Houston" <nobody@whocares.com> wrote in message
>
>> The TesterLinc also requires the latest model of their PLC interface.
>Sorry,
>> but it's pre-coffee in the morning so I can't recall its name (nor mine).
>
>You're Dave and the required adapter is labeled "PowerLinc II Model 1132B
>computer interface" which is listed here:
>
>http://www.smarthome.com/1132b.html
>
>where they also remind the buyer, in big red letters: "Due to the nature of
>this product, Smarthome cannot offer programming support. We cannot assist
>in the troubleshooting or development of applications and/or code for this
>product."
>
>I assume that's because unlike the CM11A, the TW523 and its clones speak a
>very low level form of X-10.
>
>I became curious about what else was needed because the Smarthome picture
>shows the TesterLinc curiously devoid of any wires - I wanted to know if it
>had a wall wart or just a line cord, like the Monterey has. I'm not as hot
>for the TesterLinc now that I know it's got to be used in tandem with the
>1132B. I found it amusing that they hype this one the same way MicroSoft
>hawks Windows upgrades: "This one really works, honest!" Here's the comment
>from the site:
>
> "much better value than the previous powerlinc package" - MARK --
>SUNRISE, FL

[Dean Roddey]

Dave Houston" <nobody@whocares.com> wrote in message
news:4298575a.269897429@nntp.fuse.net...
> I think the programming disclaimer is probably because they were
> overwhelmed
> with questions from amateur programmers. It may also be because there's a
> USB version and low level USB programming is not simple. They published
> the
> serial protocol for the first PowerLinc but it was TTL/RS232 only; there
> was
> no USB version.
>

Actaully, it's an HID-USB device, which is pretty simple. It's file I/O with
9 byte packets (in the case of this particular device.) Other than some not
so well documented Windows stuff required to actually find the device path
so that you can open the pseudo file, it's simpler than serial programming.

-------------------------------------
Dean Roddey
Chairman/CTO, Charmed Quark Systems
www.charmedquark.com

[BruceR]

Mark my words. You will end up buying the ACT 004. You seem serious
about having the ability to really see what's going on with your
installation and you want to be able to do so from anywhere in the
house. IOW, you're like me (at least in that regard). The TesterLinc is
tempting but I don't think it's going to be "satisfying" in telling you
what you want to know. Consider biting the bullet... most places will
give you a 30 day return privilege (some exclude test equipment for
obvious reasons).

From:Robert Green
ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM

> "BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com> wrote in message
>
>> You're heading down the same tester path I took.
>
> I'm beginning to notice that!
>
>> The TesterLinc at $89 is probably too good to pass up.
>> The "quality" level it reports is interesting but I like to
>> see what's happening. The Monterey is certainly a good
>> unit but when there's a problem it reports lots of
>> "BSC" (Bad Start Code) messages when that's not really the problem.
>
> I'll probably end up with the Testerlinc, too, because it's a lot
> easier to justify than the Monterey and seems to be remarkably
> similar as well. The Lynx is not practical for moving around much.
> In fact, my plans to run it on an old laptop were not well-reasoned.
> The software looks as if it would run best on a very large display.
> Also, when I went to check it just now, it was flashing the screen on
> and off, with a WIN32 message about a parameter problem. Not a good
> sign. I'm going to try it on another machine.
>
>> I think that's the same issue Dave pointed out. The ACT 004 not only
>> provides accurate readings but can test 220 volt lines if you need to
>> (using a different plug in power connector) and also has a transmit
>> function with selective signal output levels.
>
> That's something I've needed on several occasions I can fake it with
> a neat pair of spring clips that can keep a transmit button on a
> minicontroller mashed down and a surge protector that's known to
> attenuate the signal by 1volt. But the ACT looks far classier.
>
>> I haven't really needed to log data to a PC to shoot trouble so
>> that's not part of my criteria.
>
> It shouldn't really be part of mine, but I'd like to be able to port
> the information I discover to a format that's postable on the web.
> I'm not sure what I am doing will come to anything, but I can't help
> wondering if some housecodes are more prone to colliding than others.
> There have been so many strange reports here over the years it's
> almost like CHA's own version of UFO sightings. Having the ability
> to transfer readings to messages will make it easier to get feedback
> from the CHA brain trust. I lost a lot of banked SAF with the
> "Hawkeyes in every room" experiment. It was pretty nightmarish
> having the wrong lights turn on while the right lights wouldn't.
>
>> See: http://www.act-solutions.com/PCCSpecFrame.htm for a spec sheet
>> and here's where the manual is found:
>> http://www.act-solutions.com/PCCInstFrame.htm Click on AT004 on
>> these pages. CAUTION: I think a read of the manual might get you
>> diving into the seat cushions looking for spare change to add to
>> your tester budget!
>
> Thanks for the citations. Well, there's a website selling Leviton DHC
> rocker switches 5 for $100. That's a savings of $250!! Just enough
> to buy the meter!!!
>
> The ACT004's a nice unit, but the Testerlinc might satisfy my tester
> needs better if used along with the Lynx unit (if I ever get it
> working
> correctly - time to RTFM).
>
> Thanks for your input, Bruce
>
> --
> Bobby G.

[Robert Green]

"BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com> wrote in message

> Mark my words. You will end up buying the ACT 004. You seem serious
> about having the ability to really see what's going on with your
> installation and you want to be able to do so from anywhere in the
> house. IOW, you're like me (at least in that regard).

We're beginning to own a lot of the same test equipment, that's for sure!
:-) I've even thought that the ESM1's are cheap enough to use as sensors at
the breaker panel and the far ends of the longest branches. If any one of
three starting showing signal loss, I'd not only know about it, I could
vector in on it. As much as I can, I try to keep tracking of what gets
plugged into the AC outlets, but it's not always possible with other
technologically-inclined family members around. It seems to me that
someone's got a mod to turn old appliance modules with bad cams into remote
signal strength sensors. To me that status of the powerline is almost like
the house's pulse.

Dave, if you're reading this, do you know how much distance there can be
between the ESM1 wall wart and the meter assembly? Would it be possible to
mount the wall wart at the breaker panel and cut the wires from the meter
head to the PS and splice a very long cable in between so that the wallwart
sits in the basement and the LED display is mounted so I can see it from my
desk? Somewhere I read that the distance might be critical, but I can't
seem to find that message again in Google.

> The TesterLinc is
> tempting but I don't think it's going to be "satisfying" in telling you
> what you want to know. Consider biting the bullet... most places will
> give you a 30 day return privilege (some exclude test equipment for
> obvious reasons).

The TesterLinc lost its luster when Dave pointed out it came with a rather
large tail. I don't like the "units" approach to signal measurement when
there's already a pretty good standard to use: volts. I suppose I could
mount the interface and an extension cord along with the TesterLinc in a
larger box, but that's pretty kludgy.

The ACT unit's ability to read 220V could be a big plus in my next house.
Even the Monterey can't do that. I wish either the ACT or the Monterey had
a USB links. Then my choice would be simple! Sometimes you can learn an
awful lot from stored logs. Taking and saving a snapshot each quarter would
reveal an overall system degradation you might never notice otherwise.

I should be cleaning out the grill for the holiday but here I am fiddling
with Lynx and the newly arrived OmniLT. This stuff is just too much fun.
The puzzle for today is how to switch over from a leased ADT unit to the
OmniLT with the least amount of disruption. I was thinking of reusing ADT's
old door switches and sensors, but the only way to really stay protected
24x7 is by getting the LT operational on all its own sensors. Then I can
use the ADT stuff as backup or HA sensors once I'm sure the LT has worked
out.

--
Bobby G.

> From:Robert Green
> ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM
>
> > "BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com> wrote in message
> >
> >> You're heading down the same tester path I took.
> >
> > I'm beginning to notice that!
> >
> >> The TesterLinc at $89 is probably too good to pass up.
> >> The "quality" level it reports is interesting but I like to
> >> see what's happening. The Monterey is certainly a good
> >> unit but when there's a problem it reports lots of
> >> "BSC" (Bad Start Code) messages when that's not really the problem.
> >
> > I'll probably end up with the Testerlinc, too, because it's a lot
> > easier to justify than the Monterey and seems to be remarkably
> > similar as well. The Lynx is not practical for moving around much.
> > In fact, my plans to run it on an old laptop were not well-reasoned.
> > The software looks as if it would run best on a very large display.
> > Also, when I went to check it just now, it was flashing the screen on
> > and off, with a WIN32 message about a parameter problem. Not a good
> > sign. I'm going to try it on another machine.
> >
> >> I think that's the same issue Dave pointed out. The ACT 004 not only
> >> provides accurate readings but can test 220 volt lines if you need to
> >> (using a different plug in power connector) and also has a transmit
> >> function with selective signal output levels.
> >
> > That's something I've needed on several occasions I can fake it with
> > a neat pair of spring clips that can keep a transmit button on a
> > minicontroller mashed down and a surge protector that's known to
> > attenuate the signal by 1volt. But the ACT looks far classier.
> >
> >> I haven't really needed to log data to a PC to shoot trouble so
> >> that's not part of my criteria.
> >
> > It shouldn't really be part of mine, but I'd like to be able to port
> > the information I discover to a format that's postable on the web.
> > I'm not sure what I am doing will come to anything, but I can't help
> > wondering if some housecodes are more prone to colliding than others.
> > There have been so many strange reports here over the years it's
> > almost like CHA's own version of UFO sightings. Having the ability
> > to transfer readings to messages will make it easier to get feedback
> > from the CHA brain trust. I lost a lot of banked SAF with the
> > "Hawkeyes in every room" experiment. It was pretty nightmarish
> > having the wrong lights turn on while the right lights wouldn't.
> >
> >> See: http://www.act-solutions.com/PCCSpecFrame.htm for a spec sheet
> >> and here's where the manual is found:
> >> http://www.act-solutions.com/PCCInstFrame.htm Click on AT004 on
> >> these pages. CAUTION: I think a read of the manual might get you
> >> diving into the seat cushions looking for spare change to add to
> >> your tester budget!
> >
> > Thanks for the citations. Well, there's a website selling Leviton DHC
> > rocker switches 5 for $100. That's a savings of $250!! Just enough
> > to buy the meter!!!
> >
> > The ACT004's a nice unit, but the Testerlinc might satisfy my tester
> > needs better if used along with the Lynx unit (if I ever get it
> > working
> > correctly - time to RTFM).
> >
> > Thanks for your input, Bruce
> >
> > --
> > Bobby G.
>
>

[Dave Houston]

I don't think there is any simple way to use an appliance module as a signal
strength indicator. The PLC_IN level is diode limited (i.e. it will never be
greater than about ±0.7V).

The ESM1 transformer output is 12V AC. You should be able to lengthen it,
within reason, without serious degradation but it would be better to just
plug it into a 120V extension cord. In general, the higher the voltage the
longer runs can be without losses.

Actually, both signal strength and number of cycles are important. The X-10
PLC protocol (both standard and extended commands) is explained in detail in
XTC798.DOC available on the X-10 web site. I've reformatted it as a text
file (the original is nearly impossible to read) and made it available on my
web page.

http://www.mbx-usa.com/xtc798.txt

The first paragraph explains why the cycle count is important.

It's a simple matter to convert the ESM1 to 220V - just replace the 120V:12V
AC wall wart with a 220V:12V AC version. However, I'm not sure why you would
want to do this unless you live in Europe.

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote:

>"BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com> wrote in message
>
>> Mark my words. You will end up buying the ACT 004. You seem serious
>> about having the ability to really see what's going on with your
>> installation and you want to be able to do so from anywhere in the
>> house. IOW, you're like me (at least in that regard).
>
>We're beginning to own a lot of the same test equipment, that's for sure!
>:-) I've even thought that the ESM1's are cheap enough to use as sensors at
>the breaker panel and the far ends of the longest branches. If any one of
>three starting showing signal loss, I'd not only know about it, I could
>vector in on it. As much as I can, I try to keep tracking of what gets
>plugged into the AC outlets, but it's not always possible with other
>technologically-inclined family members around. It seems to me that
>someone's got a mod to turn old appliance modules with bad cams into remote
>signal strength sensors. To me that status of the powerline is almost like
>the house's pulse.
>
>Dave, if you're reading this, do you know how much distance there can be
>between the ESM1 wall wart and the meter assembly? Would it be possible to
>mount the wall wart at the breaker panel and cut the wires from the meter
>head to the PS and splice a very long cable in between so that the wallwart
>sits in the basement and the LED display is mounted so I can see it from my
>desk? Somewhere I read that the distance might be critical, but I can't
>seem to find that message again in Google.
>
>> The TesterLinc is
>> tempting but I don't think it's going to be "satisfying" in telling you
>> what you want to know. Consider biting the bullet... most places will
>> give you a 30 day return privilege (some exclude test equipment for
>> obvious reasons).
>
>The TesterLinc lost its luster when Dave pointed out it came with a rather
>large tail. I don't like the "units" approach to signal measurement when
>there's already a pretty good standard to use: volts. I suppose I could
>mount the interface and an extension cord along with the TesterLinc in a
>larger box, but that's pretty kludgy.
>
>The ACT unit's ability to read 220V could be a big plus in my next house.
>Even the Monterey can't do that. I wish either the ACT or the Monterey had
>a USB links. Then my choice would be simple! Sometimes you can learn an
>awful lot from stored logs. Taking and saving a snapshot each quarter would
>reveal an overall system degradation you might never notice otherwise.
>
>I should be cleaning out the grill for the holiday but here I am fiddling
>with Lynx and the newly arrived OmniLT. This stuff is just too much fun.
>The puzzle for today is how to switch over from a leased ADT unit to the
>OmniLT with the least amount of disruption. I was thinking of reusing ADT's
>old door switches and sensors, but the only way to really stay protected
>24x7 is by getting the LT operational on all its own sensors. Then I can
>use the ADT stuff as backup or HA sensors once I'm sure the LT has worked
>out.

[Robert Green]

"Dave Houston" <nobody@whocares.com> wrote in message

> I don't think there is any simple way to use an appliance module as a
signal
> strength indicator. The PLC_IN level is diode limited (i.e. it will never
be
> greater than about ±0.7V).

I was afraid that might be the case. A more primitive way to get "signal
health" feedback might be to design a "sensor" using a combination of one
of the filter designs floating around the net and an appliance module. If I
can find a filter design that offers variable attenuation, then I can
balance the signal to an appliance module (for convenience, I'll call it an
ASTM for Attentuated Signal Test Module) so that it just managed to fire.
These modules could serve as Go/No Go signal indicators.

Any disturbance to the powerline from a new noisy appliance or a signal
sucker would likely make at least one of the ASTMs deaf. All I need to do
is run a signal wire back from the ASTM to a central panel. If the house
wiring's OK, all ASTM's will respond to their appropriate signals. If
there's something amiss, one of the modules will fail to operate, no closure
will occur and I can be alerted. HomeSeer could run the diagnostic a few
times a day.

I'd like to implement something like this because on occasion something will
get plugged in that will have only marginal effect on the main house wiring.
It's the second signal sucker that causes real trouble and makes it hard to
trace the problem. I've had a number of "sucker hunts" and they are
miserable, time-wasting processes. I'm willing to spend some money to lock
them down early.

Truth be told, I'd rather have modified ESM1 sensors, though, because I'd
get actually voltage levels and not just a "set point" gauge. It may turn
out that the ASTMs would be a better, more automatic way of checking signal
health on a daily basis.

> The ESM1 transformer output is 12V AC. You should be able to lengthen it,
> within reason, without serious degradation but it would be better to just
> plug it into a 120V extension cord. In general, the higher the voltage the
> longer runs can be without losses.

Agreed, but it's a lot easier and cheaper (for me, at least) to run 12V than
110VAC. I guess I could just pull out the wire cutters and see what affect
various lengths of wire have on the ESM1.

> Actually, both signal strength and number of cycles are important. The
X-10
> PLC protocol (both standard and extended commands) is explained in detail
in
> XTC798.DOC available on the X-10 web site. I've reformatted it as a text
> file (the original is nearly impossible to read) and made it available on
my
> web page.
>
> http://www.mbx-usa.com/xtc798.txt
>
> The first paragraph explains why the cycle count is important.

I'm a little confused. Are they saying that not only the peak voltage is
important, but the length of time the signal is at or near that peak?

For instance, when looking at:

http://www.mbx-usa.com/x10-sig.htm

and the image dated 8/20/01 2:37PM would it be reasonable to say that each
of the separate vertical magenta trace lines represents a "count?"

> It's a simple matter to convert the ESM1 to 220V - just replace the
120V:12V
> AC wall wart with a 220V:12V AC version. However, I'm not sure why you
would
> want to do this unless you live in Europe.

I can imagine a need for a 220V capable analyzer in dealing with phase
problems in a house with a number of 220V appliances. Not a big need, but
it could be useful. It's nice to know I could eaily modify the ESM1 to read
signal strength on a 220V line

--
Bobby G.

>
> "Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote:
>
> >"BruceR" <brNOSPAM@hawaii.com> wrote in message
> >
> >> Mark my words. You will end up buying the ACT 004. You seem serious
> >> about having the ability to really see what's going on with your
> >> installation and you want to be able to do so from anywhere in the
> >> house. IOW, you're like me (at least in that regard).
> >
> >We're beginning to own a lot of the same test equipment, that's for sure!
> >:-) I've even thought that the ESM1's are cheap enough to use as sensors
at
> >the breaker panel and the far ends of the longest branches. If any one
of
> >three starting showing signal loss, I'd not only know about it, I could
> >vector in on it. As much as I can, I try to keep tracking of what gets
> >plugged into the AC outlets, but it's not always possible with other
> >technologically-inclined family members around. It seems to me that
> >someone's got a mod to turn old appliance modules with bad cams into
remote
> >signal strength sensors. To me that status of the powerline is almost
like
> >the house's pulse.
> >
> >Dave, if you're reading this, do you know how much distance there can be
> >between the ESM1 wall wart and the meter assembly? Would it be possible
to
> >mount the wall wart at the breaker panel and cut the wires from the meter
> >head to the PS and splice a very long cable in between so that the
wallwart
> >sits in the basement and the LED display is mounted so I can see it from
my
> >desk? Somewhere I read that the distance might be critical, but I can't
> >seem to find that message again in Google.
> >
> >> The TesterLinc is
> >> tempting but I don't think it's going to be "satisfying" in telling you
> >> what you want to know. Consider biting the bullet... most places will
> >> give you a 30 day return privilege (some exclude test equipment for
> >> obvious reasons).
> >
> >The TesterLinc lost its luster when Dave pointed out it came with a
rather
> >large tail. I don't like the "units" approach to signal measurement when
> >there's already a pretty good standard to use: volts. I suppose I could
> >mount the interface and an extension cord along with the TesterLinc in a
> >larger box, but that's pretty kludgy.
> >
> >The ACT unit's ability to read 220V could be a big plus in my next house.
> >Even the Monterey can't do that. I wish either the ACT or the Monterey
had
> >a USB links. Then my choice would be simple! Sometimes you can learn an
> >awful lot from stored logs. Taking and saving a snapshot each quarter
would
> >reveal an overall system degradation you might never notice otherwise.
> >
> >I should be cleaning out the grill for the holiday but here I am fiddling
> >with Lynx and the newly arrived OmniLT. This stuff is just too much fun.
> >The puzzle for today is how to switch over from a leased ADT unit to the
> >OmniLT with the least amount of disruption. I was thinking of reusing
ADT's
> >old door switches and sensors, but the only way to really stay protected
> >24x7 is by getting the LT operational on all its own sensors. Then I can
> >use the ADT stuff as backup or HA sensors once I'm sure the LT has worked
> >out.
>

[Dave Houston]

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote:

>I was afraid that might be the case. A more primitive way to get "signal
>health" feedback might be to design a "sensor" using a combination of one
>of the filter designs floating around the net and an appliance module. If I
>can find a filter design that offers variable attenuation, then I can
>balance the signal to an appliance module (for convenience, I'll call it an
>ASTM for Attentuated Signal Test Module) so that it just managed to fire.
>These modules could serve as Go/No Go signal indicators.

There would be no need for a filter. The PLC_IN circuitry in the appliance
module already has a tuned filter. It has the advantage of being X-10's own
design so it should pass the range of frequencies that all X-10 made devices
are affected by.

The disadvantage is that it is not isolated from the mains.

>Any disturbance to the powerline from a new noisy appliance or a signal
>sucker would likely make at least one of the ASTMs deaf. All I need to do
>is run a signal wire back from the ASTM to a central panel. If the house
>wiring's OK, all ASTM's will respond to their appropriate signals. If
>there's something amiss, one of the modules will fail to operate, no closure
>will occur and I can be alerted. HomeSeer could run the diagnostic a few
>times a day.
>
>I'd like to implement something like this because on occasion something will
>get plugged in that will have only marginal effect on the main house wiring.
>It's the second signal sucker that causes real trouble and makes it hard to
>trace the problem. I've had a number of "sucker hunts" and they are
>miserable, time-wasting processes. I'm willing to spend some money to lock
>them down early.

Why not just put a module that will respond to STATUS REQUEST on each
circuit and poll them periodically? That requires a signal to traverse the
route in both directions.

If I ever finish some other projects, I've thought about creating some
modules that would report temperature and ambient light levels using
extended codes that could be triggered by a STATUS REQUEST.

>Truth be told, I'd rather have modified ESM1 sensors, though, because I'd
>get actually voltage levels and not just a "set point" gauge. It may turn
>out that the ASTMs would be a better, more automatic way of checking signal
>health on a daily basis.

The best thing to do would be to replace the PIC16C711 in the ESM1 with a
newer pin-compatible PIC (e.g. PIC16F88) and adding a serial output on one
of the unused pins. The code would be fairly simple. But, if all ESM1s are
like mine, desoldering the PIC is very difficult. I gave up after struggling
with it for about an hour without freeing a single pin. I think it requires
more sophisticated (and more costly) tools than are in my kit. I've never
had to give up on one before this.

>>
>> http://www.mbx-usa.com/xtc798.txt
>>
>> The first paragraph explains why the cycle count is important.
>
>I'm a little confused. Are they saying that not only the peak voltage is
>important, but the length of time the signal is at or near that peak?

No. They're saying what that paragraph says. If the signal is weak, you may
miss some 120kHz cycles.

>For instance, when looking at:
>
>http://www.mbx-usa.com/x10-sig.htm
>
>and the image dated 8/20/01 2:37PM would it be reasonable to say that each
>of the separate vertical magenta trace lines represents a "count?"

No. Each of the magenta bursts represents ~120 cycles or counts. The
horizontal resolution in that picture cannot show the detail. I have other
screenshots that show ~1ms but I'd have to hunt them down.

X-10 says transmitters should send continuous cycles of 120kHz for 1ms,
starting as soon as possible after ZC. 1ms of 120kHz gives 120 cycles (or
counts). The receiver window is 650µs wide starting 250µs after ZC. Only 78
cycles can fit in the 650µs window. 48 cycles represents 61.5% of the
expected 78. If the amplitude is marginal, some cycles will be missed but
the accuracy will improve as the signal strength increases.

The TW523 does it differently, presenting a demodulated data envelope. Most
applications that interface with it check for the presence/absence of the
data envelope mid-way through the acceptance window.

>I can imagine a need for a 220V capable analyzer in dealing with phase
>problems in a house with a number of 220V appliances. Not a big need, but
>it could be useful. It's nice to know I could eaily modify the ESM1 to read
>signal strength on a 220V line

Maybe there's something that I don't understand but I don't see how that
tells you anything of value.