| Author |
 Topic  |
|
ELA
Senior Member
277 Posts |
 Posted - 06/16/2012 : 2:49:12 PM
|
I have recently been getting very poor quality on modules I have ordered in the past year.
By this I mean that I have ended up returning two Appliancelincs and two 2413 PLMs for defects after a very short time.
Three of those were transmitters that stopped working and one was for bugs in the firmware. I returned one PLM for a known bug in the V98 firmware. The replacement worked for a short while and then its transmitter stopped working.
I just received the 2nd replacement PLM and its transmitter is weak right out of the box! (This is a V1.6 hardware V99 firmware.
It is not i2CS by the way! Will the PLMs ever be i2CS and if so when?)
It has now gotten to the point where I test each module as soon as I receive it on an isolated network. This new PLM works but has a very weak signal strength. I will be returning this one as well!
I have two good test PLMs that both put out 4.5-5V p-p when driving only one other Insteon load on an isolated network. This newest PLM only puts out 1V p-p into the same load!!! This is totally unacceptable and obviously does not meet the 3.2V min. into a 5 ohms load specification.
Obviously these are not tested for signal strength before shipment.
I understand this is a user to user forum and I fully intend to bring this up with Smarthome on Monday. The gold line is not available today.
I wanted to alert other users that I have experienced this issue and that they should be weary. I have the luxury of being able to test my modules signal strength. I know before I install these in my network that there is an issue.
We often see on these forums issues with people not being able to linc a device. Or issues of scenes not working or devices turning on but not off. Most often people are directed to assure proper coupling between legs and to watch out for signal suckers.
This is all good advice but what if your real issue is a poor quality device (underpowered transmitter). How do you know for sure?
This particular module will work in a small network (for how long though?). It will not work in a larger network. It may not be tolerant of small signal suckers, that a good quality device (full powered transmitter) might be.
Often a person is instructed to use an extension cord or move a device closer to the PLM. This is also good troubleshooting advice. If the device starts working after the move was the cause then the network attenuation or a poor signal strength device!
This poor signal strength issue concerns me greatly as far as how is the average user to know???
|
|
|
jdale
Advanced Member
USA
1013 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2012 : 2:58:14 PM
|
quote:
(This is a V1.6 hardware V99 firmware.
It is not i2CS by the way! Will the PLMs ever be i2CS and if so when?)
What would be the point? The i2cs protocol has some new features, some of which are advantageous in some cases. For example, the devices send a report of how many devices didn't respond. What happens to that data? It's received at a PLM and can be used by software. Why would the PLM need to transmit that information itself? The PLM already makes that information available to the computer.
Another new feature is that extended commands to the devices use checksums to ensure accuracy. But how often do you send extended commands *to* a PLM? Basically it only happens when the extended messages are responses to messages sent by the PLM. If the other device is not i2cs that response won't have a checksum.
|
Insteon FAQ: http://goo.gl/qNTNr |
Edited by - jdale on 06/16/2012 8:17:51 PM |
 |
|
|
EVIL Teken
Advanced Member
Canada
968 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2012 : 3:08:04 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by ELA
I have recently been getting very poor quality on modules I have ordered in the past year.
By this I mean that I have ended up returning two Appliancelincs and two 2413 PLMs for defects after a very short time.
Three of those were transmitters that stopped working and one was for bugs in the firmware. I returned one PLM for a known bug in the V98 firmware. The replacement worked for a short while and then its transmitter stopped working.
I just received the 2nd replacement PLM and its transmitter is weak right out of the box! (This is a V1.6 hardware V99 firmware.
It is not i2CS by the way! Will the PLMs ever be i2CS and if so when?)
It has now gotten to the point where I test each module as soon as I receive it on an isolated network. This new PLM works but has a very weak signal strength. I will be returning this one as well!
I have two good test PLMs that both put out 4.5-5V p-p when driving only one other Insteon load on an isolated network. This newest PLM only puts out 1V p-p into the same load!!! This is totally unacceptable and obviously does not meet the 3.2V min. into a 5 ohms load specification.
Obviously these are not tested for signal strength before shipment.
I understand this is a user to user forum and I fully intend to bring this up with Smarthome on Monday. The gold line is not available today.
I wanted to alert other users that I have experienced this issue and that they should be weary. I have the luxury of being able to test my modules signal strength. I know before I install these in my network that there is an issue.
We often see on these forums issues with people not being able to linc a device. Or issues of scenes not working or devices turning on but not off. Most often people are directed to assure proper coupling between legs and to watch out for signal suckers.
This is all good advice but what if your real issue is a poor quality device (underpowered transmitter). How do you know for sure?
This particular module will work in a small network (for how long though?). It will not work in a larger network. It may not be tolerant of small signal suckers, that a good quality device (full powered transmitter) might be.
Often a person is instructed to use an extension cord or move a device closer to the PLM. This is also good troubleshooting advice. If the device starts working after the move was the cause then the network attenuation or a poor signal strength device!
This poor signal strength issue concerns me greatly as far as how is the average user to know???
ELA,
As always your thought provoking comments ring true with me. I have out of course, never purchased any *NEW Released* module from the on set.
Design flaws, unknown firmware problems, I2CS incorporation, et, etc. The problem is firstly quality control, next is the lack of communication in terms of advancements of new modules, next is the idiotic deprecation of features, again with NO announcements of such.
Last, but not least is the lack of support in the paid forum for those willing to participate in such.
This is why almost 5 years ago to the day I did not jump on board with the Insteon protocol. There were too many problems, not enough acknowledgement about what to do, and how to support said problems.
Having said all of this: I do agree with you that, with out the tools you use, or the feed back received from others in various forums the end user would have no freaking clue what was going on.
They would be commanded to confirm coupling, signal suckers, signal makers, and on and on. All the while it is the components that are lacking any product quality to proper signal output / reception.
Case in point are the dual band KPL's . . . There is no way these devices can transmit RF signals in any meaningful way in a metal junction box. In Canada, all of the J box are metal by code. what should have been done is made the antenna placement in the freaking front of the face of the unit and NOT hidden in the back! 
The other thing that gets my goat is the stupid placement of the ground strap! What moron thought it would be a great idea to stamp a 12 guage wire into a bottom plate??
How is the end user supposed to push the blasted thing into the wall trim and make it sit flush??
What a epic fail . . .
Trust me I have commented about this to the vendor numerous times over the years along with stating it on the various public forums. 
Teken . . . |
|
|
|
Tfitzpatri8
Administrator
USA
6888 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2012 : 3:16:22 PM
|
This sounds a lot like the "how do I know the light is turning off when I close the refrigerator door" problem.
Simple tests of signal voltage can be misleading. Power levels of transmitters and sensitivity of receivers can vary somewhat because of naturally occurring differences in the electronic components involved, the temperature of the components, automatic gain control used to filter out interference, and more.
Cell phones rarely transmit at full voltage because that would violate their design; they are directed by the receiving cell site to adjust their power level to maximize individual device effectiveness while at the same time minimizing the interference they cause with neighboring cell towers. This is mere speculation on my part, but Insteon uses proprietary components and technology to determine what is best for the network, so simple observations may be lacking important context and understanding of why devices adjust as they do and what factors over what period of time might intentionally change that behavior.
Personally, I follow best-practices in installing, then if I run across something unexplained I swap with a known-good piece of equipment and compare results. No expensive test rig required. On the rare occasion that a problem follows the module, I have reason to suspect a hardware issue; normally, the problem stays with whatever gear is in a particular outlet or box, then I know to look for environmental interference.
It seems pretty unlikely that they have singled you out to receive damaged goods. This forum is a great resource, thousands upon thousands of messages explain problems in detail. Nearly all conversations about communications issues end with a user talking about a violation of 'best practices' and resolving the problem by correcting something in the environment.
Furthermore, if there is indeed a problem with a particular unit, it might exhibit itself in some other way than in a signal power. Using an expensive piece of test equipment wouldn't identify problems with switch contacts or relays or sensor ICs or receivers or any other components beyond the transmitter.
IMHO, this sounds like a solution in search of a problem rather than the other way around. |
Volunteer Moderator & Home Automation Enthusiast |
|
|
|
ELA
Senior Member
277 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2012 : 6:58:04 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by jdale
(This is a V1.6 hardware V99 firmware.
It is not i2CS by the way! Will the PLMs ever be i2CS and if so when?)
What would be the point?
Hello Jdale,
That comment was a side note to the issue of reliability I wanted to address.
The point was that the PLM is not only used as the main interface for upper level controllers. It also forms the basis for new design devices. Is it not sold as an integral part of the developers kit?
I am also finding that this unit does not support the "09" command to begin remote linking.
Perhaps some may consider this trivial but if i2CS is really worth anything then the PLM itself should support it. |
|
|
|
ELA
Senior Member
277 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2012 : 7:00:53 PM
|
Thank you EVIL Teken,
I agree they certainly do some strange things and do not support us as well as I would hope.
|
|
|
|
ELA
Senior Member
277 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2012 : 7:32:54 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tfitzpatri8
Simple tests of signal voltage can be misleading. Power levels of transmitters and sensitivity of receivers can vary somewhat because of naturally occurring differences in the electronic components involved, the temperature of the components, automatic gain control used to filter out interference, and more.
Tfitzpatri8,
I understand you are a moderator and perhaps you feel a need to represent Smarthome. Did you miss where I stated that the testing performed was on an isolated network? Have you ever used an oscilloscope?
quote:
Originally posted by Tfitzpatri8
This is mere speculation on my part, but Insteon uses proprietary components and technology to determine what is best for the network, so simple observations may be lacking important context and understanding of why devices adjust as they do and what factors over what period of time might intentionally change that behavior.
While some things about Insteon may always remain a mystery, simple signal strength measurements are well understood when performed in an isolated network environment.
quote:
Originally posted by Tfitzpatri8
Personally, I follow best-practices in installing, then if I run across something unexplained I swap with a known-good piece of equipment and compare results. No expensive test rig required. On the rare occasion that a problem follows the module, I have reason to suspect a hardware issue; normally, the problem stays with whatever gear is in a particular outlet or box, then I know to look for environmental interference.
I compliment you on your successes without using test equipment.
Test equipment used properly does not lie and allows a person to quantify performance. My point in this post is not to boast about test equipment. It is to express dissatisfaction with units being sent out the door that do not meet Insteons specifications. You may chose to believe that I am not qualified to perform such testing and that is fine.
I wanted others to know that this is a possibility when they are searching for answers to their problems.
quote:
Originally posted by Tfitzpatri8
It seems pretty unlikely that they have singled you out to receive damaged goods. This forum is a great resource, thousands upon thousands of messages explain problems in detail. Nearly all conversations about communications issues end with a user talking about a violation of 'best practices' and resolving the problem by correcting something in the environment.
I do not believe they have singled me out. That is rather a ridiculous statement on your part.
The point is that the average user will not have a clue without testing. My hopes would be for Smarthome to improve its quality control so that end users do not need to question the products signal strength.
quote:
Originally posted by Tfitzpatri8
Furthermore, if there is indeed a problem with a particular unit, it might exhibit itself in some other way than in a signal power. Using an expensive piece of test equipment wouldn't identify problems with switch contacts or relays or sensor ICs or receivers or any other components beyond the transmitter.
And at this point I have to say that you are really reaching. I understand that you may not respect my knowledge on the subject and thus you elect to speculate on things that you really have no clue about.
Here is the test performed:
PLMA sends to PLMB on an isolated network. Meaning a filterlinc isolated both devices from the powerline and any other devices.
An oscilloscope monitors the signal strengths on the 120VAC line.
Both send and receive are equal strengths, all three hops are strong at 4.5 -5V p-p.
The are no sensors, relays, switch contacts, signal suckers or noise sources involved. This is an isolated network.
Now put PLMC (the new unit with issues) in the place of PLMB.
Everything else remains the same.
Now PLM A sends at 4.5 -5V p-p. All PLMA's hops are 4.5-5V p-p.
PLMC replies at 1Vp-p. All PLMS's hops are only 1V p-p.
|
Edited by - ELA on 06/16/2012 7:36:29 PM |
|
|
|
EVIL Teken
Advanced Member
Canada
968 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2012 : 8:11:10 PM
|
ELA,
At the end of the day you have brought upon us all some awareness. It comes down to the vendor to act upon this information and correct it. My personal experience is that the vendor (even if it is slow) does in fact act upon all known problems.
Historically, the vendor has updated the firmware to correct those problems. In the extreme case the entire hardware platform is redesigned from the ground up.
I2CS was a perfect example where firmware was released for the SmartLinc. This was also done for the UDI ISY-99 product line as this vendor was not made aware of the newer protocol.
(Lack of communication to the 3rd party vendors - Which seems to be a bad trend)
Regardless, its threads like these that bring to light problems and solutions to all. For the record, I have been very pleased with SmartHome as a seller. They have proven in the last 2 years to me that someone is monitoring and reading these forums. They are also taking the suggestions of the masses and incorporating key features in to future product lines.
It comes down to consistent QA, and follow up with the people on the assembly line. Sampling, testing, and validating of products is must, and must continue to ensure customer satisfaction. The latest Insteon TSTAT is another perfect example of a product being launched with out testing, and validation to ensure the bugs are all worked out.
Again, being a first adopter in this arena is rarely rewarded in a positive fashion . . .
Teken . . . |
|
|
|
stusviews
Advanced Member
USA
8463 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2012 : 9:02:32 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by ELA
Here is the test performed:
PLMA sends to PLMB on an isolated network. Meaning a filterlinc isolated both devices from the powerline and any other devices.
An oscilloscope monitors the signal strengths on the 120VAC line.
Both send and receive are equal strengths, all three hops are strong at 4.5 -5V p-p.
The are no sensors, relays, switch contacts, signal suckers or noise sources involved. This is an isolated network.
Now put PLMC (the new unit with issues) in the place of PLMB.
Everything else remains the same.
Now PLM A sends at 4.5 -5V p-p. All PLMA's hops are 4.5-5V p-p.
PLMC replies at 1Vp-p. All PLMS's hops are only 1V p-p.
At what level does PLMC send when it initiates a signal? Just curious. |
Stu's Views is Education and Fun. What do YOU want to VIEW today?
MathLandia High school mathematics fun and learning.
Both Stu's Views and MathLandia are free websites that do not sell anything.
Saving energy is not always free. Be a world saver. |
|
|
|
Tfitzpatri8
Administrator
USA
6888 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2012 : 10:21:10 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by ELA
quote:
Originally posted by Tfitzpatri8
Simple tests of signal voltage can be misleading. Power levels of transmitters and sensitivity of receivers can vary somewhat because of naturally occurring differences in the electronic components involved, the temperature of the components, automatic gain control used to filter out interference, and more.
I understand you are a moderator and perhaps you feel a need to represent Smarthome. Did you miss where I stated that the testing performed was on an isolated network? Have you ever used an oscilloscope?
For the record, I pledge allegiance only to the United States of America. I do not represent Smarthome or SmartLabs. My concern is about accuracy and understanding--no one's interests are served if we yell "The sky is falling" every time we see something we don't expect or understand.
Here's what I observed: I saw that you set up an isolated network--fact. I saw that you measured p-p values on that isolated network--fact. I saw that you recorded different values on different versions of equipment, something that you did not expect--fact. You have a background as an E.E., so I have reasonable confidence that your equipment is calibrated and in working order--fact. I believe those are all valid observations, I'm glad you shared your results. My concern is with your conclusions, not your measurements.
Compare your results to the results you would get if you measured output from a cell phone. If you measured only radio signal strength from different cell phones in different stores without understanding the correct operation of the hardware layer--without understanding that one of the three cell towers the phone was connecting to was actually remotely directing the phone to transmit at higher or lower power--you might reasonably conclude that one cell phone was 'defective' from others or that there was a quality control issue in the manufacture of similar phones because the same model would transmit a weaker or stronger signal than the others based on something unobserved to you--the hardware is simply responding to signals outside your observation to optimize the network, as designed.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Tfitzpatri8
This is mere speculation on my part, but Insteon uses proprietary components and technology to determine what is best for the network, so simple observations may be lacking important context and understanding of why devices adjust as they do and what factors over what period of time might intentionally change that behavior.
While some things about Insteon may always remain a mystery, simple signal strength measurements are well understood when performed in an isolated network environment.
True, but within limits. Until you see proprietary documentation about the workings of the current-vintage Insteon hardware layer, some of this is going to be a mystery. That's a good thing, competitively speaking, since it probably took a lot of costly research and development to get Insteon ready for use in real-world conditions. If another company in another country could start building and selling Insteon technology worldwide tomorrow without all the costly R&D that SmartLabs had to perform to perfect it, they could potentially steal the entire market and put yet another U.S. high tech company out of business. Whose interests does that serve?
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Tfitzpatri8
Personally, I follow best-practices in installing, then if I run across something unexplained I swap with a known-good piece of equipment and compare results. No expensive test rig required. On the rare occasion that a problem follows the module, I have reason to suspect a hardware issue; normally, the problem stays with whatever gear is in a particular outlet or box, then I know to look for environmental interference.
I compliment you on your successes without using test equipment.
Test equipment used properly does not lie and allows a person to quantify performance.
I agree, properly calibrated test equipment does not lie. (Of course one of the first lessons in electronics classes is that you cannot measure a circuit without affecting it, but that's splitting hairs.) I agree, used properly it does allow a person to quantify performance. However, you must understand the test methodology you described 'assumes' that nothing on the hardware layer adjusts transmitter strength or receiver sensitivity. How are you determining that?
quote:
My point in this post is not to boast about test equipment. It is to express dissatisfaction with units being sent out the door that do not meet Insteons specifications.
That is a concern, but for a different reason than you state. My concern is that they may be adjusting levels on the hardware layer but not updating specs to *remove* a stated minimum transmission level. I haven't checked specs lately. If they are indeed adjusting transmit levels based on conditions, that is an administrative oversight that they should fix.
quote:
You may chose to believe that I am not qualified to perform such testing and that is fine.
I wanted others to know that this is a possibility when they are searching for answers to their problems.
Not at all, a good E.E. is worth his weight in gold! (Or at least in corrosion-resistent gold-plated contacts!)
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Tfitzpatri8
This forum is a great resource, thousands upon thousands of messages explain problems in detail. Nearly all conversations about communications issues end with a user talking about a violation of 'best practices' and resolving the problem by correcting something in the environment.
The point is that the average user will not have a clue without testing. My hopes would be for Smarthome to improve its quality control so that end users do not need to question the products signal strength.
And my point is that I'm unconvinced this is a quality issue. Based on my experience, there are other explanations for your observations.
Following 'best practices' is the key to a successful and happy Insteon installation, in my humble opinion. Relocating devices and retesting is a ridiculously easy way for end-users without o'scopes to check if a problem is environmental or hardware failure. It isn't rocket surgery. 
quote:
And at this point I have to say that you are really reaching. I understand that you may not respect my knowledge on the subject and thus you elect to speculate on things that you really have no clue about.
You lose credibility when you lower yourself to the level of personal attacks. I'll let my successful track record of solving problems here on the forum speak for itself.
quote:
Here is the test performed:
PLMA sends to PLMB on an isolated network. Meaning a filterlinc isolated both devices from the powerline and any other devices.
An oscilloscope monitors the signal strengths on the 120VAC line.
Both send and receive are equal strengths, all three hops are strong at 4.5 -5V p-p.
The are no sensors, relays, switch contacts, signal suckers or noise sources involved. This is an isolated network.
Now put PLMC (the new unit with issues) in the place of PLMB.
Everything else remains the same.
Now PLM A sends at 4.5 -5V p-p. All PLMA's hops are 4.5-5V p-p.
PLMC replies at 1Vp-p. All PLMS's hops are only 1V p-p.
We don't have enough information yet. You neglected to post hardware and firmware version numbers. Are you taking into account that designs and specs have evolved considerably since the first Power Line Modem was introduced? Were all units factory-reset at the time of testing to avoid any AGC influence? Did p-p values change when you factory reset and used a different vintage PLM as transmitter and left the intended receiver disconnected from the circuit? Did p-p values change when you removed the PLM from the isolated circuit and put it on your live network? |
Volunteer Moderator & Home Automation Enthusiast |
|
|
|
ELA
Senior Member
277 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2012 : 11:33:39 AM
|
Stusviews,
It sends at 1V p-p.
Tfitzpatri8,
I am not desiring to attack you. In fact have complemented you more than once on the good work you do here. You solve countless user issues. You are very knowledgeable on Insteon issues. You know a lot more about Insteon products than I do in many regards.
It was your comments on signal strength measurements, associated test equipment and test methodology that made it evident that you do not have an in-depth understanding at a more technical level. I am definitely not implying that you must in order to help people diagnose most issues.
Yet when an engineer presents data you over extend yourself to debate it. Reasonable questions are always welcome. Sometimes you come on with an attitude that provokes.
I earlier provided the PLM C hardware and firmware levels.
The other two test PLMS A & B were both Hardware R1.4 Firmware V92.
PLM "D" I returned was hardware R1.5, Firmware V98, PLM "E" I had returned was Hardware R1.6 Firmware R99 ( the same as this Unit C with the issue now ).
PLMD had a good signal strength > 4V p-p but bad firmware.
PLME had an initial signal level > 4V p-p before it degraded and stopped working all together.
I have tested the signal levels of over 25+ devices and none of them had levels of 1V p-p ( when tested in an isolated environment, 5 or greater ohms load).
One other exception was one of the APLs I returned recently that initially had a fairly strong signal level near the 3.2V specification but degraded down to 1V p-p and then stopped working all together.
|
|
|
|
ELA
Senior Member
277 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2012 : 12:22:29 PM
|
Here are some Oscilloscope traces so that you can see what I have tried to describe. I am posting these because I find it much easier to visualize the difference than to describe it.
Would you want PLM C as your system interface?
1.0-1.5V p-p vs 4.5-5V p-p |
|
|
|
ELA
Senior Member
277 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2012 : 11:07:20 AM
|
As a followup:
I received my third replacement PLM today. It was another R1.6, V99 unit.
Here is the signal strength of this new unit:
As you can see this new unit as it should be! This leaves no doubt that the previous unit was an inferior product out of the box!
Back to my original point. How is the average user to know of or identify such a defect?
The last unit communicated fine in an isolated environment. It would likely have worked ok in a small network. It would have been problematic in a larger network. |
|
|
|
EVIL Teken
Advanced Member
Canada
968 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2012 : 2:07:40 PM
|
ELA,
Could you express this in numerical values. How much more powerful is this new unit compared to the older one just replaced? 50% more? 25%?
Teken . . . |
|
|
|
ELA
Senior Member
277 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2012 : 3:06:28 PM
|
Hi Teken,
I would be happy to elaborate.
The latest unit reads about 4.5V p-p compared to the 1 -1.5V p-p of the inferior unit. So about 3x ( 300%) more powerful.
I have owned and tested a total of 9 PLMs now. All but my very first 2412S met the the 3.2V min p-p into 5 ohms specification. The 2412S was a little less than 3V p-p.
All the others were 2413s and they all measured greater than 4V p-p.
I would like to qualify that when I quote these numbers they should not be considered absolutes. As you can see from the Oscilloscope traces there is a lot of variances in the signal from signal packet to packet. How it appears on the O'Scope also depends upon the storage mode used on the scope ( I used peak detect).
What I always want to emphasize are the relative amplitudes ( just as you had asked). When I test, I measure under the same conditions, using the same test equipment and only one Insteon Load. I do not know for sure what Smartlabs uses as the 5 ohm standard load.
I can say from my development testing that 1 Insteon load is larger than 5 ohms so with only one load a unit tested should meet the 3.2V p-p level.
From my experience all Insteon transmitters vary from unit to unit and that is to be expected in production runs of units. All should however meet the minimum spec. If you get a unit that is less than the minimum spec. I consider it an defective unit.
Of course I am not going to alert " The sky is falling", as has been implied, if I get a unit a little less than 3.2V.
However when you get a unit at only 1- 1.5V that is way too low and that unit should be returned.
I also want to add that getting such a unit once in a great while also does not constitute "the sky is falling".
The point of my thread was to alert users that they could be receiving inferior units and never know it. When a unit is totally defective that is of course relatively easy to sort out for most people.
When a unit like this last one is encountered I am not convinced that even an experienced Insteon person would be able to tell without test equipment.
It was also my hope that when I called Smarthome they would take notice just in case there might be a design/production issue.
(After all I have had 3 units now with weak/defective transmitters.)
But their tech said they do not have capability of performing signal level testing. Couldn't they possibly offer to flag that unit for root cause analysis when returned to Smartlabs?
If it is a one off issue so be it ....
Consider a scenario like this:
A person orders a PLM ( plus some upper level control software/hardware) and one or two devices to get started. All devices are on the same phase (leg) or the phases are coupled and all units are located relatively close to each other. The PLM has a low amplitude transmitter but goes unnoticed since everything communicates and works together.
The person is happy with their install and after a year decides to expand and buys several new devices. That person now finds that they have trouble linking some of them, or unreliable communications with certain devices. They find their way to a forum and are told all the normal troubleshooting ideas.
Which one of those ideas is going to identify the original PLM as the culprit? Most would look hard at one of the new devices or signal suckers as most likely possibilities. I think I would.
In conclusion, The Sky is not Falling ...
But be aware that defective units like this exist and could be a real challenge to identify.
|
|
|
|
EVIL Teken
Advanced Member
Canada
968 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2012 : 3:32:51 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by ELA
Hi Teken,
I would be happy to elaborate.
The latest unit reads about 4.5V p-p compared to the 1 -1.5V p-p of the inferior unit. So about 3x ( 300%) more powerful.
I have owned and tested a total of 9 PLMs now. All but my very first 2412S met the the 3.2V min p-p into 5 ohms specification. The 2412S was a little less than 3V p-p.
All the others were 2413s and they all measured greater than 4V p-p.
I would like to qualify that when I quote these numbers they should not be considered absolutes. As you can see from the Oscilloscope traces there is a lot of variances in the signal from signal packet to packet. How it appears on the O'Scope also depends upon the storage mode used on the scope ( I used peak detect).
What I always want to emphasize are the relative amplitudes ( just as you had asked). When I test, I measure under the same conditions, using the same test equipment and only one Insteon Load. I do not know for sure what Smartlabs uses as the 5 ohm standard load.
I can say from my development testing that 1 Insteon load is larger than 5 ohms so with only one load a unit tested should meet the 3.2V p-p level.
From my experience all Insteon transmitters vary from unit to unit and that is to be expected in production runs of units. All should however meet the minimum spec. If you get a unit that is less than the minimum spec. I consider it an defective unit.
Of course I am not going to alert " The sky is falling", as has been implied, if I get a unit a little less than 3.2V.
However when you get a unit at only 1- 1.5V that is way too low and that unit should be returned.
I also want to add that getting such a unit once in a great while also does not constitute "the sky is falling".
The point of my thread was to alert users that they could be receiving inferior units and never know it. When a unit is totally defective that is of course relatively easy to sort out for most people.
When a unit like this last one is encountered I am not convinced that even an experienced Insteon person would be able to tell without test equipment.
It was also my hope that when I called Smarthome they would take notice just in case there might be a design/production issue.
(After all I have had 3 units now with weak/defective transmitters.)
But their tech said they do not have capability of performing signal level testing. Couldn't they possibly offer to flag that unit for root cause analysis when returned to Smartlabs?
If it is a one off issue so be it ....
Consider a scenario like this:
A person orders a PLM ( plus some upper level control software/hardware) and one or two devices to get started. All devices are on the same phase (leg) or the phases are coupled and all units are located relatively close to each other. The PLM has a low amplitude transmitter but goes unnoticed since everything communicates and works together.
The person is happy with their install and after a year decides to expand and buys several new devices. That person now finds that they have trouble linking some of them, or unreliable communications with certain devices. They find their way to a forum and are told all the normal troubleshooting ideas.
Which one of those ideas is going to identify the original PLM as the culprit? Most would look hard at one of the new devices or signal suckers as most likely possibilities. I think I would.
In conclusion, The Sky is not Falling ...
But be aware that defective units like this exist and could be a real challenge to identify.
As always I appreciate your insight and feed back. I also agree with the last portion of your post. With respect to trouble shooting something like yours (weak signal). With out the proper tools or knowledge to validate such assumptions a user has nothing to confirm such a thought.
The Sky is not falling, but variability, consistency of the product is still a problem.
Teken . . . |
|
|
|
IndyMike
Senior Member
321 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2012 : 4:25:53 PM
|
Hello ELA,
We have corresponded in the past regarding differences in unit output levels - we've both observed them. While I agree that your "suspect" PLM would appear to have a significantly lower output than the others tested, I cannot agree that it is defective.
The sample rate used in the plots you presented doesn't support any type of reliable voltage measurement at the Insteon communication frequency. Add the fact that your loading is "one Insteon load" and not the specified 5 ohms and I have trouble drawing any conclusions on whether this unit meets the quoted output level. Do you have data that you have not presented above?
I would also question the 1V p-p output level that you have quoted. This appears to be some sort of average or rms value that you have assessed. The plots themselves indicate an envelope of roughly 2V p-p. Since you are undersampling, the absence of data is expected. The presence of data is real and must be included.
I ran a couple of comparison captures to illustrate the effects of undersampling. I attempted to reproduce your scope voltage and frequency settings on the first capture. The closest I could get to the sample rate was 2.5K/sec (vs your 2K/sec) and I had to expand the timebase to 20 ms (vs your 50 ms) to accomplish that.
Message originator: V.98 2413UH PLM
Message responder: V.38 2456S3 ApplianceLinc
0 Hop transmission, no retries
Isolated circuit
Capture 1 @2.5K samples/sec
0 Hop PLM transmission
0 Hop ApplianceLinc response @2.64V
Capture 2 @25M samples/sec
0 Hop PLM transmission
0 Hop ApplianceLinc response @4.24V
From the above, I can say that the Appliancelinc output is somewhat lower than the PLM. I can't say anything about absolute values since I don't have a calibrated load. I can also say that the output voltage is certainly not the 2.64V p-p produced by the 2.5K sample/sec capture.
|
|
|
|
ELA
Senior Member
277 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2012 : 7:01:11 PM
|
Hello IndyMike!,
Let me start by saying I am very happy to hear from you. It has been a long time. I respect and welcome your questioning of my data.
Please help me better understand your questions:
I have tested very many devices under the same conditions. If you read last post you saw where I stressed not focusing on absolute values due to all the variables involved. What I directed the focus on was the relative values. All tests were performed at the same O'Scopes settings, with the same single Insteon load.
I thought you and I had agreed a while back that an single Insteon load was greater than 5 ohms, did we not? Does it not follow that if a device will only produce 1.5Vp-p into a load greater than 5 ohms that it will produce somewhat less than that at 5 ohms?
I further qualified that I was using "peak detect mode" on the scope.
You will indeed see lower levels when not using peak detect and when "zoomed in".
The point once again is all of that is irrelevant if you compare values between two separate test load devices and all data is compared using the very same oscope settings.
I have been at this for a long time now and using the very same technique. It is now very easy for me to quickly distinguish differences between device outputs.
All that being said, I am always open to being questioned as to the validity of my data. Especially from someone with similar test equipment. I screw up just like anyone else. I can misinterpret data with the best of them.
When you question my 1V p-p value as a possible average or RMS value please keep in mind that I always used the same 50ms/div setting and peak detect enabled. There is no RMS or averaging involved. No O'scope settings are changed between subsequent tests.
I go to great pains to assure that I test under the very same conditions. I chose to use the 50ms/div setting for comparisons because it displays the full data of a 3 hop send/reply best.
Also note that in all my testing the APL transmit level has never been as great as that of my PLMS.
Perhaps I introduced some question when I over-wrote the ms/div setting by adding my comments in the very last Oscope post. I am sure you can tell that it is the very same 50ms/div setting however?
Again I welcome your questions.
How do you reconcile the difference measured between the inferior device O'scope capture and the new device I just received, given all O'scope settings are exactly the same? I have measured over 25 separate Insteon devices using this identical technique. None have demonstrated as low of a level as this inferior PLM. ( one exception was a PLM that started out near 3V p-p and deteriorated over time down to 100mv p-p) That was one of the failures I mentioned that I returned recently.
Once again I will emphasize that absolute measurements can be debated all day long depending upon O'scope settings, what constitutes a "Standard Insteon load", the test environment etc.
All the data I presented was with the very same OScope settings, using the same Filterlinc to isolate the test environment, the same initiator PLM A, the same direct message send.
Please let me know where I miss stepped?
I really had hoped that Smarthome would have agreed to do a root cause analysis. Or given that the tech said they did not have the capability to measure signal levels, that they would have flagged it for Smartlabs to do the same. While it would have been some what embarrassing to be proved wrong, I welcomed the analysis.
I really , really wanted them to test and confirm or deny my findings.
I also entertained doing a root cause analysis myself ( after all this is my strong suit). I just did not care to drop $72 since the unit was brand new and right out of the package.
One other note that I had not mentioned until now. As you know I have developed an Insteon tester I call the ELAM. I initially tested the signal strength using that tester. It showed a very weak signal strength. Not wanting to believe that result I went to great lengths to prove that is was not accurate. However it was reporting correctly.
Further Info add:
I do not know if your scope includes a "peak detect mode"?
Here is a note from my Oscope manual and why I chose that mode to display captures:
quote:
In Normal or Average acquisition modes, at longer horizontal time/div
settings, the oscilloscope’s analog- to- digital converter samples at a rate
that yields more samples than can be stored in a limited amount of
oscilloscope memory. Consequently, samples are thrown away (decimated),
and you can miss narrow excursions on a signal.
However, in the Peak Detect acquisition mode, acquisitions are made at
the fastest sample rate, and the minimum and maximum values for the
period associated with the actual sample rate are stored. This way, you
can capture narrow excursions on a signal at longer horizontal time/div
settings.
Because minimum and maximum values for a sample period are stored,
you can use the Peak Detect acquisition mode to avoid waveform aliasing.
Your posted waveforms demonstrate exactly why I always use peak detect mode. They do not provide any reason for anyone to doubt the data I posted. In addition I do not understand how anyone can doubt what they see on any one oscope capture where both devices are being shown on the very same scale/settings. Are you implying that that the Oscope selectively discriminated against one and only one PLM?
|
Edited by - ELA on 07/01/2012 08:06:17 AM |
|
|
|
durgadas311
Starting Member
USA
6 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2012 : 7:52:46 PM
|
| interesting discussion. I seem to have gotten one of these weak 2413S devices. V1.6, device ID 1c.fb.cc, "QC-2" I'm wondering if these devices are getting resold without being repaired. in my case, the device exhibited both weak transmission and reception. I have not gone to such lengths to test, but have been working with x10 for a long time and am comparing this to existing cm11a, tw523, and Merrick LynX-10 device operation on the same network setup. |
|
|
|
ELA
Senior Member
277 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2012 : 08:14:09 AM
|
hello durgadas311,
I sympathize with your current issue. As I stated in these posts it is very difficult to diagnose a weak signal strength issue without test equipment and an isolated test environment.
If you read these posts you also see that there are those who do doubt my conclusion. While I feel 100% confident in the assessment of my device as inferior and out of spec., I would only be speculating if I commented on you situation without test data.
I would defer to others here to comment on your situation and as to how you might access whether or not your PLM has a weak transmitter or if there are other issues you might need to address. |
|
|
|
IndyMike
Senior Member
321 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2012 : 08:24:03 AM
|
Hello ELA,
The fact that you were using the Peak detect function certainly does change things. I had missed your statement in the post to Teken. It was also not obvious that Peak detect was enabled in viewing your plots. Our scopes present the information differently. Yours shows a very narrow baseline which I took for a standard sampled data capture (yep, I ASSumed). I really should have known that you would not have made such an error.
I typically do not use the Peak detect function because I'm interested in timing as well as amplitude. Since you are using the function, the scope is likely utilizing it's maximum sample rate to define the min/max points of the transmission. Would you mind providing that sample rate?
On the issue of Insteon loading, I have a value of roughly 0.2 uF stuck in my mind (can't find my measurements at the moment). I do remember one device (a Timerlinc) that was a significantly higher load - there is variation. My testing was performed on older units, prior to the power supply re-design. Currently shipping hardware may be different.
Unfortunately, the old days where we could talk directly with a Smartlabs engineer are long gone. Your unit could be suffering from something as simple as a bad solder joint, or something more complex like a bad power converter. That would have been very nice to know.
Given the information you've presented this units is definitely suspicious. Given that there are losses that arise when using different filtering/coupling methods and the questions on loading, I'm still not sure that I would make the statements:
1) This unit does not meet the 3.2 V p-p into 5 ohms.
2) Smartlabs does not test units for signal strength prior to shipment.
You are obviously comfortable with the above - so be it.
|
|
|
|
ELA
Senior Member
277 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2012 : 08:48:23 AM
|
Thanks for your clarifications IndyMike,
The scope handles the sample rates internally when in peak detect mode and thus I cannot provide the sample rate. If you read the quote, they specifically track min and max so that those critical pieces of information are not lost.
Peak detect mode works well for most timing requirements also.
I do use "normal mode" whenever I want to confirm timing accuracy.
For input impedance they have a 0.22uf cap in series with the T1 transformer inductance. From countless measurements I have done I usually pick a minimum value of 8-9 ohms.
When I talked with Smarthome they told me they do not have capability of testing signal strengths. I specifically asked if they could test my return. I had also requested that they test the replacement unit so that I could be assured of a good unit given the past history I have experienced of late.
As far as why it is inferior it could be too many things to speculate on including an incorrect value component placement.
While people may not agree that I can claim it does not meet the 3.2V p-p minimum into 5 ohm spec.
I do not think they would want to accept that inferior unit when compared to my 8 other PLM units measured, all with so much greater amplitude.
|
|
|
|
BLH
Advanced Member
3761 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2012 : 09:17:26 AM
|
I find it hard to believe the return could not be tested.
Even if it had to be moved into the Smartlabs area of the facility {Same Address Folks} and an Insteon Engineer evaluated it.
Maybe they will if enough are returned. |
Edited by - BLH on 07/01/2012 09:47:23 AM |
|
|
|
durgadas311
Starting Member
USA
6 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2012 : 10:40:23 AM
|
Hi ELA, thanks for the info. while my diagnostics expertise is mostly related to software, I figure the same basic principals apply. I change only one variable (cm11a vs 2413S) and so I have reasonable confidence that I am seeing weak signal problems. the 2413S works if the target x10 module is essentially plugged into the same outlet. I rely on you for the electronics expertise. just glancing at a blurry schematic, it seems there could easily be defective or out-of-spec components at several places (cap or MOV or ?) that result in such things. as you state, that becomes the manufacturers problem to correct their quality.
it is interesting, and unfortunate, that a lot of companies that had good ideas in this area over the past ten years have gone out of business or discounted their products. I am currently using DataProbe's webx10 on my cm11a, however the firmware has bugs and they stopped making it about the time I bought it. the Merrick LynX-10 was also good, but is no longer made and mine seems to have died. the WebIO product does not receive x10 signals so I can't use it for monitoring, which is vital to me. I was hoping that INSTEON was going to be a product that could keep me going in the future, but we shall see. I'll return this unit and see if I can get one that does work.
BTW, I have a great product from NetMedia (SitePlayer telnet) that allows me to access a serial device over the network. But that is currently limited to RS232 and not USB. Worst case, I can connect it to my cm11a and just hope that old hardware keeps working. But it would be nice to migrate to INSTEON. |
|
|
|
ELA
Senior Member
277 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2012 : 11:43:35 AM
|
Brian,
I agree , you would think Smarthome could test signal strength.
At a minimum they could flag it for a closer inspection by Smartlabs.
I am sure you know how it goes when you call them and experience the luck of the draw with respect to the knowledge base of the tech you connect with. I considered using the old " May I please talk with a supervisor". I hate doing that and I do not even know if it would work with Smarthome.
I also asked the tech that helped me if he was familiar with i2CS.
He said yes he was . I asked if the newest 2413 PLM should then be shipping with i2CS capable firmware. He said it should. When pressed for details of the firmware version he could not answer and left it at, they ship all modules with the very latest firmware.
I know some question the value of the PLM having i2CS capability but I still believe that it should. Of course the V99 I got does not.
durgadas311,
There are several problems with attempting to evaluate a devices signal strength when installed in a home network.
The casual user should not need to worry about more indepth techniques to identify a weak signal strength. If you feel pretty sure it is weak then by all means call Smarthome and have the conversation with them about returning it.
One thing they do seem to do very well is accept and replace RMAs. You can get a new one and see how things go from there.
The problem is without measurements you just do not know marginal your communications is.
Do you do any communications reliability testing using something like Houselinc? That can be helpful in gauging your progress exclusive of test hardware.
If a person were pressed to evaluate the signal strength of a device without test equipement, and wanted to be serious ...
here is one approach:
Create an isolated network using a Filterlinc. Have the PLM send to one other device on that isolated network. Then insert varying amounts of attenuation between the two. Attenuators could be across the line capacitors or devices containing them ( signal suckers), long extension cords or a box of 250ft romex.
You could then use your X10 device and see how well it communicated (how much attenuation was required to have it fail. Then compare to your PLM.
I have also modifed several filterlincs by changing the internal capacitor to different values. These test units can then be inserted between two devices as a varying attenuator. My experience has been that a good/strong PLM will be able to "communicate thru" a standard filterlinc to one other Insteon device on the other side of it. ( not guaranteed though). This is one of the reasons why I have modified some additional units such that I can substitute units as a variable attenutator.
More work and expense than most would care to get into. I just wanted to provide one possible means if a person were interested in testing without having to invest in more expensive test equipment.
Best of luck to you
|
|
|
|
BLH
Advanced Member
3761 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2012 : 12:24:55 PM
|
I doubt the PLM needs I2CS. It just processes the messages that may have I2CS Check Sums in them.
|
|
|
|
ELA
Senior Member
277 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2012 : 12:51:21 PM
|
Brian,
It is not that it necessarily needs it. Do any modules need it? If it is of value then I feel strongly it should be included in the PLM.
Is it not true that the PLM forms the basis for new products that developers might be developing? Shouldn't they be able to make sure they are compatible with i2CS as part of their design?
I have limited knowledge on i2CS but I found that that "extended 09" command that works on i2CS modules in order to phase out peek/poke for link records, does not work on the PLM ( when the request is made to the PLM) without i2CS associated updates.
Maybe there are different flavors of the PLMs that do incorporate some of those updates? For Houselink for example??
Wouldn't it be nice for upper level controllers to be able to read the PLMs link database faster using the extended 09 command rather than peek/poke?
I once again qualify that I am not very strong in the area of i2CS so I welcome what you might know and if I am off base on this? |
Edited by - ELA on 07/01/2012 1:02:05 PM |
|
|
|
BLH
Advanced Member
3761 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2012 : 04:35:00 AM
|
The PLM has a whole set of All Link Database Commands. Used between the PLM and the Host Controller.
I am not sure if implementing an Extended messaging between the Host Controller and the PLM would give you much and complicate all the present interfaces ability to manipulate the All Link Database. May also be a hardware speed thing.
Maybe a completely NEW super PLM would help.
The Extended I2 and I2CS commands to modules is a big plus as more data can be sent at a time over the Standard Length I1 commands. |
Edited by - BLH on 07/02/2012 04:35:50 AM |
|
|
|
durgadas311
Starting Member
USA
6 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2012 : 1:44:03 PM
|
well, I am now 0 for 3. first two exhibited symptoms of weak send/recv, the latest one seems to send just fine but can't recv anything at all. trying one more, although the customer service representative basically said "we are not going to exchange a fifth time". wonder if that is an official company policy to give up on their products as well as customers.
quote:
Originally posted by durgadas311
Hi ELA, thanks for the info. while my diagnostics expertise is mostly related to software, I figure the same basic principals apply. I change only one variable (cm11a vs 2413S) and so I have reasonable confidence that I am seeing weak signal problems. the 2413S works if the target x10 module is essentially plugged into the same outlet. I rely on you for the electronics expertise. just glancing at a blurry schematic, it seems there could easily be defective or out-of-spec components at several places (cap or MOV or ?) that result in such things. as you state, that becomes the manufacturers problem to correct their quality.
it is interesting, and unfortunate, that a lot of companies that had good ideas in this area over the past ten years have gone out of business or discounted their products. I am currently using DataProbe's webx10 on my cm11a, however the firmware has bugs and they stopped making it about the time I bought it. the Merrick LynX-10 was also good, but is no longer made and mine seems to have died. the WebIO product does not receive x10 signals so I can't use it for monitoring, which is vital to me. I was hoping that INSTEON was going to be a product that could keep me going in the future, but we shall see. I'll return this unit and see if I can get one that does work.
BTW, I have a great product from NetMedia (SitePlayer telnet) that allows me to access a serial device over the network. But that is currently limited to RS232 and not USB. Worst case, I can connect it to my cm11a and just hope that old hardware keeps working. But it would be nice to migrate to INSTEON.
|
|
|
|
LeeG
Advanced Member
USA
2097 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2012 : 2:28:04 PM
|
| Or perhaps they have concluded the problem is not with the product |
Lee G |
|
|
|
ELA
Senior Member
277 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2013 : 2:05:17 PM
|
I am once again ready to return yet another defective APL with a very similar failure mode. The transmitter is intermittent and sometimes just very weak. The unit is a hardware rev 4.6 firm V4.2
I thought I saw a post where a newer rev. may be out now so hopefully this has been addressed.
It took me a long time to identify this as there are some very confusing test results along the way.
The first indication was a fluorescent light failing to turn off as part of an ISY program. Turns out that the immediate issue was that the ISY never saw the return reply status so it thought the light was not on, after turn on, even though it really had turned on. I had a check for "if status ON" in the turn off program that was not being satisfied. I removed that check at the program now worked for a while.
This setup had been working fine for months as originally programmed.
Then I started to notice that direct on/off and query commands to the APL from the ISY were slow to respond and sometime out right failed.
I then removed the ISY-PLM and installed one of my test ELAMs( a custom PLM tester) into the very same outlet. I ran reliability tests from it to the APL in question with 100% good results!
Put back the ISY PLM and it would fail intermittently to the same APL? PLM going bad maybe? As far as I could tell the ISY was not having issues with any other of over 50 devices.
Tested with a second ELAM and it gave 100% good results?? Thinking PLM going bad now. Tested several other devices via the ISYs original PLM and all comms tested good in event viewer.
With suspect PLM in place communicated to a SWL in the same outlet as the suspect APL and all comms 100%. IN an attempt to rule out the signal path environment.
Got out the OScope and monitored at the APL location and could see the issue was the APL would occasionally have weak or missing initial reply send hop 0's. Sometime the reply was fine and other times not.
Compared the APL response to a SWL response and the SWL response was always the same signal level ( intial reply hop 0 a little over 3 Vp-p.).
What an obscure issue! Other PLMs worked fine from the very same location to this APL. Why are the responses from this APL good when initiated from two PLMs but not when from a third?
Maybe a possible zero cross detect timing issue in the APL ? Due to variance in component tolerances some PLMs work to that device but others do not. Possible it is not receiving correctly so thus failing to reply ( yet where does the reply hop #1 come from)?
The clear issue is that this APL does not always send like it should. Here is a trace that makes that clear. Note the missing reply hop 0 (or at least buried in the noise level). You can see the PLM voltage level to the APL is respectable at 1 Vp-p. All there send hops are very strong. Yet the APL fails in its replies.
Also note there are two missing reply hops indicating maybe one at best, other devices recognized the APLs send as a valid message?
Maybe a combination of environment and marginal device?
I removed both the ISY PLM and the suspect APL to an isolated test environment ( via a filterlinc). Comms were now 100%!
I then added a few other insteon devices to the isolated network to further "load" the units transmitters and now the APL once again began to fail to respond properly.
This is my third APL return in a short time span. Sure hope the newer revs have improved.
I held off posting anything until I had thoroughly researched ( wife said too much time spent) this but do welcome any alternate conclusions. |
Edited by - ELA on 05/18/2013 2:12:15 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Quality Control Issue- How do you know?
