INSTEON 2442 SignaLinc RF NIB

[bocaray]

This product appears to be discontinued. If true, does anyone know why?

[MikeB]

The 2443 AccessPoints are the replacement for the SignaLinc.

 

Only reason I can imagine that someone would want a new SignaLinc would be to pair up with existing installed SignaLincs.

[oberkc]

I believe this was the device replaced by access points.

[Brian H]

It is replaced by the Access Point.

The SignalLincRF does not receive any of the RF Insteon devices and if memory serves me didn't handle the I2 protocol correctly.

The SignaLinc RF can not talk to an Access Point just other SignaLinc RFs.

They can coexist with Access Points from what I have read.

[dkaleita]

Can anyone think of any reason NOT to plug in a pair of 2442 SignaLinc RF modules that I've got lying around?

 

I've already got four of the newer 2443 Access Points and two 2457D2 dual-band lamp modules in my setup, but I'm still having a few random communications problems. Can I use the old 2443s just for phase coupling, thereby freeing up two of my 2443s for more strategic placement to help with Insteon communications issues?

 

Can anyone elaborate on the previous comment about the 2443 not handling I2 protocol correctly? Too bad I missed the boat on exchanging my 2442s for 2443s while that trade-in offer was in effect.

[Brian H]

Here are some links to the 2442 SignaLinc RF from the Smarthome Forums.

They should be fine with Access Points except they don't receive RF messages from things like RemoteLincs; TrigeLincs; Thermostat Adapters and Motion Sensors. The I2 and Extended messages are also covered.

http://www.smarthome.com/forum/topic.as ... Terms=2442

 

http://www.smarthome.com/forum/topic.as ... Terms=2442

[MarkJames]

I have 2 signalinc RF's.

 

My original configuration had two outlets coming off a 220v breaker feeding them separately for each phase. I had a signalinc in each and the 2412s PLM plugged into the signalinc.

 

This was a HUGE source of trouble and slowed/degraded my communication between ISY and the devices in my home to a laughably slow condition.

 

When I plugged directly into the outlet my speed and reliability improved 10 fold.

 

I still use my signalincs but only for RF devices and not anywhere near my PLM. They seem to be fine when they're not used the way I did - plugging a PLM into them.

 

Be warned that too many access points or access points of multiple versions can cause a LOT of trouble in an insteon system. FWIW I'd use a hardwired signalinc for signal bridging and then only use accesspoints in areas where you need them for RF capability. They serve ZERO purpose if you've already bridged your phases and are not using RF.

 

Smarthome markets them somewhat as the 'cure' for communication problems and they are definitely not that. If you have a reasonable number of insteon devices in your home they will take care of signal repeating just fine without AP's. Their purpose - outside of a signal bridge - is purely for RF.

 

 

mark

[mitch236]

Be warned that too many access points or access points of multiple versions can cause a LOT of trouble in an insteon system. FWIW I'd use a hardwired signalinc for signal bridging and then only use accesspoints in areas where you need them for RF capability. They serve ZERO purpose if you've already bridged your phases and are not using RF.

 

mark

 

How would having too many RF devices degrade the network? I have four thermostats and have four access points but have just added two more Lamplincs that are RF. Should I just get the non-RF versions of the lamplincs?

[MarkJames]

When you have a bunch of access points within range of the same devices it seems that the signals from RF devices overlap when they go into the network. You start getting 'unable to communicate with sensors' error messages in ISY. They seem to be benign but I've noticed them and some other users have noticed the same. They don't seem to cause trouble other than the popup box you'll get in ISY.

 

I had a problem a few months back that was communication related and Michel advised me about the 'too many access points of different versions' issue. I don't remember what the exact problem was but I know that removing some access points did, indeed, help me. Some of my access points were very early versions as I got my first insteon products shortly after they were released - so this may not be true for all versions.

 

I guess the key thing is that if you're not using the RF devices you really don't need all the access points. Smarthome kinda markets them as a fix for all communication problems great and small but truly they serve only two purposes - as a signal bridge (which only needs to happen once and works really well with a cheapo hardwired bridge in or near the panel) and as an antenna so RF devices like motion sensors and remote controls can access your network. Each and every hardwired device in the insteon network relays the insteon messages so adding access points to try to fix comm problems when you already have a decent sized network isn't likely to help.

 

I don't have any lamplincs so I can't comment. My hunch would be that unless you need the RF access point ability I would stick with whatever is less expensive or more supported. Insteon products are great but I've been burned as an early-adopter on some items so I'm a bit wary.

 

mark

[IndyMike]

How would having too many RF devices degrade the network? I have four thermostats and have four access points but have just added two more Lamplincs that are RF. Should I just get the non-RF versions of the lamplincs?

 

Hello Mitch,

 

Mark and I share a lot of common opinions about implementing phase coupling - I hope he will excuse my butting in here. I have a similar setup with a passive phase coupler at the panel and 1 Accesspoint (for RF communication) centrally located in a 4500 Sq ft home.

 

My major objection to AccessPoints is that additional units (above and beyond the two basic phase coupling units) are sometimes used as a "cure-all" for communication problems. When a problem is encountered communicating with a particular unit, an AP is thrown in as a band-aid to fix the system. Whether or not this fix works depends on the nature (and location) of the original problem. Without understanding the original problem, you can't tell if you have really "fixed" anything. To that end -

10) Noisy devices (CFL's, etc) tend to have a cumulative effect on a circuit branch. Without understanding this, adding AP's appears to correct the problem only to have it resurface when multiple sets of CFLs are activated (multiple switches).

9) Signal absorbers are, in my opinion, a bit easier because they are typically always active (unless physically unplugged, the device is absorbing signal). Adding a AP to a to a circuit like this has a better chance of succeeding. My objection here is that the problem could have been solved with a simple filter or another Insteon device (LL, SWL) that could have served a purpose at far less cost.

Signal absorbers/noise makers have a bad habit of being able to move (phone chargers, etc). If the problem does move, the original AP is left and another is added.

7) Device specific problems (V.35 devices) can mimic network problems. Adding AP's to the system just adds complexity.

.

.

.

Number 1 reason for not using mutiple APs:

1) Regardless of whether or not adding AP's works, it adds complexity to your system.

 

None of the above may apply to you, it's simply the way that Mark and I have chosen to implement our systems. I can't say that having 6 AP's in a system is a "bad" thing - I don't have data to substantiate that.

 

What I can say is that our systems are "deterministic". When we press a button on a KPL ,we know exactly what path the Insteon signal is taking. If a problem occurs a particular device, we can troubleshoot that area of the system.

 

When using multiple AP's, you have no idea how the signal is propagating through the system (non-deterministic). You simply don't have a starting point for troubleshooting.

 

Edit - Poopy, Mark beat me to the post, Again