bender@oobleck.Eng.Sun.COM (Michael Bender) (02/09/91)
jdg@ncrmud.Columbia.NCR.COM (Jim Griggers) writes:
->I must say that I was confused by Michael Benders articles on X-10.
no doubt! I was rambling a bit in places!
->[...] Originally, there was ONE controller box that addressed all 16 units.
->It was available with or without an ultrasonic receiver. There was a little
->remote control with 22 buttons on it that were exact equivalents to the
->buttons on the control console. It worked OK, except you had to be in line
->of sight of the controller and point the remote directly at the box.
I've heard of this controller, but have never used one. Some old
X-10 literature make reference to this device. I guess it never
caught on because of the line-of-site limitation.
->>>From: bender@oobleck.Eng.Sun.COM (Michael Bender)
->>It seems to be an OK system, at least it's still fun to play with,
->>but RS really low-balled the mini controller in that they only
->>provide control for unit numbers 1-4 OR 5-8, depending on how you
->>set a switch (i.e. unit numbers 9-16 can't be controlled by
->>this controller!)......
->
->The mini controller was brought out by X-10 (not RS) to be a supplement
->to their other controller. It was a cheaper controller that was to be used
->where you did not need to control all 16 units. Radio Shack picked up
->this mini-controller to go along with their 16 unit controller.
->
->>I took apart one of the mini-controllers that R.S. sells for $12
->>to see if I could get it to send codes for unit numbers 9-16. It
->>really annoyed me that this controller, while a pretty good deal
->>at $12, only supported the first eight unit numbers (1-8), with no
->>provision to access unit numbers 9-16, .....
->
->This is what had me confused. Why would someone try so hard to modify
->a mini-controller when they could just buy the 16 unit controller?
->Answer: RADIO SHACK NO LONGER CARRIES THE 16 UNIT CONTROLLER. This
->really suprised me, but the 16 unit controller is not in their 1991 catalog.
yep, when I was in RS this weekend buying some X-10 modules, the RS
salesperson told me that she had just sold her last 16-unit controller that
they had laying around, and that were not going to carry it any more. I
don't understand this, unless maybe it wasn't selling as well as they had
hoped. given that, I rushed home and tried to figure out how to modify the
minit controller to control 16 units. it wasn't until a day after my post
that I picked up an SC503, the 16-unit controller at a local electronics
shop (Fry's), and them modifying the mini-controller because a moot point
for me. The mini-controller is $13, and the 16-unit (SC503) is $20, so I
figured that it wasn't worth the time to buy some mini-controllers and
modify them for 16 units when for $7 more I could get the real thing.
->Crutchfield does carry the X-10 Maxi Controller for $19, which in my
->opinion is better than modifying the mini controller because you do not
->have to flip any switches to get control of all 16 units.
yes, I agree. that's what I ended up buying. I also was interested in
modifying the mini-controller for RS-232 control, because I was unaware of
the CP290 until a few days later when several people in s.e. sent me mail
and told me that something like that existed and where I could purchase it.
I wound up paying $50 for it; I couldn't wait until it was on sale (:->),
and just had to get it home and play with it. It's a pretty neat unit, and
I think for $50 it's not too overpriced. But the mini-controller RS-232
hack would have been fun!
->I don't know of any spec sheets available, since the GI chips were custom
->manufactured for X-10. However, there have been numerous articles about the
->X-10 system and how to build computer interfaces to it. A good article
->describing the system is in the September 1980 Radio Electronics. Also look
->at back issues of Byte magazine.
thanks. one of the things that I wanted to do was to modify the remote
radio receivers so that their internal switched outlet would respond to a
units number other than 1 (or 9, depending on how you have the unit range
switch set).
->>I think it's basically a sound system, the major weakness in the whole
->>scheme is the way that the manufacturers seemed to have low-balled the
->>controllers; a little more programmability would do wonders to make the
->>system easier to live with.
->I think the major weakness in the system in no feedback from the controlled
->module. There is no way of knowing if a controlled device is on or off,
->since local control can override any commands sent remotely. There was
->rumor that X-10 was going to introduce another carrier current remote
->control system in the near future. I have not heard anything about it
->recently, however.
agreed! the wall switches are the most notorious in this regard, especially
with roommates that don't fully appreciate the implications of randomly
turning the lights on and off! I would be happy with a facility whereby I
could query a particular unit/house-code combination and find out it's
status, but then I don't know how data collissions from several units
responding to the same address would be sorted out. perhaps each remote
device should have a unique number, in addition to the unit/house-code
number, and you could use that unique number to query each unit in turn.
has anyone heard some talk of developing a new "house bus"? my friend Jeff
was telling me something about this, be he was pretty sketchy on the
details. he called it a C3 bus or something similar??
Well, time to dim some light in some remote part of the house from
the dining room table (not that it needs to be dimmed, but I just
enjoy the fact that I CAN dim it from wherever I am :->)
mike
p.s. thanks for the data points, Jim
--
Won't look like rain, Won't look like snow, | DOD #000007
Won't look like fog, That's all we know! | AMA #511250
We just can't tell you anymore, We've never made oobleck before! | MSC #298726