Getting Serious - When Comm issues strike

[ELA]

From what I can tell all of my existing ELAM code seems to work ok with the one i2CS module I own.

I still get responses from the i2CS module ( even though they may be nak'ed by the "FF" response in the cmd2 byte. )

 

In the interest of learning more I have been implementing ability to remote link to i2CS devices so that they will fully recognize messages. This has been challenging with the one i2CS appliance module I have. It is an Appliancelinc Rev 4.6, V4.2.

 

This module was a replacement I recently received and now I need to return it already! Its transmitter is very weak. This can be seen in the traces below. It is putting out about approx. (1/4) the level that the PLM does.

This has been intermittent but for the most part remains at this lower output level. ( isolated network with only a PLM and APL)

 

In addition it is sending an unexpected message that I do not as of yet understand. I realize people may not be able to offer a direct answer but I am offering it up for discussion anyways.

 

When I send an extended msg: cmd1= 0x09, cmd2 =01 , w/checksum to put the appliancelinc (APL)into linking mode I get the expected response, and the APL flashes its LED that it is in linking mode.

What I do not yet understand is why the APL then sends an additional msg immediately following the ack message. The PLM does not recognize this message and thus nothing is reported to a terminal program. The APL then retries sending this message 5 times so the process takes a long time.

 

When i first tried to link this module to my home network I had difficulties and now I am beginning to better understand why.

I can see an indirect indication of this in the ISY log where just after the ISY sends the 09 command there are some delays introduced and messages are repeated ( I suspect because the APL is busy retrying).

 

Below is a log of the single command sent by the PLM and the one recognized response. The O'scope trace shows the additional message transmission that the PLM does not recognize.

 

If anyone is free to explain why this additional message is present that would be greatly appreciated.

I have a new module on the way so that I can have a second unit to test. Maybe it will be a newer version firmware and the extra message will not be there? ( if it were an i2CS implementation error).

Or maybe this is an expected i2CS thing? If so would'nt that indicate that the PLM may need to be upgraded to i2CS to be fully compatible? ( I tried this same msg several times and it continued sending an extra msg even after manually linking the two modules together using the set buttons).

 

It has been mentioned that full i2CS capability is not implemented in all modules by others on this forum. I can certainly see that is the case in this module.

 

 

Since this APL appears to have a hardware issue ( low signal strength) I do not want to speculate too much without testing a second unit for comparison.

I believe this module had a stronger signal level initially but deteriorated over time.

 

Update: Using the new APL, I later came to understand that the messages that were not passed up to the application level (ones that I did not understand why they were there) were "set button pressed broadcast" commands that are an automatically generated part of the electronic linking process.

[ELA]

I have been experimenting with Testing of Simulcasting and the idea that more devices is good to enhance a persons network. While more devices can be good, especially if they are spread out evenly in a network, more is not always better. In addition not all devices are created equal. Some have stronger transmitters and some have higher or lower detection thresholds.

 

Below is a test network I have been working with to show how well hop usage can work as well as how the addition of more devices ( or in some cases just one more device at the right place) can destroy network reliability.

 

The diagram below shows 5 devices separated by "modified filterlincs" that act as attenuators. The attenuators simulate long cable runs and possible signal suckers. The test setup is arrange so that the only way the sender can reach the intended receiver is via full hop usage. The repeaters are required to rebroadcast the message. Communications in each direction utilizes 3 hops max and upon receipt at the other end 0 hops are remaining.

 

The attenuators assure that hops and retransmissions must be used. A standard filterlinc will often allow communications to flow through it, but not always, and the signals may become too marginal for this type of testing. The capacitor values were reduced in each filterlinc in order to allow a faily strong signal level when passing through just one filterlinc but yet prevent any one hop from being able to pass through two filterlincs.

 

Originally only one device is placed in the middle, a strong signal strength Access point as the midpoint repeater. NOTE. The sender and receiver have their RF capability shut off so no RF communications is involved in this testing.

 

I then inserted various different devices in the middle as repeater #2. Then later more than one device at a time to see the effects of simulcasting.

Here is are some O'scope signal strength measurements taken at the midpoint under different conditions. These show that in all cases the hops #2 & 3 are generated. However the strength and consistency vary greatly depending upon the device and how well devices sync up with each other to simulcast.

 

 

Here are some results:

 

 

it is interesting to see how any one device maintains 100% good communications ( with varying amount of retries).

Certain devices when mixed together remain ok.

 

Then certain others together outright kill the comms!

[ELA]

Over time I have read so many posts about communications issues and them being solved by filtering certain devices. In particular I have read many posts where the UPS was the culprit. I do not have a UPS on my computer but yesterday I gained access to a APC Back-UPS XS 1000 and so I tested it for its signal sucking magnitude.

 

I have posted in a few different threads that my ELAM tester measures signal suckers and quantifies them. Over time I have recorded values for many different devices and I wanted to present those values all in one post in hopes that it can be of some value to people trying to understand signal suckers and how some are worse than others.

Some can be ignored while others demand to be filtered.

 

People often post that an appliance device must be "noisy". While some devices do indeed put out noise most devices now a days incorporate their own filter to prevent that noise from polluting the power line. As far as Insteon is concerned those devices become signal suckers due to those filters.

 

I was especially interested in testing a UPS. When I did test this UPS I detected a small amount of noise in the Insteon band. (updated to qualify. There is about 50mv of noise from the UPS but it occurs outside of the zero cross Insteon Zone). It did however represent itself as the worst signal sucker I have tested to date.

I have compiled the data below from the minor signal suckers to the worst. The data is presented in terms of "Standard Insteon Loads". This means that the device "acts like" this many Insteon devices when connected to the line. Keep in mind that true Insteon devices repeat the signal whereas these signal suckers do not. When a signal sucker begins to represent enough Insteon loads it attenuates the signal and reduces reliability. How much it affects a particular circuit is a complex issue.

I just wanted to present the raw data for a comparative analysis of how bad some devices can be.

 

It would be a rare case where this UPS could be allowed without filtering in an Insteon network!

 

 

Compilation of Signal Suckers as Standard Insteon Loads from Minor to Major:

Load ............................................................................................... Represents This many Standard Insteon loads

 

PRIME SURGE STRIP with EMI known capacitor of 0.01uf....................................... 0.11

LEVITON SURGE OUTLET (Model 5280)................................................................. 0.11

 

 

Phillips LED 12E26A60-1 (60/12.5W) ............................................................ 0.07 (low noise)

Phillips LED 8E26A60 (40/8W) ..................................................................... 0.07 (low noise)

ECOSMART 8W LED (ECS 20 WW FL120.......................................................... 0.2

ECOSMART 13W LED (ECS A19 type) ............................................................ 0.2

HELICAL 10W CFL (FLE 10HT2/2/XL/SW)........................................................ 0.53

ENERGETIC 13W CFL (FE153-13SB 13W)....................................................... 0.55

Feit 15W CFL.................................................................................................. 0.73

GREENLITE 23W CFL (23w/ELS-DIM-A-2700k)............................................... 0.97

N:Vision 23W CFL (sku160-740) ................................................................ 1.0

 

Radio Shack surge strip (w/EMI, 0.1 uf cap)....................................................... 1.15

BELKIN SINGLE OUTLET surge Protector (w/EMI, 0.1 uf cap)............................... 1.2

 

18V Ryobi LITIUM ION charger .................................................................... 1.3

20" CRT Sylvania TV ............................................................................................ 1.33

Delta #10DRCG5 dual stage EMI filter ............................................................ 1.53

DREMEL tool charger .................................................................................... 1.57

 

Phillips LED 9290002204 (60/10.5Watt) ................................................................. 1.9 Avoid this one!, & high noise

 

HP Envy X2 Laptop Supply ..................................................................................1.9

Motorolla cable Box DCX700 .................................................................................2.5

HP LapTop Computer Power Supply .................................................................... 2.6

Panasonic 32" LCD TV ........................................................................................ 3.5

Direct TV HD Receiver & Power Supply .............................................................. 3.0

Electric Recliner Power Supply ........................................................................... 2.9

 

Pure Ion Air Cleaner ( has 0.68 uf cap inside) ................................................ 3.14

 

LG French Door Refrigerator ............................................................................. 3.26

 

DELL XPS Computer Power Supply ................................................................... 3.6

 

APC Back-UPS XS 1000 (On-Line) ....................................................................... 3.67

 

CabLED (OptiLED) 6' LED strip light power supply = PGW18-24 .......................... 4

 

 

APC Back-UPS XS 1000 (powered off) ................................................................ 6

 

 

 

For a point of reference on Standard Insteon Loads; I have over 55 Insteon devices installed in my home and when I measure the signal suck level at each leg of the service (at outlets directly below the service) I measure in the range of 7 - 8 Standard Insteon Loads on each leg.

[Brian H]

Hats off to ELA,

You tested my model APC UPS.

7.14 Impressive for noise suppression but terrible for Insteon signals.

[Teken]

Well, I can safely say that if the following load is too much for you. Please do send out the *Electric Recliner* to me!

 

Then, you will be down one less load! Great summary and follow up ELA!

 

Teken . . .

[ELA]

Hi Brian,

I noticed a brand new UPS at work the other day still in the box. I asked to borrow it for a little bit before they installed it. Very cool that it matched your model.

I found it quite interesting that it was actually a worse signal sucker when in the off position.

 

When you look at the amount of signal suckers that may be present in any one install it makes me wonder why Smartlabs does not produce a lower cost "Insteon Isolator".

While the Filterlinc gets the job done it is far from optimum. Its advantage being it does both filtering and isolation so a person does not need to worry about whether it is noise or a sucker.

 

I do wish they would put out a lower cost "Isolator only". This might be as simple as removing the across the line cap. and optimizing the resonant circuit to 131Khz rather than 120Khz. After all when trying to isolate an appliance with a large across the line capacitor inside of it, why introduce another across the line cap!

Instead utilize the cap that is already there!

 

Hello Teken,

 

Yeah, after all how lazy must a guy be to need an electric recliner

I actually have two dual recliners that are electric. They really surprised me when I first discovered them to be Signal suckers.

 

One is in the mail ....

[Brian H]

Too bad we where not talking X10s 120KHz.

JV Digital Engineering. Known for their well made products for X10

Make an Active Noise Reducer for X10.

http://jvde.us/xtb/XTB-ANR_description.htm

 

I see it has a Insteon present jumper but I have no information on how well it works.

I do know their XTB-IIR repeater coupler blasts over a 10 volt X10 signal back to the power lines and does not step on Insteon.

[ELA]

Brian,

The link mentioned a jumper can be removed for Insteon compatibility?

 

My point however was that I believe there are more signal sucker issues then there are noise issues. There should be an inexpensive "Isolator only" device that people could use for signal suckers. Reserve the Filterlinc for the occasional noise generator.

[Brian H]

Oh well I kind of missed your point.

Isolator would be a nice thing to have.

[ELA]

In another thread a while back we were having a discussion on noise vs. signal suckers and the possible impact of Fluorescent light ballasts. I had promised to report the name of the ballast in my home that I felt was compatible with Insteon for reference.

 

In the past I had been a little frustrated when attempting to measure low amplitude noise using only a high pass RC filter. Too much 60hz content remained and lower frequency components (background noise) masked what I was attempting to view. I built a 9khz high pass active filter to follow the RC filter with great results. This allowed me to view much lower amplitude noise. I also used an isolation transformer to isolate normal power line noise from the device I wanted to test.

 

I then tested the ballast I was sure was Insteon compatible along with a second ballast I was not sure. This second unit was on an Insteon circuit that did not exhibit any outward known issues but I had never examined it before.

 

I found that the two ballasts (dual 4 ft T8s) were from different manufactures and thus made for a very good comparison.

 

Ballast # 1 (Very compatible): Is a AccuPro model AP-RC-231P-120

Ballast # 2 (less compatible): Is a Energy Pro model - TKT8-32W x2

 

I performed both noise testing and a signal sucker test on each.

 

1) The AccuPro exhibited no signal sucking issues and I was unable to detect any significant conducted noise emissions. If there was any noise it would be less than 20mv.

 

2) The Energy Pro had both measurable noise as well as Signal sucker equivalent to 1.5 standard Insteon loads.

 

Below are O'scope screen traces of a "clean" baseline, then the noise from the Energy Pro ballast, and last a zoomed in view to measure the frequency. Any possible noise from the AccuPro was not distinguishable from the top "baseline" trace.

 

 

The first ballast clearly being more desirable than the second. However the second ballasts noise is at a frequency substantially outside of the Insteon frequency band. This 33Khz noise of only 20 -60mv in amplitude is not enough to be a significant offender to Insteon unless the communications environment is already very marginal.

 

To confirm this I ran several tests with an Insteon receiver plugged into the same outlet as the light and ran communications reliability tests from a sending device 50 ft away "electrically" using power line communications only (receiver was not dual band). Reliability was 100%.

 

In normal use this 2nd fixture is switched by a switchlinc relay. The fact that it is somewhat of a signal sucker is not great but tolerable as used without filtering.

[ELA]

Up until now I have had pretty good luck with LED bulbs. I had 3 different styles previously all ECOSmarts and they tested ok from an Insteon compatibility respect. I wanted another for a garage Incandescent that burnt out.

I considered another 40W ECOSmart for $9 but opted to spend $14 for what I would have expected to be a better quality Phillips 60W. I was very wrong!

 

NOTE: This is only a sample size of one and only about this particular model, I have only tested this one Phillips product.

 

I highly recommend avoiding the Phillips #9290002204 (60/10.5Watt) LED bulb.

I was quite surprised to measure such a high suck level of 1.9 Standard Insteon loads!

 

I had designed a "Noise Alert" into my custom tester a while back. Up until this point it has never turned on when testing any of the devices I have tested. This bulb set it off! That was an interesting surprise.

This prompted me to do some more in-depth testing as shown below.

 

 

The ~40Khz noise is pretty far from the Insteon band and I did not confirm directly that it may or may not interfere with the Insteon signals. This is likely to be application dependent.

For sure a suck level of 1.9 is significant, especially when compared to other LEDs I have tested.

 

I would recommend staying clear of this particular bulb for an Insteon install.

 

I was discouraged to see this as I was hopeful that all LED bulbs would be a low suck level and low noise.

Looks like this is not the case. I was very surprised to see both a high suck level and high noise.

 

I am hoping this is an isolated case and this bulb is not getting installed in my lamps.

These LED bulbs are too expensive to purchase just to test. Surely not willing to filter a bulb!

[oberkc]

Thanks for all your testing. That is good to know.

[Brian H]

Thank you for the information.

I know Philips has been releasing all kinds of new LED bulbs. My 12.5 watt, 60 watt equivalent EnduraLED with an 800 Lumen Output. Has a newer model also avilable AmbientLED. 11 watts, 60 watt equivalent and 830 Lumens Output and is 2 ounces less in weight than the 12.5 watt EndureLED. Probably new electronics with different properties than the older models.

 

I have always found finding information on Philips LED Bulbs a challenge.

Besides the long Model Number are there any other ones? Like an Order Code or Product ID?

[ELA]

Hi Brian,

I did not see any other easier to reference numbers on the package last night. Here is a link to the bulb at Home Depot:

 

http://www.homedepot.com/Electrical-Light-Bulbs-LED-Light-Bulbs/h_d1/N-5yc1vZbm79/R-203248902/h_d2/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10053&langId=-1&storeId=10051#.UP6twPLhd8E

 

Next time maybe I will pop for the award winning version.

[Illusion]

I have 2 of the L-Prize winners. They are such low draw (10W) that a single bulb was unable to turn on a lamplinc using the local on control. They are great in my work lamp where the fixture is right next to my head, nice and cool

[Brian H]

Thank you for the link.

Didn't fine anything except whet is on the Homedepot web page.

 

You are not using it on a dimmer type module are you?

Sales page said non dimmable.

[ELA]

No Brian,

It was purchased for a relay circuit. Tested directly in an outlet. The bulb was just that nasty all on its own.

My other LED lights are dimable and they tested much better. Wonder if there might be a correlation ?

[Brian H]

It could be the differences between the two types of LED bulbs designs.

 

Over in the Candlepowerforums in the Fixed Lighting section. They are always commenting on the different designs best and worst features.

Like efficiency, power factor, lumens per watt, CRI and color temperature to name a few.

 

I have a few non dimmable LED bulb models and may give them some more testing compared to dimmable ones.

[ELA]

Perhaps it is the dimming circuitry that does add additional isolation, hopefully in all cases?

 

I picked up a Phillips LED 12E26A60-1 (60/12.5W) last night. Not quite the prize winner but only $6 more than the dud.

I had read a number of posts from members who liked them and after that dud I just tested I will pay the extra for dimmable in hope that they are always better isolated. ( the dud was the only non dimmable I had bought. The price coupled with the name brand pulled me in).

 

I ran a quick test on the 12E26A60-1 and the suck level level was not worth mentioning and no obvious noise (did not have time to take a in-depth look).

[Brian H]

I have both the original 12E26A60 18 LED and the redesigned 12E26A60-1 that I believe has 12 LEDs and they work great.

Here is a link that shows some of the insides of the original 12E26A60 with its intense Blue LEDs that cause the yellow phosphorescent plastic to glow.

http://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/re ... wn-Part-II

http://www.edn.com/design/led/4369591/R ... -LED-light

http://www.edn.com/design/led/4369641/L ... approaches