How many PLM's do I really need?

[barrygordon]

Several questions relating to PLM's:

My electric service is standard 240 volt (120 hot leg to neutral). I have two 120 volt receptacles at the circuit breaker panel, one on each phase.  This is where my PLM is located. I just bought another PLM since the one I was using failed, but I had a spare new one because of the failure rate of the PLM's. The house has about 80 or so Insteon devices, almost all dual band, located around the house. I used keep the PLM connected to the ISY on one of the receptacles, and another PLM on the other receptacle to ensure I was getting to both phases of the electric service. 

Do I need to do that?  Or will one PLM  and the large amount of dual band devices handle the multi-phase issue.

UDI really should develop their own PLM  so that the longevity issues of the Smarthome PLM can be avoided.  I see in the smarthome PLM writeups on Amazon it states that they ship the newer versions of the PLM which addresses the longevity issue.  Is this verifiable?

Is there any way to verify that a PLM is in good working order other than trying to use it?

[paulbates]

You don't need a second PLM per se, but any dual band device that allow the Insteon signal to traverse the legs.

The only advantage of the PLM as a product is the Modem part;  converting the serial to insteon messages and and insteon messages to serial so that devices like the ISY can communicate with the insteon network. Any dual band device can do the other PLC to RF duties.

A another option is putting a signalinc bridge in the panel so the signals passively travel from one leg to the other with no hop count deductions 

[Brian H]

I don't think anyone has the latest revision that is more than the two year and a few months typical failure use time. So the jury maybe out on is the reliability issue fixed.

The UDI PLM was never completed. The promised firmware chips or license to program Insteon firmware into it. Was promised and then later management canceled it. I believe it had to be mothballed.

I would think you could use any Dual Band device in the second outlet. So the extra PLM isn't powered up all the time.  The passive coupler could be used but I would test how the system is working with no added devices in the second outlet.

[barrygordon]

Thanks guys.  That answers confirms what I thought was the situation. 

Did anyone ever rip apart a PLM to see what the failure was caused by.  Many years ago the predecessor of Roku , also called Roku, came out with an Audio streaming device that failed after about a year. They used an inadequate power supply and a similar power supply with the same form factor but a better longevity (Mine never failed) was available on the web.  I bought one and fixed the streamer.  I got really pissed off at Roku because they would never acknowledge the problem nor would they provide a fix other than buyy another of their units.  Needless to say, I never bought another device made by Roku. 

[Brian H]

The typical failure was their choice of filter capacitors in the switching power supply.

Real long thread here on repairs we did ourselves. This also applied to the 2443 Access Points hardware 2.0 and above. Along with some of the Smartenit modules. They also where on the same base main board.

https://forum.universal-devices.com/topic/13866-repair-of-2413s-plm-when-the-power-supply-fails/

 

[larryllix]

3 hours ago, barrygordon said:

Several questions relating to PLM's:

My electric service is standard 240 volt (120 hot leg to neutral). I have two 120 volt receptacles at the circuit breaker panel, one on each phase.  This is where my PLM is located. I just bought another PLM since the one I was using failed, but I had a spare new one because of the failure rate of the PLM's. The house has about 80 or so Insteon devices, almost all dual band, located around the house. I used keep the PLM connected to the ISY on one of the receptacles, and another PLM on the other receptacle to ensure I was getting to both phases of the electric service. 

Do I need to do that?  Or will one PLM  and the large amount of dual band devices handle the multi-phase issue.

UDI really should develop their own PLM  so that the longevity issues of the Smarthome PLM can be avoided.  I see in the smarthome PLM writeups on Amazon it states that they ship the newer versions of the PLM which addresses the longevity issue.  Is this verifiable?

Is there any way to verify that a PLM is in good working order other than trying to use it?

IMHO if you did try to run two PLMs you would ave no end to the massive logic puzzle you just created. Insteon devices only talk by positive enrolment. You would have to enrol one side of your  house with one PLM and ISY and the other half of the house with the other PLM / ISY.  The rest interface and NRs could look after the co-ordination but what a project!

 

I use one PLM on it's own 240vac dual breakered circuit next to the central panel with an old X10 passive bridge between the phases. In order to jump across my PV inverters that may be doing their  own voltage islanding thing (I could be running four separate phases) , I use a dual band on/off plug-in with an old heater as a utility room antifreeze. It serves dual purpose and echoes close to the PLM.

Did you make an progress with your Zwave cutting out?

[mwester]

Perhaps... but if one thinks in terms of "zoning" one's house, I think it's quite do-able.  To some degree I've already done that on mine, separating by z-wave vs insteon.  The key is to think of zones as defined by traffic and usage patterns rather than by physical rooms.  That way the boundaries between the two make logical sense, and there's less cross-zone traffic to worry about.

[larryllix]

1 minute ago, mwester said:

Perhaps... but if one thinks in terms of "zoning" one's house, I think it's quite do-able.  To some degree I've already done that on mine, separating by z-wave vs insteon.  The key is to think of zones as defined by traffic and usage patterns rather than by physical rooms.  That way the boundaries between the two make logical sense, and there's less cross-zone traffic to worry about.

That would be one way of logicking it.  BG is talking two PLMs though. We could end up with two PLMs and two zwave boards with that attitude! The plot thickens.  

[barrygordon]

I was using 2 PLM's but only one was connected to the ISY.  the other one (I Believed) was taking what it received as RF (It is a dual band unit) and placing it on the other leg of the power system  I will be using a signalinc for that now that I know about those

[larryllix]

43 minutes ago, barrygordon said:

I was using 2 PLM's but only one was connected to the ISY.  the other one (I Believed) was taking what it received as RF (It is a dual band unit) and placing it on the other leg of the power system  I will be using a signalinc for that now that I know about those

ahhh... Now it makes sense. You were using a PLM for a protocol bridge. Rf to Powerline Insteon.

[barrygordon]

Correct