Insteon Sucks just a little less than X-10 did :(

[io_guy]

Going back a few posts, unless your house has multiple panels, I really don't see the value in using RF as phase couplers.

 

You're going down a specific branch, jumping to wireless, and then going back another branch. So you collect the noise on both circuits and well as wireless interference/lag.

 

For $25 get a SignaLinc. Hardwired and links the phases right at the panel. Couldn't be easier and run length is minimized.

[ELA]

As far as SwitchLinc v.35, what is the current selling version? All mine seem to be v.27. Would those have a similar effect, or is it specifically v.35 that is the problem and not just anything old.

 

Can anyone answer the question about why V.35 is a problem? Only that version (hardware or firmware version?) or any version prior to that?

I checked last night and all mine are newer except one that has a firmware version of v.27 and hardware ver of v.25.

[ELA]

Going back a few posts, unless your house has multiple panels, I really don't see the value in using RF as phase couplers.

 

You're going down a specific branch, jumping to wireless, and then going back another branch. So you collect the noise on both circuits and well as wireless interference/lag.

 

For $25 get a SignaLinc. Hardwired and links the phases right at the panel. Couldn't be easier and run length is minimized.

 

I disagree. The easy method is simply plugging in two access points. I removed my hardware coupler when I eliminated all my X-10 stuff.

If I was convinced that the hardware coupler was going to greatly increase my reliability then I would be open to going back to that though.

[ELA]

Thank you LeeG and IndyMike for taking the time to share your knowledge. It will help greatly should I find that I need to monitor the signal strengths.

[ELA]

Now that I have overcome my initial frustration I am committed to spending the time required to get my system's reliability to where it should be.

 

I have reread the "Insteon details" and ordered an additional Access point along with the HomePro CP000 to use with the scope - if it should come to that.

 

Luckily I happen to have some spare time, equipment and the determination required.

I will update this post with what I find once I have received the parts and have resolved the issue.

 

Thanks for all the help,

Ela

[IndyMike]

Hello ELA,

 

I'm elated to hear that you've decided to dive into this. I wanted to get back with you on a couple of items.

 

First, I've been an Aerospace Engineer since Ford was in office. As a result, I have a somewhat conservative approach to things. In my mind the system must be deterministic - given a stimulus, it must respond/or fail in a predictable manner each time.

 

The following is simply miscellaneous thoughts and ramblings from an old man. They are intended for anyone in particular - just wanted to get them in print before I lost them.

 

Accesspoints VS Hardwire Coupler

On this issue I happen to agree with IO_Guy. AccessPoints are extremely easy to Install, but they are very difficult to troubleshoot. They are electronic devices, and can therefor be upset by powerline noise and spikes as well as RF interference.

 

My big problem with multiple AP's is that I cannot tell what path my Insteon signals are taking. If a problem does arise, you are not sure where to start. I tried 2 AP's for a while, but then went back to a single AP (for RF devices) combined with a single passive coupler. The AP is still a problem in that it hangs when the vacuum is plugged in and is interfered with by my 900 MHz phones, but this doesn't take down my system (only my motion sensors).

 

Passive couplers simply work. They have no intelligence, it's simple physics. On the down side, they are not 100% efficient (you will get a signal loss across them) and they can couple noise in the 120 KHz range. Both of these issues are easily rectified by placing an Insteon device within listening range (repeater). In short, the passive coupler gives me the deterministic system that my background mandates.

 

Noise VS Signal Absorption

Most modern electronic devices are always electrically connected and always absorbing signals to a certain degree. Exceptions to this rule are large appliances (A/C units, well pumps, furnace blowers) that use relays or contactors. Troubleshooting of "large appliance" absorption therefor for requires observation - If your system has problems when the A/C is running...

 

Turning on electrical loads (lights, heaters, etc) will result in additional absorption due to powerline impedance. This is normally a secondary effect that is normally only a concern for long circuits > 500 ft.

 

The result of the above is that the "absorption" in most homes is relatively constant.

 

Noise in a given home is highly variable. The single worst offenders in my home are my dimmable CFL's. These little devices can induce 40 Vp-p noise on my powerlines. Unfortunately, the noise from these devices tend be be lower frequency and therefor can travel further than Insteon signals. It can also combine with other noise signals creating harmonics.

 

If your system is intermittent, chances are you have fluctuating noise levels combining with steady signal absorption - unless you have device programming problems.

 

Device programming problems VS Noise

I will freely admit that I do not understand how a programming problem with a device (i.e. link table problem) can lead to "Intermittent Operation". Nonetheless, I've been part of numerous troubleshooting posts where I believed problems were due to signal issues and turned out to be unit link table issues. Really frustrating - this violates my deterministic rule.

 

I can't honestly remember if I have encountered the above (memory sucks - Did I mention I'm not young anymore?). I can say I've never had a V.35 device. To minimize the pain of partially programmed devices, here's a few simple steps:

 

1) Always factory reset your device prior to programming. This will eliminate any extraneous X10 information that may be in the device.

2) If at all possible, wire the device to a power cord (cap the controlled output) and program it plugged in next to the PLM. If you have a plug-in device, simply install it near the PLM and program. This will ensure that you have a good link table to start. If you then have a problem at the final installation - it's a signal issue.

3) If #2 isn't possible (or you are updating a device) and you are having problems programming - stop. If you have multiple failures programming a device, and it then magically "takes", you may not be able to trust the result. The best approach would be to isolate the noise/programming problem. At a minimum, perform a link table comparison to ensure the device is "correct".

 

For users of passive couplers - Having problems with a device and can't determine if it's noise or "other"? Use the X10 communication mode.

 

Program the device with an X10 address and write a program to turn the device on/off (X10 addon module users can do this from the Admin console). If this works your issue should not be signal level (X10 signals are not repeated and should be far lower than Insteon). Troubleshooting:

1) device doesn't respond to Insteon - link table problem or Boosterlinc installed (Evil device)

2) PLM doesn't recognize device being turned on - PLM link table problem or memory over-run

3) Remove the X10 address when you are done testing. Noise can mimic an X10 signal - you don't need phantom problems with noise activating devices.

 

Insteon Device Signal Loading - Long Circuit Runs

 

The issue here is signal absorption by Insteon devices themselves and it's a recent discovery on my part. I was characterizing the impedance presented by a 250' length of 14-3 romex. On a lark, I decided measure the signal drop with a Switchlinc installed at the end of the line - I was surprised.

 

1) No load - signal 1.8x source (+5.1 db). Romex impedance (unterminated) resonating with the SWL output.

2) 435 W load - signal .687x input (-3.3 db).

3) 0.2 uF load (large EMC value) - signal .422x input (-7.5 db)

4) 1 Insteon load - signal .396x input (-8.1 db)

5) 3 Insteon loads - signal .11x input (-19 db)

 

The message here is that Insteon devices themselves present a significant load to Insteon signals. The 0.2uF cap represents a rather large absorber (considered evil by all X10'rs). A single Insteon device absorbs as much signal.

 

I have seen numerous posts regarding multiple units in a J-box where one unit would respond and an adjacent unit would not. The above may begin to explain why - three units at the end of a long circuit would present a large load to Insteon signals.

 

To be fair, with the 3 units installed I still measured 88 mv p-p at the load. In the absence of noise (big assumption) this would still be sufficient signal for communications (my units did function fine).

 

Sorry for the diatribe - I guess I got a wild hair... I do like Insteon, and I further love the products and support Universal Devices provides - they make this stuff fun. My approach to Insteon is a bit different from the norm and it appears to work for me. I hoping the above may be of benefit to someone.

 

IM

[ELA]

Hello again IndyMike,

I also have been an engineer in various electronics fields for many many years and have been suffering from CRS.

 

My point on the coupler was simply that the AP's were easier to install. I agree hardwire couplers may be better in many situations.

 

I am finding that the AP's range is not very good. At the start of my current issues I moved one AP closer to the service cabinet to better phase couple and while that fixed one problem it introduced another in that a couple of IR detectors were no longer getting acknowledgements.

 

You are lucky to get away with only one AP.

For those of us that need to have more than one AP for RF range issues I would hope that the side benefit would be efficient phase coupling.

 

I also agree that the RF communications portion is even more difficult to troubleshoot.

 

Interesting test results on your signal loading. So you loose signal strength with each device added - yet gain from simulcasting and repeating by adding devices.

 

I am awaiting delivery of my new components to do further testing.

 

I have also decided that I will run a new wire to an outlet mounted higher in the garage for the new access point. This will be to help give the access points a less obstructed "RF view" of each other and to keep the Access point further way from metal objects.

[Brian H]

Yes the power line transmitter in the modules can absorb some of the signal if not the one doing the transmitting.

 

Same thing happens with the X10 two way modules, but there is no resending in the X10 case.

[ELA]

I added an outlet in the garage about 15ft from the panel about 2 ft down from the ceiling.

 

I received my Access Point and installed it in that outlet(phase 2) .

 

I re-arranged one of my existing Dual Band Lamp Lincs (on the other phase)

So that it had a better line of sight to the existing DBLL and new Access Point on phase 2.

 

Reliability is better. I have not had a chance to monitor the signals yet and may not unless I have further issues.

 

What helped me was to diagram where all my devices were in the house and look at both the power line and RF paths involved.

I could see that signals had a long distance to travel from the PLM to a remote device on PH#2. Adding the Access Point in the garage near the circuit panel helped that.

 

This may seem funny but I actually think my recent communications issues came about because we put in a new refrigerator about a month ago. The refrigerator is in the same location as the old one but much bigger and Stainless Steel.

 

I believe that I had marginal powerline communications that was being assisted by a couple of DBLL via their RF link.

I believe it is possible that new refrigerator then marginalized the RF link between these two DBLL and then things went downhill.

 

I have to admit that when I first installed my (4) DBLLs I only gave a casual consideration to being sure they were on opposite phases & close enough to each other for RF travel.

What I now feel is important is to give a lot of study as to the RF paths and possible obstacles such as large metal objects. Since the refrigerator was in a different room I had not considered it earlier.

 

I also think that having the DBLL or Access Point at a higher height than the normal outlet height is desireable -when possible.

I am also going to raise my DB-PLM up higher as well. It is now partially obscured by an exercise machine.

(perhaps why Insteon is introducing more dual band switches?)

 

It is the case in my house, and possibly in others, where larger metal objects are located near the floor. Raising up the RF communicators may give them better RF line of sight of each other.

 

In my case I have a number of PIRs and a triggerlinc so I also need good RF communications to these devices.

 

Based on this experience I agree with other's earlier comments about using a hardwire coupler. -> If you do not have a well thought out RF based coupling, or if you only have a few RF-only devices.

[Brian H]

If the new refrigerator has electronic controls. It maybe causing power line signal problems. I have seen things like new washers; dryers and refrigerators with electronics causing problems reported.

[ELA]

Hi Brian,

I had thought about possible noise or signal sucking from the new refrigerator.

 

While it may be possible I did not suspect that - due to the fact that the refrigerator is on a 20A circuit and has a long distance to travel to interfere with any 15A circuits (where all the Insteon devices reside).

 

The scene that had the worst reliability immediately improved when I moved the DBLL that was on the living room wall opposite the refrigerator.

 

If I were to have further problems I would check just to be sure. I should be able to shut down its breaker for a short while

[ELA]

ELA,

The ACT CP-000 is a tuned coupler with transformer isolation (safe). Slap a plug on one end (powerline interface) and connect the opposite to your scope (loading of your choice) and you have a very good 120 - 140 KHz interface with excellent 60 Hz rejection. These can be had for $7.14 at Smarthome today.

 

 

 

If you are trying to determine signal levels

at "other" points in your home, the signal levels will vary wildly and you will not know which "HOP" you are triggering on. This isn't X10 - you don't have a simple command signal. You have commands, hops, and retries to deal with.

 

 

I'm very much looking forward to any results/conclusions you may come to,

 

IM

 

I took your advice IM and got the CP-000. It works very well. I monitored the signals that had previously been unreliable (prior to the changes I made) they looked strong now (ranging from 0.8V to over 3V).

While setup I unplugged a number of battery chargers (without a filterlinc on them) just to be sure they were not "sucking" signal strength.

 

Noise was very low and only grew more intense when the switchlincs themselves were set dimmer.

 

I have had a number of other, what I believe to be unrelated, issues with my installation of late and once I got those resolved I just wanted to follow up on signal strength measurements.

 

I am now set up and ready to monitor if I should encounter any more suspect signal strength issues.

 

I appreciate your assistance

[Brian H]

My X10Pro XPCP also does a good job when looking at signals with a scope.

[johnradams]

... questions about V35 devices ....

 

The V35 devices were only shipped for a short while. They had a slight mod in how the signal was repeated (Steve Lee of SmartHome explained it to me a year and a half ago, but I don't remember the details).

 

The thing to know about V35 devices is that they tend to cause comm problems only in larger Insteon installations (as a rule of thumb, you will probably only have issues if you have several V35 devices amongst well over 50 devices). The more V35 devices you have, the worse the problem. By chance, I had a dozen of them in a network of 100+ devices -- thus, I had problems.

[johnradams]

My Insteon network is still not yet reliable. Sigh.

 

I have couplers on every single panel, and have about 10 access points (which have been placed with some thought, but also some just based on convenience, and based on where my wife doesn't mind them .

 

My poolhouse has a separate electric feed from GA Power, with its own meter. Thus, I rely on access points to "relay" the signal between the house and the poolhouse. I have a (almost dedicated) circuit that hosts the PLM and a WAP; this minimizes the "hops" to get signals from the ISY to the poolhouse and back. Still, however, I have trouble getting reliable comms to the poolhouse (which, BTW, has a coupler).

 

I have about a dozen FilterLincs, and every single UPS and surge uses a FL.

 

I am now investigating upgrading all of my "old" devices (which I will define as "SD" devices) to new devices. I currently have 16 Icon devices (mostly dating from 2005 and 2006), and 18 other devices which have v31 firmware and earlier (the ED protocol is found in v32 and later).

 

Anyone have any idea how much improvement I might expect? Elsewhere I have read that "things now work much better after replacing my old devices!" but am curious what readers of this thread think. Thanks.

[Brian H]

Access Points only have a specified range of 200 feet. Line of sight.

How far are you trying to send from the main house to the pool house?

 

I have read too many Access Points can sometimes be a problem.

 

I can tell you when I replaced my eight revision 1.3 ApplianceLincs with 4.1s.

My whole setup became intermittent. Putting back the 1.3s and everything is back to stable.

 

I did notice that they have updated the firmware in the 4.? ApplianceLincs. So maybe my 4.1s had a quirk.

[johnradams]

Access Points only have a specified range of 200 feet. Line of sight.

How far are you trying to send from the main house to the pool house?

The distance between the two houses is only about 50 feet. For debugging, I have one WAP in a receptacle on the exterior of the house (it is covered from the elements), with a clear line of sight to the poolhouse. The WAP in the poolhouse is just inside the glass and wood door. Sometimes, I use an extension cord and pull it out into the doorway of the poolhouse. Still have issues. Thanks for the pointer, though.

 

I have read too many Access Points can sometimes be a problem.

I have read the same thing. These access points were reviewed by Steve Lee of SmartHome, and he assured me that I did not have "too many". My house has a pretty big footprint, so I believe him when he says that I don't have "too many". Thanks, though , for the idea.

 

I can tell you when I replaced my eight revision 1.3 ApplianceLincs with 4.1s. My whole setup became intermittent. Putting back the 1.3s and everything is back to stable.

Now that sounds odd. One usually expects that upgrading makes things better, not worse. Kinda disturbing to hear.

[ELA]

My sympathies Johnradms,

Sounds like a complicated troubleshooting issue you have.

You said you have access points to the separate pool house service.

 

Do you have a 240 service at the bathhouse and thus an access point on each phase? Sorry if I am asking the obvious?

 

I find this Insteon system to be no where as simple to install and maintain as what Smarthome advertises it to be.

At some point a troubleshooting tool seems a must.

[johnradams]

My sympathies Johnradams,

Do you have a 240 service at the bathhouse and thus an access point on each phase? Sorry if I am asking the obvious?

 

Yes, the poolhouse has its own electric service (standard 240V 200 amp service from GA Power, with each its own meter, disconnect, etc.). The 200 amps are mainly for running pool equipment, plus small on-demand electric tankless water heater.

 

I have a coupler located right next to the panel, so the two legs should be bridged just fine. The poolhouse is pretty small: one level, with a footprint of perhaps 14 feet by 20 feet. There is a ceiling fan (which might be creating noise), a small drink fridge (which might be suppressing the Insteon signal, and/or creating noise), and a small bathroom vent fan. I will test tomorrow with the ceiling fan turned off, and with the small fridge unplugged.

 

There are about 7 Insteon devices in the poolhouse, so it seems like the signal should be plenty strong. It is true that I only have a single access point in the poolhouse, but that should be plenty, as its purpose it to "relay" to the house; the coupler should be bridging the 2 legs.

 

You have inspired me a bit; thanks. Maybe I will take my PLM and ISY unit out to the poolhouse, and run the ISY GUI from there (yes, I have a conduit with CAT6 between the two structures, so my data network extends to the poolhouse). It would be good to see if the ISY can at least "see" everything in the poolhouse when the PLM is local to the poolhouse.

[IndyMike]

Hello johnradams,

 

Your poolhouse installation sounds like a very challenging install. With a separate 200A service to a 14 x 20 structure you must have some large pumps/heaters/filters that are switching on and off.

 

I'm a hardwired fan, but that simply isn't an option for your remote building on a separate service. I am curious about how your communications failures exhibit themselves:

 

1) Nuisance messages that a device won't respond (while the device appears to operate OK)?

2) Total loss of communication to devices in the poolhouse (can't command either scenes or direct devices)?

3) Physical devices lockups (requiring an airgap)?

 

Moving your ISY/PLM to the poolhouse is an excellent idea. Please check the device programming (link tables) while this is in place. You may find that your devices were never properly programmed due to noise/aborted programming processes.

 

In regard to updating to newer "ED" devices - I would not do this until you perform your checks with the ISY/PLM in the poolhouse. The ED protocol is only (I believe) used for programming. It does speed up the programming process significantly (you would be less susceptible to on/off cycling of equipment in the Poolhouse) but it will tax your RF connection to the Accesspoint. I'm not at all sure that this will offer an improvement.

 

Your loads in the poolhouse may present a challenge for the passive coupler. The Insteon (X10) passive couplers (4816) couple the signals "in-Phase". Your pool equipment is likely inductive (and very large) and will tend to couple the signals 90 degrees out of phase. In short, these two paths may be leading to an overall lower signal on the leg opposite from your accesspoint. While testing with your PLM/ISY, check communications to the opposite leg of the panel.

 

Last question - what type of loads are you using with your Insteon units in the Poolhouse?

 

IM

[ELA]

I have great sympathies for Insteon owners with issues that are not able to access a good diagnostic tool to assist them.

 

I am fortunate enough to own an oscilloscope to be able to measure signal strengths.

 

I wonder if there are not kind people here who may be able to recommend a signal strength monitor device that is affordable and easy to use? Perhaps something that worked for X-10 is still available and that can be used with Insteon (at least in terms of raw signal strength - possibly data interpretation as a bonus!).

 

I find it invaluable to be able to monitor signal strength and wonder why ... if there is not a good tool available for Insteon signal strength monitoring?

And easy enough to use so that even a cave man could do it :)

 

I also currently have the luxury of time that allows me to spend too much time re-arranging this system. Because I am an engineer I see it as a challenge.

A challenge I could do without tho

 

Just by chance I was using a current probe on a 120V line testing a Fluorescent Light's- 60hz current demand. It was very cool to see little "Insteon message pulses running across the Oscope screen!

That told me that light could be a potential -"signal sucker" as the light was dead ended in the circuit. (only current flow was to the light).

As has been mentioned here many times EMI filters within devices often "suck signal".

 

Best of Luck! Hope someone can recommend an affordable tool.

[IndyMike]

I took your advice IM and got the CP-000. It works very well. I monitored the signals that had previously been unreliable (prior to the changes I made) they looked strong now (ranging from 0.8V to over 3V).

While setup I unplugged a number of battery chargers (without a filterlinc on them) just to be sure they were not "sucking" signal strength.

 

Noise was very low and only grew more intense when the switchlincs themselves were set dimmer.

 

I have had a number of other, what I believe to be unrelated, issues with my installation of late and once I got those resolved I just wanted to follow up on signal strength measurements.

 

I am now set up and ready to monitor if I should encounter any more suspect signal strength issues.

 

I appreciate your assistance

 

Hello ELA,

 

Sorry for the delay in responding - work is intruding into my personal life...

 

I'm happy that you've had good results with the CP-000. As Brian indicated, the XPCP is a similar tuned coupler and also performs well. The ACT devices are "old stock" and can generally be purchased at a discount.

 

Please keep in mind that since this is a "tuned" device, it will represent signals in the 120 KHz range rather accurately. Out of band noise (CFL's @40 - 80 KHz) will be attenuated. At one point I ran a frequency response test on the coupler to characterize it. If you're interested, PM me and I'll see if I can dig it up.

 

Thanks for the status update,

IM

[oberkc]

I have great sympathies for Insteon owners with issues that are not able to access a good diagnostic tool to assist them.

 

Arguably the single-greatest weakness with insteon, in my mind.

[IndyMike]

ELA and Oberkc,

 

I will agree that a true Insteon "signal strength" meter would be very helpful. That said, I don't see one in our immediate future. There are X10 troubleshooting tools that will register both noise and signal levels and will register Insteon transmissions. The problem with these devices is that you cannot discern whether the signal level you are viewing is the original transmission, a hop, a reply, or a command retry. They simply give you a level and you cannot determine where the transmission originated.

 

In my mind, a true "Insteon" troubelshooting tool would require knowledge of which transmission it was receiving (original, hop, response, retry) and would log this information.

1) In order to decode this information, the device itself would need to be linked to the scene (this could only be accomplished as a scene command).

2) The result would be a "digital quality level" not a true analog measurement of the signal strength (similar to the old 1132B testerlinc).

3) Due to the somewhat closed nature of Insteon, I would imagine that this device would have to originate from SH.

 

While I don't see the above occurring in the near term, the ISY does provide the "Scene test" which can indicate problem areas. This is a worst case test of scene responders and will indicate possible problem areas.

 

Combining the above scene test with a plug-in LampLinc further allows you to move your target device around and test different circuits. This gives the advantage of "knowing" that the device programming is correct and testing various circuits for absorption/noise.

 

Downsides to the LL approach:

1) Each time you plug in a new device you alter the performance of the Insteon network. This should not be an issue for "robust" systems.

2) You can only test "outlet" circuits. Many newer homes are wired with the lighting circuits separate from the outlets.

[oberkc]

I am familiar with the ISY troublshooting tools, and use them pretty regularly. Additionally, I am not even suggesting that the missing proposed tool is something that should be incorporated into the ISY-99. I have just always been frustrated that there is no positive way to identify insteon trouble-makers (educated trial-and-error is the only way to identify problems).

 

Yes, the ISY tools can help determine is a system is good or bad to some degree, and with which devices one is having trouble communicating, but offers little help in determining root cause or solution to general communication issues.

 

Given that insteon troublemakers can be cumulative, it is even harder to identify individual items that noticably degrade communications, especially if the degredation is not severe enough to cause your insteon system to malfunction.

 

I simply want a tool that I can use to test a given electrical device to determine it's effect on insteon communication, or to identify troublemakers if there are communication problems. I would not have guessed that this requires the counting of hops, responses, or retries, or incorporation into scenes, but perhaps it does. Perhaps it is a combination of two devices: a transmitter and reciever, where the transmitter emits a known insteon command and the reciever can grade the quality of the signal. Perhaps it is a device like a killawatt, where one can plug in any selected electrical device and it can determine insteon compatibility.

 

Yes, this is likely a smarthome solution, unless there is some inventive company out there that recognizes the problem and wants to fill that hole in the insteon product line. It has happened before.