gweempose Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 I had a system that was running pretty well for years, but then it started to become more and more erratic. I assumed my PLM was starting to go bad, so I replaced it with a new one. Things appeared to get better, but then I started having issues again only a few months later. This time, instead of replacing the PLM, I decided to move the ISY and PLM to a completely different location in my home. Amazingly, the whole system started working great and has been rock solid ever since. I had falsely assumed that since I had so many devices throughout my home (a majority of them dual band) that it didn't really matter where I located the PLM. I was clearly dead wrong about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulbates Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 There's no better time spent than establishing solid comms throughout the house. I found that, like X10, things work best when the PLM is right at the electrical panel. Its the center of the electrical "master antenna system". I also have a few problem spots were numerous dual bands had to be installed Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gweempose Posted April 26, 2018 Author Share Posted April 26, 2018 1 minute ago, paulbates said: There's no better time spent than establishing solid comms throughout the house. I found that, like X10, things work best when the PLM is right at the electrical panel. Its the center of the electrical "master antenna system". This makes sense. Unfortunately, In my particular case, locating the PLM near the electrical panel isn't an ideal option because the ISY is also sending out Z-wave signals. Because of this, it made more sense for me to place it in a central location. 4 minutes ago, paulbates said: I also have a few problem spots were numerous dual bands had to be installed The dual band devices are what lulled me into a false sense of security. I have about 40 dual band devices scattered throughout my home. I assumed this would automatically give me a solid wireless connection everywhere, thus eliminating the need to worry about my PLM placement. Clearly, this was not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulbates Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 I found that after putting in the signal bridge in the panel, my comms were almost perfect. However there are a couple of circuits with a lot of switches and have low voltage transformers. The transformers "numb" insteon out for a number of wire feet around them. Had to put filters on them too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gweempose Posted April 26, 2018 Author Share Posted April 26, 2018 2 hours ago, paulbates said: I found that after putting in the signal bridge in the panel, my comms were almost perfect. However there are a couple of circuits with a lot of switches and have low voltage transformers. The transformers "numb" insteon out for a number of wire feet around them. Had to put filters on them too. I guess this is where I was naive. I falsely assumed that as long as the wireless portion of my Insteon network was solid, I was good to go. I do have a bunch of FilterLincs installed throughout my home, but I've always viewed the powerline aspect of the network as secondary. Wasn't this supposed to be the main advantage of the newer dual band devices; that they are supposedly immune to powerline noise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwester Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 From a marketing perspective, yes, that's what Insteon let us believe: that somehow the RF would mitigate power-line problems. Alas, reality is different -- it turns out that the RF is somehow dependent upon the power-line zero-crossing detection, and that timing is easily messed up by switching power supplies (among other things). So the RF works, but it only seems to help for weak signals, and for cases where some devices are on the other half of the split-phase power, or for cases where another building or part of a large building is served by another transformer. In real life for most of us normal people in normal houses, the RF helps to couple the split phases, and to perhaps reach the ends of long circuits or some cases where some signal-suckers have reduced the power-line signal -- but it does nothing at all to help today's most common problem: noise being introduced, most commonly by electronic power supplies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larryllix Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 Since Insteon is a dual protocol mesh protocol with simultaneous transmissions, something has to synchronise the simultaneous echoes sent out. That is based on the powerline waveform zero voltage crossing. Signal chopper powers supplies and HID lighting with it's bad second harmonic loading, can affect the zero crossing badly and make a mess out of the RF section of the Insteon modems also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulbates Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 Having both RF and Powerline as a hybrid has worked well for me. The signallinc bridge is a great "Layer Zero" solution.. everything crosses the powerlegs right in the panel. Things respond fast when a switch is pressed. RF fills in the gaps where there are powerline problems. Most PLC technologies (Insteon, zwave) can not be just taken out of the box and used. Each has an initial step and specific products to buy (dualband, signalinc, aeon siren-repeater) to get your house working. Its a matter of which works better for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.