Subject: From: Date:

Re: [ECS] PLC Interface overflow? Bruce Prager Sat, 1 Jul 2000 11:40:01 -0400

---

Jay,  If you're using X-10 Detectors, there is a known issue with certain
vintages issuing X-10 command acknowledgements when they see x-10 commands.
I had this problem with 2 x-10 IR's.  I discovered it using a Homebase unit
which monitors the powerline and acts as a emergency backup to my pc
systems.
The acks were designed to allow interaction between X-10 IR's and some
Supposedly "dumb" X-10 IR units had the interaction code in them.  While the
command acks are ignored, they did a great job of tying up the power line.
There are now 2 models on the market, one which is a "dumb" X-10, and one
which can interact with its brethen (Ie; 1 flood turns on other floods).
You might want to try one of the newer units, or go to a wireless/hardwire
hybrid motion detecting system.  Visonic makes a great system whose
detectors are wireless and completely pet-immune (they ignore my 2 active
cats).  The Wireless receiver has relay outs that can be used by ECS
directly.
Hope this helps!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Heyl" <jheyl@robosoftsystems.com>
To: <ecs-list@netbloc.com>
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: [ECS] PLC Interface overflow?


> It just occurred to me that I have a motion detector in one of the
hallways
> where a light is turned on by the bed time event.  It's probably the
motion
> detector sending out the "daylight" command.  If that's it, there's not
> much I can do about it.  I use the "daylight" signal to determine if the
> hallway light should be turned on when motion is detected, so I can't
> disable the light sensor.  As long as ECS retries whatever didn't go
> through the first time I guess it should be okay.
>
>   -- Jay
>
> At 18:40 06/30/00 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >This error means that a command has been issued to
> >the CM11A (by ECS) which has not been acknowledged
> >after 5 seconds (i.e. it is "busy" doing "something").
> >What that is I don't know (perhaps ANOTHER transmitter
> >sending a burst of continuous commands ?).
>
>

---