shannong Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 Greetings. Like many, I started off slowly with my Insteon/ISY installation which has now expanded to about 130 devices of which most are dual-band. I have a main panel and two sub-panels. In the beginning, I purchased the SignaLincs and installed one in each panel to ensure good connectivity across both legs in all three panels. Now that both legs in each panel and as well every room of the house has at least two dual-band devices I'm questioning the value of the SignalLincs. My question isn't so much are they needed but rather do they potentially pose any signal degradation issues of any kind. In other words, would I be better off without hardwired connections on the legs in each panels creating additional traffic on the wire? There are installed on breakers so it's easy enough to disable them but without a protocol analyzer of any kind of available, it's difficult to test in the real world and quantify this objectively. I wouldn't say I have comm issues but I do have the occasional problem of a KPL not correctly updating or not all lights in a scene turning on/off. Thoughts?
stusviews Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 IMO, every installation should have a hard wired coupler. The INSTEON signal, like electricity, travels in all directions, mostly through the path of least resistance. A signal entering the electric panel is distributed to all breakers as well as the supply wires from the power transformer. A coupler at the panel offers the least resistant path to the opposite leg rather then allowing the signal to travel toward the power source.
paulbates Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 + 1, Stu. My previous HA package provided a dashboard of signal performance for all devices. I started insteon with 3 access points, and then a few years later installed a signal linc. The before and after were measurable and remarkable. I removed 2 access points as a result, 2 less things to worry about breaking. I occasionally will notice, or hear from the family, about problems with devices on certain circuits not working properly. The resolution is to unplug and replug the access point there. In an interesting twist, I am having better luck with a circuit that always had an access point on it, when I finally removed it after putting in the signalinc (and I did swap APs to make sure that one wasn't defective) My view is that a combination of adding a signalinc to the main / root panel, and locating the PLM there too, provides the best balance of access from devices on the powerline to the panel. Even though you have a lot of mesh in dual band devices, all roads lead to the breaker panel and there's the potential to drop a hop getting to and from the ISY. I've not heard any specific stories that installing a signal linc made an installation worse afterwards. I'm not sure either way if the sub panels would need signalincs too. Start with one on the main/root panel and see how things are different. If you think you can do better, move on the other panels. Paul
shannong Posted October 12, 2014 Author Posted October 12, 2014 (edited) IMO, every installation should have a hard wired coupler. The INSTEON signal, like electricity, travels in all directions, mostly through the path of least resistance. A signal entering the electric panel is distributed to all breakers as well as the supply wires from the power transformer. A coupler at the panel offers the least resistant path to the opposite leg rather then allowing the signal to travel toward the power source. Without disagreement.... Is it actually better since my many dual-band devices on the other leg will be receiving it via RF and then transmit a locally sourced (and thus stronger) signal locally on that leg? Rather than letting the original attenuated signal cross through the Signallinc? Edited October 12, 2014 by shannong
shannong Posted October 12, 2014 Author Posted October 12, 2014 (edited) + 1, Stu. My previous HA package provided a dashboard of signal performance for all devices. I started insteon with 3 access points, and then a few years later installed a signal linc. The before and after were measurable and remarkable. I removed 2 access points as a result, 2 less things to worry about breaking. I occasionally will notice, or hear from the family, about problems with devices on certain circuits not working properly. The resolution is to unplug and replug the access point there. In an interesting twist, I am having better luck with a circuit that always had an access point on it, when I finally removed it after putting in the signalinc (and I did swap APs to make sure that one wasn't defective) Sounds reasonable. But I have about 90 dual-band devices and thus each is an access point as in your scenario. My discussion is about a hardwire phase coupler directly between legs and not access points acting as couplers. Edited October 12, 2014 by shannong
shannong Posted October 12, 2014 Author Posted October 12, 2014 I'm not sure either way if the sub panels would need signalincs too. Start with one on the main/root panel and see how things are different. If you think you can do better, move on the other panels. Paul I already have a SignaLinc on all three that have been there from the beginning back when I only had a few devices. Now I have over 130 across all 3 panels with most being dual-band. The problem is there isn't really a way to see how things are different since there aren't any protocol analyzers for Insteon. There were some for X10 which are marginally useful in an Insteon environment from a noise perspective.
shannong Posted October 12, 2014 Author Posted October 12, 2014 One thing that had occurred to me in pondering this is that if there is a noise/interference on one leg in the frequency range of Insteon signals the phase coupler would be directly transmitting it onto the other leg. However, my dual-band devices that act as repeaters between the two legs would not be doing so. That could potentially be one drawback to the hardwired couplers.
paulbates Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 (edited) I already have a SignaLinc on all three that have been there from the beginning back when I only had a few devices. Now I have over 130 across all 3 panels with most being dual-band. The problem is there isn't really a way to see how things are different since there aren't any protocol analyzers for Insteon. There were some for X10 which are marginally useful in an Insteon environment from a noise perspective. Other packages have them. I used Mark Sandler's plugin for homeseer that watched traffic and calculated a 0 - 100% signal quality score for each device in a list. I had devices in the 60 - 80% range before signal linc, and everything except one MS was 95% or better afterwards. Most at 100%. That lead my down the path to rely on RF only when needed... noisy / problem circuits. The hop count dropped for many devices. Houselinc has a similar feature called signal diagnostics. You can switch over to that temporarily since its free and measure how it works with three signallincs breakers on and breakers off, but that's a lot of work if things work fairly well. There is a request into UD to have a similar insteon diagnostic feature in the ISY. Edited October 12, 2014 by paulbates
stusviews Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 One thing that had occurred to me in pondering this is that if there is a noise/interference on one leg in the frequency range of Insteon signals the phase coupler would be directly transmitting it onto the other leg. However, my dual-band devices that act as repeaters between the two legs would not be doing so. That could potentially be one drawback to the hardwired couplers. Unless the noise is close to the INSTEON powerline frequency (131.65 kHz), due to the tuning of the hard-wired coupler, it won't pass to the opposite leg. And, if the noise is near that frequency, than any device on that circuit would be affected and a filter would be required. If a filter is installed, than the noise won't be on the powerline.
larryllix Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 Greetings. Like many, I started off slowly with my Insteon/ISY installation which has now expanded to about 130 devices of which most are dual-band. I have a main panel and two sub-panels. In the beginning, I purchased the SignaLincs and installed one in each panel to ensure good connectivity across both legs in all three panels. Now that both legs in each panel and as well every room of the house has at least two dual-band devices I'm questioning the value of the SignalLincs. My question isn't so much are they needed but rather do they potentially pose any signal degradation issues of any kind. In other words, would I be better off without hardwired connections on the legs in each panels creating additional traffic on the wire? There are installed on breakers so it's easy enough to disable them but without a protocol analyzer of any kind of available, it's difficult to test in the real world and quantify this objectively. I wouldn't say I have comm issues but I do have the occasional problem of a KPL not correctly updating or not all lights in a scene turning on/off. Thoughts? Some observations: If you have three panels and only three SignaLincs you can only cover one phase of each panel, assuming your panels have both phases of your 120/240 vac system in each panel. If you have that many dual band devices the SignaLincs seem redundant. That and pony panels are usually very close to the main panel so one SignaLinc (or dual band device), on each phase, close to the main panel would be a good central star point for the whole house. A passive signal coupler can be a detriment to an Insteon system as the Insteon signal when passed to the other phase of your service will be out of phase with your active dual band units on that phase and therefore the Insteon signal should be out of phase (in synchro with that 120v phase) and possibly cause subtraction of the signal magnitude. Further study of that theory is in order. Insteon devices have some collision detection, built in, and may avoid that out-of-phase signal situation from happening. That could also be true provided the out of phase Insteon signal is strong enough to trigger the collision detection algorithms in the transmitters. I would check your hop counts in your event log while you activate each device from ISY. Then remove all SignaLincs to see what the effects are and determine whether one, two or three should go back in. Running out of receptacles?
shannong Posted October 12, 2014 Author Posted October 12, 2014 (edited) Other packages have them. I used Mark Sandler's plugin for homeseer that watched traffic and calculated a 0 - 100% signal quality score for each device in a list. I had devices in the 60 - 80% range before signal linc, and everything except one MS was 95% or better afterwards. Most at 100%. That lead my down the path to rely on RF only when needed... noisy / problem circuits. The hop count dropped for many devices. Houselinc has a similar feature called signal diagnostics. None of those have "diagnostics", the ability to measure signal quality, signal strength or be protocol analyzers. They're actually just statistics about how often a message was received and ACK'd or lost. Very useful. But not quite the same as signal "STRENGTH", quality,measuring noise, etc. They can't provide that. Instead, you infer things about those characteristics based on message reception statistics. But if a message isn't received or ACK'd is it because of weak signal strength or noise that happened to be on the line at that point? No way to know. I've used Homelinc for that purpose in the past as I have a separate USB PLM and spare LampLincs that I can plug into various spots in the house. I might do some methodical testing with that for this current question. Edited October 13, 2014 by shannong
shannong Posted October 12, 2014 Author Posted October 12, 2014 (edited) A passive signal coupler can be a detriment to an Insteon system as the Insteon signal when passed to the other phase of your service will be out of phase with your active dual band units on that phase and therefore the Insteon signal should be out of phase (in synchro with that 120v phase) and possibly cause subtraction of the signal magnitude. Further study of that theory is in order. Insteon devices have some collision detection, built in, and may avoid that out-of-phase signal situation from happening. That could also be true provided the out of phase Insteon signal is strong enough to trigger the collision detection algorithms in the transmitters. Hmm... Interesting thought. Running out of receptacles? Ha. Nah. With the dual-breaker "mini's" available now it's easy to expand if you've got the juice to the panel. Edited October 13, 2014 by shannong
stusviews Posted October 12, 2014 Posted October 12, 2014 Some observations: If you have three panels and only three SignaLincs you can only cover one phase of each panel, assuming your panels have both phases of your 120/240 vac system in each panel. If you have that many dual band devices the SignaLincs seem redundant. That and pony panels are usually very close to the main panel so one SignaLinc (or dual band device), on each phase, close to the main panel would be a good central star point for the whole house. A passive signal coupler can be a detriment to an Insteon system as the Insteon signal when passed to the other phase of your service will be out of phase with your active dual band units on that phase and therefore the Insteon signal should be out of phase (in synchro with that 120v phase) and possibly cause subtraction of the signal magnitude. Further study of that theory is in order. Insteon devices have some collision detection, built in, and may avoid that out-of-phase signal situation from happening. That could also be true provided the out of phase Insteon signal is strong enough to trigger the collision detection algorithms in the transmitters. I would check your hop counts in your event log while you activate each device from ISY. Then remove all SignaLincs to see what the effects are and determine whether one, two or three should go back in. Running out of receptacles? A SignaLinc is an INSTEON branded device that bridges the opposite legs of the split, single-phase electric supply. I doubt that it would in any way be a detriment to the INSTEON powerline signal. Unlike dual-band devices, only one SignaLinc is required at an electric panel as the SignaLinc is wired across the opposite legs. It's not connected to neutral at all. Only one SignaLinc installed at the main panel is needed no matter how many sub-panels there are. If there is more than one main panel, then each panel should have one. BTW, a SignaLInc is powerline only.
shannong Posted October 13, 2014 Author Posted October 13, 2014 My main concern was additional opportunities for collisions since the coupler is passing the attenuated signal from one leg to the other while all the dual-band devices are also attempting to transmit the new copies of the message. With the passive coupler connecting both legs I have one wired collision domain and thus half the bandwidth vs two wired collision domains without it. I wasn't expecting a clear black and white answer as there are many things to consider that are difficult to theorize correctly especially since the discussion needs to include behaviors of collisions and retransmits on a real world network. If only there was a protocol analyzer for Insteon. One thing I forgot to mention is that my PLM is NOT connected on the main panel but instead is on a sub-panel. Based on the thoughts and discussions here, I've definitely decided to leave only one SignaLinc in my network. I think it seems to make the most sense to have the sole SignaLinc installed on the sub-panel where the PLM is connected.
larryllix Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 My main concern was additional opportunities for collisions since the coupler is passing the attenuated signal from one leg to the other while all the dual-band devices are also attempting to transmit the new copies of the message. With the passive coupler connecting both legs I have one wired collision domain and thus half the bandwidth vs two wired collision domains without it. I wasn't expecting a clear black and white answer as there are many things to consider that are difficult to theorize correctly especially since the discussion needs to include behaviors of collisions and retransmits on a real world network. If only there was a protocol analyzer for Insteon. One thing I forgot to mention is that my PLM is NOT connected on the main panel but instead is on a sub-panel. Based on the thoughts and discussions here, I've definitely decided to leave only one SignaLinc in my network. I think it seems to make the most sense to have the sole SignaLinc installed on the sub-panel where the PLM is connected. I have mine connected to a sub-panel also but it is 30 cm (189 uMiles) of wire from the main. I have a two-pole breaker feeding some old X10 signal bridge, in a surface mount box, and then to three surface-mount boxes with receptacles. Plugged in are my PLM, ISY994i, and HomeSeer science experiment/ PV monitor software CPU. Total wire from PLM to phase to phase coupler? 8 inches (ohhhh... 20 Canuckistani cm.)
Recommended Posts