oberkc

My motion sensors are the original version (not current version). Based upon my admin panel, they have only three nodes: motion, dusk/dawn, and battery. None of the nodes show a number such as the one in your image.

Perhaps I missed someone else making this suggestion.... Remember, responder levels can be different for each controller in a scene. Be sure to ensure that the ENTRY button response level to the CL2R button is not zero (or something very low). Within the scene definition, select the CL2R button. In the main window it will show responder levels for all devices in that scene. What does the response level for the ENTRY button show?

Scene controllers act as such only when controlled locally. A switch, for example, acts as a scene controller only when you physically press the switch.

Senfing an OFF command to a scene controller wont work. You can try inserting a short wait between the turning off of each individual scene. My preference would be to create a new scene containing all the devices in the four scenes conbined. Then...turn off that combined scene.

It also seems to me that speeds can also be affected by marginal communication. In my experience, if communication is taking multiple hops before success, the slower response times are noticeable.

Hopefully we will see you around here more over the next 15 years.

It sounds as if you use a scene to control the KPL button. If you really don't want to swap out the sensor as many have suggested, you will need to remove the scene and use a program to control the KPL button.

I believe your assumption is correct. The query does not recognize the "reverse" trigger setting. Whether a bug, insteon limitation, or design choice, I don't know. Regardless, I doubt that this is going to get fixed any time soon. Normal solutions are to replace the sensor with NC type. Alternatively, one could remount the sensor such that it is in "normal" position when the door is open, but this is not ideal, in my mind.

The big point is that they are different (though an ON command may also include other parameters that would exceed the 1 byte difference). Unfortunately, in post 86, dreamerI90 claimed "everything is the same expect I have JUST this in the Body field...". Clearly everything is NOT the same.

Don't forget to check your "content-length". As I stated earlier, mine is different for ON and OFF resources. For me, everything else is NOT necessarily the same.

This is what I have in my body field, and it works: {"on": false} The only thing I see different is a space between the ":" and the "f". However, I also notice that there are also some differences in the headers. Specifically, I notice that the "content-length" is different for OFF than for ON

I use the light switch that controls the flood lights as a trigger. If turned on manually, I disable the motion timer program. If control light switch is turned on and control light switch is not turned off then nothing else nothing That program is true if I manually turned on the switch, and false if I manually turn it off. Now I can simply use the true/false status as a condition of the motion timer program. If time is from dark to light and control motion sensor is on and status first program is false then turn on light wait a while turn off light else nothing Assuming that the switch is not manually turned on, the first program will be false and the timer program will operate normally. If the switch is manually turned on, the second program will evaluate false and nothing will happen (and will interrupt the timer if ongoing...a good thing). I would likely find it necessary to add a third program to handle the program timer being interrupted during the transition to "light" if time is light then turn off light Yes, you could use variables. You could also do similar logic with program folder, or by using a program to halt and disable the motion program. Whatever makes sense in your mind. Hopefully, this will give you some ideas.

Ah. I should have been more specific. Good.

Temporarily power your PLM from a long extension cord from another circuit. Does this help? Regardless, I would filter all that computer stuff. I don't care how long it has worked before. Things get old and things stop working. Your PLM is too important to risk interference from that other stuff.

This sounds like "marginal" communications, potentially. Your PLM...is it on a circuit with lots of other computer stuff?

I see nothing wrong with the program. It should work, in my estimation, without the scene. Normally, I understand direct commands are more robust than a scene. You could certainly temporarily add some wait states between each to see if lilyoyo1's theory checks out. I suppose it might be a link record issue, but this seems unlikely since they individually work from the admin panel. There seems to be a lot of talk about PLM failures. Perhaps that is a possibility here, but I have no idea how to determine that. Otherwise, I am running out of explanations.

I have had a dimmer cycle between off and on repeatedly. Is that what you are seeing? In my case, it was a device failure. Definitely check the program logs, however. Maybe Gary Funk is correct and you have a program that has found itself in some sort of loop.

Then I would look at communication issues. In the outlet and circuit that powers the PLM, are there lots of other electronic devices, such as computers, modems, printers, UPS, power supplies? Have you confirmed communication between the legs of your electrical system?

Clearly the admin panel should be showing accurate status. If not, programs won’t work. Whether you have link record issues or communication interference, this needs to be identified and corrected. If the steps in the linked wiki article does not solve the problem, you should begin troubleshooting potential sources of interference.

I use a scene. I do not believe that there is an ALLOFF command available.

I wonder if you could use one of the notifications. Depending on your cellular network, one can send an EMail message and receive it as text. (or, at least, one could in the past.) For example, sending an EMail to xxxxxxxxxx@vtext.com (xxxxxxxxxx = your phone number) would send a text message to your Verizon phone. Other carriers have similar capability. Perhaps that would work for you.

I wonder, given the modem restoration having solved your problem, if this is a sign of impending PLM failure.

I took the program listing as conceptual, not using strict syntax. For the purpose of someguy's question, that was sufficient in my mind.

I understood that a program such as this would continue to the end, unless it had wait, or repeats, in the statement. A change in the condition would NOT halt it, I thought. Perhaps this aspect has changed. Certainly, I would try stusviews recommendations.

Mr Bill. Perhaps I am confused. Your two examples: from sunrise to sunset (same day) from sunset to sunrise (next day) are clearly opposite time periods. I would not expect both to behave the same. Compare that to the original (post 1) program from sunset to sunrise (same day) Moving back to the cooper0705 program...I agree, let us keep it simple. I continue to think that there are no more problems beyond the "same day"/"next day" condition and remain unclear regarding your earlier post (#6) It is this condition that I find flawed, since sunrise (same day) occurs BEFORE sunset.