PLM vs.PLC transmissions?

[yardman 49]

My apologies if Mark and others have read this before. Michel told me that I should post Insteon related questions here for Steve L., so that is what I am doing.,...

 

Steve:

 

I received my ISY, and have been having serious communication issues, which appear to be most likely related to the PLM (I have the 52 version firmware on mine). UD is sending me a new beta version to see if it resolves my problems.

 

What is hard for me to appreciate is this: why is the transmitter/receiver different on the PLC versus the PLM? I've had two PLCs for a while, although I only use one (I bought the second for a backup). I use the PLC to store my Essential Timer events, and also use it with Houselinc to program my HA links.

 

Other than some problems between the PLC and X10 on occassion (due to my large number of Insteon devices sucking up the X10 signals), I've never had any problem with Insteon communication over the PLC. Nor, for that matter, between Insteon controlled devices in my HA network. All Insteon stuff played happy with my PLC. But it does not play happy with the PLM connected to my ISY-26.

 

I have read that the 52 version of the PLM has only about 50% of the Insteon control signal of the previous version, due to worries about heat. But my PLC has never felt hot. So why the PLM heat issue?

 

My burning question (s):

 

Is the PLM just a "stripped down" PLC without the onboard memory? Or does it have other funtionality that the PLC doesn't have, which may in turn cause it to run hotter??

 

I thought that had I read that it does pass along unregulated 12v; could that be the source of the heat that caused SH to lower the signal output in version 52?

 

Anyway, I am hoping that I can get past this point, as I am really excited about moving my automation to the ISY-26. Many thanks to Michel for his help. I'll report back when I receive the new beta PLM.

 

Best wishes,

[yardman 49]

Hello Steve:

 

I'm copying here part of another thread that I think is relevant to this topic. The question was whether the latest PLM version 56 has improved its signal power output. My response is included:

 

********************************************************

 

mdcastle,

 

The power output is the same but handling traffic has improved and thus a lot less lock ups under heavy traffic.

 

With kind regards,

Michel

 

So does 56 still have the low output power problem or is that fixed since it is more efficient?

 

I kind of get the feeling the standard Smarthome "white brick" form factor has become an issue for them as they never got the PLC to run in standalone mode with the funtionality the market expects, and now having to throttle back the PLM power because of heat buildup.

 

Wow. No return to a higher output signal? Well, I hope that signal handling alone will help. To use one of Sloop's terms, this is a real "bummerlinc".

 

Again, I'm a little mystified, and I'm hoping to hear back from SteveL as to what is the difference (in terms of transmitter/receiver) between the PLM and the PLC. My PLCs work just fine! If they need more room in the PLM case for a heat sink, they should just remove the pass through outlet and use that space.

 

One of the big improvements regarding the Insteon protocol was supposed to be reliability. Most of us that have been using Insteon and X10 are aware that sometimes you need to put filters on noisy devices. But once you do have your whole house working well with Insteon, adding more Insteon devices doesn't usually cause a problem, as they all "add" to the reliability of the signal.

 

So why should they have designed the PLM any differently? Why should the PLM be the weak link? I'd be willing to spend twice as much on the PLM to get one that works well.

[SteveL]

yardman,

 

The PLM does not have the same software conversion that the PLC goes through. The PLM does have memory also but it is supposed to send the information much more efficiently. I will look into the heat issue for you

but my feeling is that the problems you are experiencing with the PLM are not hardware related. Let me see what I can find out for you.

 

SteveL

[Mark Sanctuary]

The main question here is been missed I think...

 

1. [*:32alttag]PLM 4a: Strong signal, works without Accesspoint directly on top.
    
   [*:32alttag]PLM 5.2: Weak signal, does not work unless Accesspoint is directly on top, and even with that is still unreliable.

We understand the signal strength was reduced in the newer PLM version in order to fix a overheating issue.

 

What is now being done about the new PLM weak signal?

[yardman 49]

yardman,

 

The PLM does not have the same software conversion that the PLC goes through. The PLM does have memory also but it is supposed to send the information much more efficiently. I will look into the heat issue for you

but my feeling is that the problems you are experiencing with the PLM are not hardware related. Let me see what I can find out for you.

 

SteveL

 

Hello SteveL:

 

We are already aware that the output of the PLM was decreased as of Firm52 due to overheating problems. We know this from the folks at UD. Communication issues due to the PLM rev change have been documented and reported. So apparently you are in the dark about these issues.

 

After you have educated yourself, maybe you could educate us as to why the currently shipping SmartHome PLM (Firm52) is not able to transmit and receive in a way that is as reliable as the Insteon switches, or at least as good as the PLC. After all, one of the big benefits of the Insteon protocol and devices is supposed to be their communication robustness.

 

SH is currently testing a new beta PLM. UD is sending me one. Once I have a chance to test it, I will report back as to whether there is any improvement.

 

Again (just to make this perfectly clear), the current "Firm52" PLM will often not work reliably in Insteon installations where everything else is working perfectly, including the PLC.

 

Thanks

[SteveL]

The difference between 4a and 52 do not have any hardware changes, firmware only. I belive the PLM prior to 4a opperated a little differently. It is true that the warner the PLM gets the signal can get weaker, so if the PLM is in a location that is warmer you can see a change in signal strength. I have installed plenty of 52 version PLM's and do not have signal strength issues so far.

 

SteveL

[yardman 49]

The difference between 4a and 52 do not have any hardware changes, firmware only. It is true that the warner the PLM gets the signal can get weaker, so if the PLM is in a location that is warmer you can see a change in signal strength. I have installed plenty of 52 version PLM's and do not have signal strength issues so far.

 

SteveL

 

Hello Steve:

 

Thanks for the reply. But maybe I should restate my thoughts.

 

From the moment that I received and setup my ISY/PLM combination from SmartHome, the ISY GUI was registering Comm Failures, which made it impossible to impliment the ISY. It just was taking too many retries to write to the Insteon devices. And even after that, the communication would have been too unreliable for triggered events and scheduled events.

 

I can assure you that the PLM wasn't in an environment where it would have gotten too warm, as I have a PLC in the same room, that works without any Insteon issues. From what we could tell, the ISY itself was working normally. But sometimes (30 to 40% of the time), a query or status change request would provide the "Cannot Communicate with (Insteon Device)" error.

 

I even tried removing the PLC from the wall and plugging the PLM into the exact same outlet that the PLC normally occupies, with no improvement. I moved the PLM to different rooms. Still the same result. The PLM was always plugged in directly into non-GFCI wall outlets (not a power strip), as is my PLC.

 

Additionally, the activity lights on both the PLM, my PLC, and my Access Points would always illuminate steadily, with no apparent flickering, except for when an command was being executed. So line noise at least did not appear to be an issue.

 

I found it troubling was that these PLM comm failures were occuring when I previously had no obvious Insteon comm errors with my PLC. So the basic question is to why the PLM (again, Firm54) appeared to be very unstable, but my PLC (running Houselinc and Essential Timer) was fine for Insteon traffic.

 

If it was just me, then I would assume that I just had received a bad individual PLM. But then I began seeing posts from other experienced Insteon users who had puchased the ISY-26, and they had seen similar problems with Firm52. I've now heard of this problem from several sources, so it doesn't appear to be isolated. One of them contacted me to let me know that his previous version 4A PLM had worked ok, but when he got the Firm52, then he also started having problems.

 

So if the new beta PLM unit fixes my issues, I will be very, very happy. But hopefully you can see why this leads to frustration on the part of some users like myself, who have a happily functioning Insteon network, which then cannot play nicely with the PLM, even though a PLC works well enough in the same setting.

 

If you could enlighten us by way of an explanation, that would be good also.

 

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

[SteveL]

yardman 49,

 

All I can do is pass on my experience with the product and what I have seen. This comes from someone who has been an installer of the product not an engineer. If the answer was to use a firmware 4A and everybody's problems would go away then I'm not sure why we are not doing that. I have used all versions since the product first came out. I was using the most compatible one at that time...the exact number I am not sure. I have also changed as newer PLM's became available.

 

The one thing I do different from most people that are having problems is that I teach in; and also do myself a system of manually linking the switches. I have gotten really good at it and to program a 60 switch install in a day is standard. I have used the ISY to capture the work that I have done and make small changes. I personally find this approach to be the most efficient use of my time. As time goes on, I am sure the process will get better and faster to program the switches entirely with software, but for now, I link them manually. I have done and been involved with a dozen ISY installs and have not sent back a single PLM. For those that have had a different experience the process is only going to get better. My response comes from someone who worked in the field and if the common denominator with the problem PLM is the amount of direct programming a person does I can't comment about that directly since I don't use the product that way. There are alot of these sold a month and yours is not the experience that everybody is having. I would like to find out if there is a pattern with those that are having alot of problems and note. I'm not saying the answer is to just manually program the switches, but I belive the issues will be resolved so everybody will have a positive experience with this technology. E-mail me if you would like to talk on the phone.

 

SteveL

[yardman 49]

Hello Steve:

 

You said:

 

The one thing I do different from most people that are having problems is that I teach in; and also do myself a system of manually linking the switches. I have gotten really good at it and to program a 60 switch install in a day is standard. I have used the ISY to capture the work that I have done and make small changes. I personally find this approach to be the most efficient use of my time.

 

Wow! Mostly manually programmed 60 switch installations! That must be a marathon button pushing session! I'm impressed!

 

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by "teach in". Could you please explain? Thanks.

 

Best wishes,

[MikeB]

Holy cow Steve! That's a lot of manual linking. I'm surprised you don't use the ISY-26. I completely reprogrammed my 60 device system with the ISY-26 in about 1.5 hours - and I still wasn't overly familiar with the interface yet.

[SteveL]

yardman 49,

 

When I said "teach in" I was referring to the classes I teach on INSTEON.

 

 

 

The one thing I do different from most people that are having problems is that I teach in; and also do myself a system of manually linking the switches. I have gotten really good at it and to program a 60 switch install in a day is standard.

[SteveL]

MikeB,

 

I'm not saying I haven't used the ISY to link switches, I have and like it alot. It's just that with my present position most of my time is spent teaching dealers how to do it manually. I want them to be good at doing it manually first, then if they want to use software later I'm behind it 100%. If an installer went out to a clients house just to program some basic scenes, I don't want them to be so dependent on any software solution that if their laptop failed they wouldn't know what to do.

 

SteveL

[MikeB]

Oh I see, absolutely.