LeeG Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 That should have eliminated the batteries. Since there continues to be poor RF response, move the RemoteLinc near the PLM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stusviews Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 No success. But, here's some more mystery. In alphabetical order, only the 4th of 7 RemoteLincs updated when I installed the 9E PLM. So I installed another new PLM. Now the 7th RemoteLinc shows as being updated, but the 4th does not (nor do any others). It seems that only a few of us are having this difficulty. Both you and Michel have not. Several SH v.9E Beta testers also are having the same problem as do some posters on this forum. AFAIK, only the 2440 is affected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeG Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Okay. I don't know why the RemoteLincs will not communicate through a 2413S. Would seem to be a question for SmartLabs. EDIT: to confirm, a RemoteLinc within a few feet of the 2413 PLM still shows variations in Hops Left count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stusviews Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Posted there, too. Seems as mysterious as the All On phenomenon. Another case of Gremlincs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeG Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 There is a difference with All On, it does not show in an Event Trace. Here you are reporting the RemoteLinc, within a few feet of the PLM, shows variations in Hops Left count and failure to receive an command response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stusviews Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I don't disagree that they're entirely different enigmas. The only similarity is their mysteriousness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerlands Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 Well... that gremlin's moved over to my neck of the woods.. wish I knew the spell to get rid of it. Think i'm gonna move on to one of them newfangled gizmos. ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ELA Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 I had to replace my PLM this month. Experienced the same issue with re-linking the 2440. After about 6 tries I finally found a location where it could sucessfully be added. I believe the final location was in an area where the 2440 could only communicate with a "single" dual band device at one time. In other words no other RF device was within RF-earshot. If you attempt to add it in an area with multiple dual band (RF) devices within RF-earshot it fails. I also believe that the newest PLM aggivates the issue. Putting it close to this PLM showed no responses at all from the 2440. Batteries were fine. Tests showed RF transmission signal strengths from both sender and receiver were at a high level. To me this points to what we already know. Insteon dual band technology is not what they claim it to be. Adding more dual band devices to the network does not necessarily make everything better/stronger. As can be seen with this issue it may well make things worse. After many months/years of investigating Insteon issues I came to conclusion that "simulcasting" works very poorly. My guess is that muliple RF transmisssions attempting to overlay each other perfectly often fails and results in destructive interference that the listening device is then unable to interpret. Some devices "coordinate" better than others and the newest PLM appears to be less coordinated than my previous one. There has been a lot of spectulation on the "All ON" issue. The solution is not what we want to hear but it will require all new devices that do not respond to the " super group or "All ON" command. While it is clear than an "ALL ON" should not be generated to begin with, it is happening with increasing frequency. Possibly related to to the fact that simulcasting does not work well. Destructive interference rsulting in an altered command structure. Of course if another Insteon feature called "checksum" worked as it should it could be caught and ignored. But it is not. Thus all new devices or a better technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulbates Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 Thanks ELA. Fortunately I don't have the all on problem. The irony is that I have no interest in, or functional use of, a super-group / all on for every insteon device that I own. With X10 I could organize things by housecode to manage what devices were affected, or not (attic fan, garage door, etc) by its similar "All Units On" feature. If I needed that, I could create a scene fairly easily to include all devices, but don't see no value in it as a feature. I wish there was a pin to pull, a lead to cut, etc, to defeat "all on", but have to believe its in firmware land somewhere. Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.