Retrofitting Idratek in soon to be our house

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Geps
    Automated Home Guru
    • Nov 2010
    • 136

    #46
    Originally posted by eddr View Post
    Karam,

    I'm sure there would be - when you say non readable, you mean non readable status/feedback (is it on/off did it turn on/off) ? If so, howcome this isn't possible ? I've always wondered why every other RF device apart from z-wave doesnt offer this functionality.
    I read it as him referring to the Homeeasy sockets (not sure if these have report back functionality)....

    Comment

    • Karam
      Automated Home Legend
      • Mar 2005
      • 863

      #47
      Originally posted by eddr View Post
      I'm sure there would be - when you say non readable, you mean non readable status/feedback (is it on/off did it turn on/off) ? If so, howcome this isn't possible ? I've always wondered why every other RF device apart from z-wave doesnt offer this functionality.
      Yes refering to the sockets. Unlike z-wave or ZigBee for example, these just have radio receivers so they can't acknowledge the reception of a command nor send back information on the present socket on/off state. To increase reliability a command frame has multiple copies of the command packet so increasing chances of one being seen.

      Comment

      • eddr
        Automated Home Sr Member
        • Mar 2011
        • 51

        #48
        Originally posted by Karam View Post
        Yes refering to the sockets. Unlike z-wave or ZigBee for example, these just have radio receivers so they can't acknowledge the reception of a command nor send back information on the present socket on/off state. To increase reliability a command frame has multiple copies of the command packet so increasing chances of one being seen.
        Interesting - How hard would it be to implement a transmitter then to provide feedback? Surely, you would have to do this anyway for the receiver to receive. Is it cost or just very complicated?

        Comment

        • Karam
          Automated Home Legend
          • Mar 2005
          • 863

          #49
          Originally posted by eddr View Post
          Interesting - How hard would it be to implement a transmitter then to provide feedback? Surely, you would have to do this anyway for the receiver to receive. Is it cost or just very complicated?
          Not sure what you mean by having to implement a transmitter anyway - do you mean that since you are designing the electronics for this anyway for the command transmitter it should therefore be easy to replicate this design at the socket too? (and of course have a receiver at the command transmitter point in order to receive the feedback) ?

          Anyhow the answer is that, partly, yes it costs a little bit more for a transceiver (combined Rx/Tx device) but these are commonly available as single chip solutions and creating a hardware design with them is pretty easy. However the main issue is complexity above the hardware stage. If you are going to the trouble of using a transceiver scheme then you have to take much more care with the communication protocol and also what you do with the data. So the manufcaturer would have to have a good reason and some applications which make compelling use of this capability as well as perhaps somewhat more knowledgeable staff.

          Comment

          • eddr
            Automated Home Sr Member
            • Mar 2011
            • 51

            #50
            Originally posted by Karam View Post
            Not sure what you mean by having to implement a transmitter anyway - do you mean that since you are designing the electronics for this anyway for the command transmitter it should therefore be easy to replicate this design at the socket too? (and of course have a receiver at the command transmitter point in order to receive the feedback) ?

            Anyhow the answer is that, partly, yes it costs a little bit more for a transceiver (combined Rx/Tx device) but these are commonly available as single chip solutions and creating a hardware design with them is pretty easy. However the main issue is complexity above the hardware stage. If you are going to the trouble of using a transceiver scheme then you have to take much more care with the communication protocol and also what you do with the data. So the manufcaturer would have to have a good reason and some applications which make compelling use of this capability as well as perhaps somewhat more knowledgeable staff.
            That's exactly what I meant! Sorry - I'm not the best at explaining what I mean, but I know what I mean in my head - If that makes sense!

            Ok well I'd give the thumbs up anyway if you were going to start making these devices.

            Comment

            • cliffwright
              Automated Home Guru
              • Mar 2007
              • 117

              #51
              Originally posted by eddr View Post
              Ok well I'd give the thumbs up anyway if you were going to start making these devices.
              Idratek don't make Homeeasy products (unless I'm missing something) . . . (If I've read it right) Karam is simply talking about the feasibility of creating an interface to issue control commands 'to' these devices with the obvious limitation that these devices don't 'talk back' so Cortex can't get a sense of device status - exactly the same as the existing X10 gateway functionality that Cortex already has.



              Does anyone know whether the RF communication methodology of Homeeasy is more reliable than the powerline methodology of X10? What I'm trying to understand is what would a Homeeasy gateway in cortex have to offer over and above that of the X10 gateway?
              www.clifford-wright.co.uk/blog

              Comment

              • eddr
                Automated Home Sr Member
                • Mar 2011
                • 51

                #52
                Originally posted by cliffwright View Post
                Idratek don't make Homeeasy products (unless I'm missing something) . . . (If I've read it right) Karam is simply talking about the feasibility of creating an interface to issue control commands 'to' these devices with the obvious limitation that these devices don't 'talk back' so Cortex can't get a sense of device status - exactly the same as the existing X10 gateway functionality that Cortex already has.



                Does anyone know whether the RF communication methodology of Homeeasy is more reliable than the powerline methodology of X10? What I'm trying to understand is what would a Homeeasy gateway in cortex have to offer over and above that of the X10 gateway?
                Ahhh - Ok I have misunderstood.

                Well, from what I have read, it seems the same if not a little more reliable. Alot of the users of Homeeasy have one of these rfxcom things (http://www.rfxcom.com/) that they swear by for more reliable/stronger sending of commands.

                Comment

                Working...
                X