Zwave range??

[danbutter]

Also, you haven't mentioned details about the thermostat. Some are battery powered. Is yours? Or have you powered it from either a 24vac transformer or the HVAC 'C' wire?

This makes a difference to the zwave capability of the device.

C wire. No batteries. Can't recall the model off the top of my head, but it's a RCS clone like the trane.

As for the other controller the only other zwave devices are 2 kwikset locks which are battery powered and do not repeat AFAIK. So the only non battery powered zwave device I have so far is the thermostat.

[MWareman]

Sounds like you got lucky with your other controller - I couldn't get my Kwikset locks to work at all until I put the Aeon sirens in place as repeaters. I have a Trane zwave stat right in the middle of the house.

[vjk]

The ISY functions as intended, it's Z-Wave that's the problem.

Not sure why you keep insisting on a mesh.  The mesh helps to reach nodes beyond maximum direct range.  If the device is within a given signal strength range, the mesh is not needed.

 

I am also experiencing range problems with the ISY dongle that I do not have with two other  zwave controllers (Leviton VRC0P and an  ancient Intermatic).  I do not have any repeaters because zwave works perfectly in my case with two other controllers.  I go an ISY+zwave planning to move some automation functionality away from ELK M1+ Leviton.  So far, it's not been a success story due to inadequate ISY Zwave dongle range.

[vjk]

C wire. No batteries. Can't recall the model off the top of my head, but it's a RCS clone like the trane.

As for the other controller the only other zwave devices are 2 kwikset locks which are battery powered and do not repeat AFAIK. So the only non battery powered zwave device I have so far is the thermostat.

 

I have three RCSs that work quite well with Elk+Leviton VRC0P without any repeaters. Also, two Yale locks.

[MWareman]

 

 

Not sure why you keep insisting on a mesh. The mesh helps to reach nodes beyond maximum direct range. If the device is within a given signal strength range, the mesh is not needed.

I disagree.

 

Zwave is 'ultra low power' and its hard for receiving devices to discriminate the received signal from spurious transmissions that zwave shares the radio spectrum with. The idea of a mesh was designed into the protocol to overcome this limitation and allow the system to attain reliable communication in an environment with lots of interference.

 

All kinds of things can and do really mess with the zwave signal. A mesh makes an inherently unreliable connection with an effective signal point of failure into a system that has to experience massive disruption to fail.

 

Professional installers generally have a minimum number of devices before they will accept the work. Zwave devices in grounded metal boxes are usually excluded from the count (for mesh purposes) because their transmissions are further attenuated. They also have specialist tools (like ztroller) to test and verify the communication paths and mesh strength.

 

The ISYs internal antenna and zwave performance was tested by Sigmas testing agents (who make the chip that all zwave devices must use) to perform to a specified level as part of certification. It passed. What you are experiencing is absolutely a symptom of a not having a strong enough mesh. Every additional device multiplies the potential communication pathways by 2. I didn't get reliable communication in my home (3300 sq ft on 2 levels) until I had over 8 devices capable of being a secure repeater - with either the ISY or a Vera before it. Vera had much better diagnostic tools though and it was easily able to show me how the issue was lack of sufficient communication pathways. It's much harder to see this on ISY.

[Teken]

I've been holding out for UDI to support Z-Wave Plus because feed back thus far indicates this 5th generation chip set has improved overall speed, distance, and COM's.

 

Any word as to when UDI will be able to support this new Z-Wave Plus?

[method115]

I've been holding out for UDI to support Z-Wave Plus because feed back thus far indicates this 5th generation chip set has improved overall speed, distance, and COM's.

 

Any word as to when UDI will be able to support this new Z-Wave Plus?

I think you can just upgrade once it comes out.

[vjk]

I disagree.

 

Zwave is 'ultra low power' and its hard for receiving devices to discriminate the received signal from spurious transmissions that zwave shares the radio spectrum with. The idea of a mesh was designed into the protocol to overcome this limitation and allow the system to attain reliable communication in an environment with lots of interference.

 

All kinds of things can and do really mess with the zwave signal. A mesh makes an inherently unreliable connection with an effective signal point of failure into a system that has to experience massive disruption to fail.

 

Professional installers generally have a minimum number of devices before they will accept the work. Zwave devices in grounded metal boxes are usually excluded from the count (for mesh purposes) because their transmissions are further attenuated. They also have specialist tools (like ztroller) to test and verify the communication paths and mesh strength.

 

The ISYs internal antenna and zwave performance was tested by Sigmas testing agents (who make the chip that all zwave devices must use) to perform to a specified level as part of certification. It passed. What you are experiencing is absolutely a symptom of a not having a strong enough mesh. Every additional device multiplies the potential communication pathways by 2. I didn't get reliable communication in my home (3300 sq ft on 2 levels) until I had over 8 devices capable of being a secure repeater - with either the ISY or a Vera before it. Vera had much better diagnostic tools though and it was easily able to show me how the issue was lack of sufficient communication pathways. It's much harder to see this on ISY.

1. What do you mean "ultra low power" ?  Zwave signal strength is rated at 1 mW exactly the same as Zigbee ensuring signal propagation between 30-100 meters, i.e. three times greater than that  Zigbee due to lower frequency used by Zwave. That's physics, not some voodoo.

 

2. Three other controllers (Leviton, Intermatic and Z-Net from Homeseer do not have any problem with the existing setup being placed in the same location as ISY. was Perhaps, the latter does have some RF ZW design flaw ?  I do not know.

 

3. Another system that operates under the same FCC 15.231 using similar frequency band and 1mW power limit("ultra low power")  is Lutron's RadioRa2(Clear Connect) that provides similat communication range. That system is extremely reliable withing those ranges. Are laws of physics different for ISY ?

 

3. As I mentioned before, the primary goal of the mesh is to extend the range beyond 30 meters, not to compensate for poor  RF design.

[MWareman]

Zwave was designed from the outset to operate with a mesh for redundancy. Range extension is a benefit - but not the design objective. Nowhere are their design (Sigmas) docs is it recommended that only a single device is used in between two distant devices. All design documents show many devices in a mesh, at least two devices half-ish way between two devices that cannot directly communicate. This is not a design flaw - its how zwave is, the product of only 1mw power in an electrically noisy environment, along with an omnidirectional antenna and the fact that many devices are installed into grounded electrical boxes severely limiting range further.

 

I cannot speak to other controllers (since I haven't used them) - but there is an incredible quantity of evidence about lack of a mesh contributing to lack of reliability in zwave communications. What I do know is the performance of zwave in the ISY was vetted by Sigma and approved by Sigma as meeting their criteria in terms of design and performance in the final implementation. This is necessary for UDI to display the zwave logo on their product. There is no design flaw, as if there was it would not have passed logo certification.

 

If you don't want to accept that, that's ok. I won't be offended. I've given my opinion (and is is just that, my opinion) on the matter based on personal practical experience using the protocol for several years. All I'm saying is you need more than two devices to make a reliable zwave network.

[Michel Kohanim]

MWareman,

 

Precisely and thanks so very much!

 

vjk,

 

As I mentioned before - and if you actually have three powered thermostats- then you should be able to include them and them do Heal Network at each step (after moving them to their destination). Please make sure all other controllers are off and that none of your devices are in their network.

 

With kind regards,

Michel

[vjk]

. This is not a design flaw - its how zwave is, the product of only 1mw power in an electrically noisy environment, along with an omnidirectional antenna and the fact that many devices are installed into grounded electrical boxes severely limiting range further.

 

 

I am not disputing the fact that zwave is a terrible protocol primarily due to lack of proper diagnostic tools that would allow one to troubleshoot easily "mesh" problems, similarly to traceroute for tcp/ip. Neither does zwave provide RSSI and LQI metrics (which its cousin zigbee does). Neither does there exist an inexpensive network sniffer that should be a must for such a flaky protocol. Not speaking of need the for periodic "healing" or tedious inclusion process.  Unfortunately, zwave is becoming ubiquitous and thus less expensive than better RF alternatives such as Lutron's radiora2. If it were not for lack of some devices (e.g. locks) and other non-technical issues I'd use the radiora2 as an automation wireless protocol despite much higher prices on its units in comparison to  similar zwave devices.

 

What I object to is your focussing on the RF features of the protocol (low power, ambient noise, propagation obstacles) and trying to substantiate the need for the mesh by referring to those features.  RadioRa2 while operating in similar RF conditions works perfectly without any need for mesh -- it's a point-to-point protocol.

 

So, the inferior ISY performace in comparison to other controllers may be caused by: a. defective unit; or b. design flaw in RF schematics (internal antenna placement, etc); or c. upper layer protcol implementation bugs or d. all of the above, but not some inherent zwave RF features.

[Michel Kohanim]

Hi vjk,

 

I object to your usage of "inferior ISY performance" notation. Have you done what I suggested?

 

With kind regards,

Michel

[vjk]

Hi vjk,

 

I object to your usage of "inferior ISY performance" notation. Have you done what I suggested?

 

With kind regards,

Michel

I had already done it.  I did remove all the devices from the Leviton stick and re-configred(included) them in ISY.

 

 

The thermostats and locks are working fine, it's two aeon microswitches that are located in the basement that work sporadically(one does not work at all when ISY is located more than 15 feet away although there is an intermediary zwave outlet in between).  I took the unit to a close proximity to each switch and included them successfully, but after the ISY unit is returned back to its preferred location on the first floor, problems start.

 

So, eventually, I had to go back to my old Elk setup.  It's a pity because I really liked ISY for its programming abilities (which are superior to those of Elk) and wanted it to work, but I just could not justify spending more time on playing with zwave on ISY. Had there been a zwave sniffer available for a reasonable price I would probably make it work without feeling like a blindfolded person in the dark room -- that's the feeling troublesooting a zwave network gives you.

[stusviews]

I didn't read where you tried heal network after relocating the ISY back to its preferred location. Heal network works wonders.