Harold

I guess at some point they had to re-open the landfill to fill orders. Or maybe there is a lonely guy buried in a back room frantically fixing 2413's before the end of the fiscal year. Perhaps an effort to open up the 2413's and see if they have been repaired or have alternate innards. If a bunch are different/repaired, I think there may be some issues that need to be explained by SH. I do not think you can sell repaired equipment without notifying buyers that they are not getting original factory retail devices. There is also something odd about the range of build dates. It would be nice if SH did some explanations of what is going on.

The 2413S I got a couple of months back is a 2.4 with a code of 1817. Looking at the post above from LFMc, it would appear that the one I have was made in week 18 in 2017.

I thought I had submitted this piece. Found it odd, that I could not find it. Just tried to make a comment and realized I never submitted it. That was a while ago, and others have gone essentially the same way, but I will just put it on the thread now as long as I have written it, and it may be interesting to some. The idea of a Pi base computer network would seem to be very desirable. The Pi universe is more powerful, more updatable, inexpensive, and more likely to attract code and hardware enthusiasts than any similar system. There are other small computer devices and processors. But overall I would strongly favor the Pi universe. It is easy to stack simple and inexpensive function plug-ins. It should be easy and inexpensive to have custom plug-ins made. Useful ones may well be found online. If UD could port their code to a Pi (operable with a range of Pi's) , it could present a lower hardware cost for UD/SH. Potentially get more knowledgeable people to participate on the new platform relieving pressure on UD services, and under UD management, could provide a site with a variety of devices (with open source submissions) working on the Pi with UD code.This moves the UD code to be independent of devices served. And the Pi series, has pretty much all the storage and code space that you can use. Marketing could potentially sell a series of Pi based devices. I don't know the financial aspect of such a move, but as a sort of generally open source project, it could be very useful. And selling little Pi boxes and kits could be a revenue stream. A whole lot of potential buyers of the system are likely to buy a packaged box from UD just like the existing boxes. But there would also likely be a significant number of hobbyists to advance and maybe support the product. An actual functional, reliable power line interface would be really nice. Maybe a inexpensive Pi zero to scatter around the house for radios. Multiple radio plugins to cover all the desired radio (and powerline) protocols. Code in the Pi. Maybe a couple of device sizes to host the plugins for different user needs. Could be a device working across the range of the various marketed systems. Good way to allow a move from one invested system to another, while having support for both. My perspective. Right now, the revenue I see for UD is selling the interface hardware/software. Just as they do now, but versions of Pi in a box. It is a closed environment now: but everything else is free support. This, of course, absolutely requires keeping commercial selling systems. Manufacture it in China and you should have a decent mark-up. Of course there would still be the issue of various proprietary patents and interfaces. A universal solution may not be doable with other system vendors.

I read the material at SH. It appears to be a dumping effort. I tried some searches to see if there is a replacement product. I did not find any. Price difference is too big for them. UDI also discounted significantly. There might be a new generation of "stuff". I am betting that 2.5 will replace what is left over that eventually sells for $1.99. May be a new UD interface. I am still really annoyed that I got a V2.4 a number of months ago to replace a failed 2413S. This is the fourth one of these things that have broken and had to be replaced. I have not installed the new 2.4. I will take a shot and return the 2.4 when the 2.5 appears. I was seriously annoyed by getting a 2.4. We do not own them; we just rent them !!!

Just got mine. 2.4

Better, but not optimal. I really want a 5. I will know after the weekend. Hope springs eternal.

The person I talked at Insteon definitely said there were 2413 2.5 units. He said I could get 2.4 or 2.5. It would appear they exist but are busy blowing out old inventory.

There is a 2413S 2.5. But you can't specify a 2.5. You may get a 2.4 or a 2.5. They, of course, said that a .4 is just as good as a .5. I would not be surprised if I get a .4 delivered by the Easter Bunny. I just ordered one on the phone. There is a Presidents Day sale expiring today at SmartHome. The site they are using for the sale coupon is being blocked by several pieces of protective software in my PC and router. A discussion ensued. A helpful person manually credited me for the sale price.

My point was, the 2413 is a simple device. Should we expect it to last for more than a year or two. I would. I am at the point where I have to buy the same device for the fourth time. Roughly $320 total for the very same device. Absolutely required for the thousands of dollars spent buying the basic system devices. With no alternative to buy since they have stopped UD from making a similar device. And I would certainly believe that UD would make a much better product. Would we accept our televisions to need replacement every couple of years. A vastly more complex electronic device. Your car, your phone, your home heating system, your computer; and on and on. All vastly more complex than a trivial line interface that has spent years not getting seriously better quickly. It is just annoying. And think about how much money they have made by repeatedly selling the same device that has not been made reliable. It is inexcusable.

I looked at the specs for the 2413 today on the Insteon website. Both interface versions show as 1000+ for links. That + could be the "2000" not yet disclosed. I am going to call them and see if they have anything useful to say about V 2.5. The steady breathing you hear is me not holding my breath. Just out of curiosity, has anyone tried a class action suite against these guys. They have , for a long time, been selling a device well known to be unfit for purpose. This behavior is unacceptable. They have had long term knowledge of faulty design. The solution is readily understood and simple for the manufacturer to fix. They have not generally made the necessary changes in a timely manner and not made a recall to satisfy users of a defective product. The obvious and clearly observable defect is caused by the use of lower price components (generally capacitors) not meeting required specifications that are clearly obvious to an even moderately adept engineer. These electronics should not experience the limited lifetime. It is at odds with electronic device reliability. They are effectively stealing from the customers by requiring repeated purchases of faulty devices once a user is committed to the (small to quite large) proprietary product installation. Stopping the (I presume) agreement with UD to prevent the manufacture of a UD version of the device. Which would have most likely provided a superior device. Again, a specific ploy to consider only device income without consideration of people purchasing system devices to implement complex and extensive device home implementations. These people have spent significant money to be locked into a single device that is the only interface to their products, and regularly fails.

I would not mess with those other things. I suspect they are similar to what they did on the 2412. As long as the other processes get power, they should work the way they are supposed to. They don't care where they got it. In the 2412 they are both direct connections to the transformer.

You are right Brian. I was using a schematic for a 2412. I appear to have mislabeled it when I saved it some time ago. I agree that D7 has to be a Zener. The parts above T1 may be wrong. It looks like a snubber, but it can't snub without different wire destination. Without seeing where everything goes I don't know if using an external source will be useful. If J6 is 12 V, pretty much everything from the bridge rectifiers to the end of the drawing to the right could be bypassed. And that gets rid of most of the problematic caps. If that switcher is making 30V, it gets harder. The drivers for the line and radio interfaces may need that 30V.

I think that the posts above are not following my thoughts on the subject. Perhaps I was not clear. There are 2.5 sources of internal power in the unit. From the power line, a bridge rectifier generates 12 VDC. The 12 VDC then feeds a regulator that generates 5 VDC. These two voltages are used to pretty much provide everything on the board with power. Providing these two voltages from an external source rather than the internal components changes nothing. Assuming. of course, you cut the appropriate existing power traces. The zero crossing detector is a separate circuit fed from the 5V supply. The .5 source I noted above is a circuit that converts 12 VDC to 30 V to operate the interface of the line transmitter and receiver. This is a voltage converter driven by the chip controlling the unit. The 30V source is from a half wave rectifier and regulated by a Zener diode. So the chip is probably not doing anything important on this supply. There is one 470 uf 50V cap in the 30V circuit. If an external 5V and 12V feed is provided (disconnecting the on-board 5V and 12V) , only the components for the charge pump generating the 30V are left. I am not sure that these are among the capacitors that fail. It is simpler if this charge pump is left intact. I do not see any information on how the chip manages this voltage. It is the voltage used for driving the interface to the power line. But it is harder to get a 5V, 12V, 30v external power supply. So, replacing 5V and 12V internal supplies leave only a possible failure prone cap in the 30V circuits. I need to do a bit more work and go back to see if the 30V circuit cap is on the list of points of failure. But, overall, this would seriously simplify the repair process. Minimal dealing with tiny wires and plated through holes. The cost should be similar to buying (plus shipping) all the caps, but seriously reduce the aggravation of the soldering and handling of replacing a bunch of caps. I believe the schematic I am looking at does not completely match the current product; but it is probably close.

I had an unsuccessful repair a while back. My thoughts have returned to the 2413 issue. A bit of looking around shows that an enclosed 5/12 VDC power supply with line cord can be found for under $10. That is around what I paid for parts in my repair effort. It there any reason not to simply cut the traces/wires from the internal power supply to the PLM active parts and attach the external supply? Simple and easy.

Unfortunately the procedure for resetting ID an psw also appears to delete the IP address the router expects. Now I have a bigger problem to get a new IP into the ISY.