Cat5 Lighting: EDT iLine vs OnQ ALC

[Ranger Digital]

Ah, ok - I think that is their way of saying do not connect it to a circuit that has say outlets on it, connect it ONLY to lighting circuit. Some people may think its a relay where you can control an outlet or other device with it and that will kill it.

Well, that would make some sense, I guess. Is it perhaps because this is a dimmer instead of a relay?

Maybe Tony can swing by and clear some of this up....

I'm still counting on using an ALC switch to control my house fan, so I'd really like to know this ahead of time.

Using a relay switch to fan is fine. NOT a dimmer switch to a fan. Not that a dimmer wouldnt work as it would send power to the fan. the concern and liability is the manf doesnt know WHAT you would be connecting a dimmer to and that could present problems as outlets, fans and other items may not be able to be used with a dimmer. so its just safer to say DO NOT USE A DIMMER ON ANYTHING BUT A LIGHT. Use relays on other items as its just an off/on switch. the downside on a relay to a fan is you get one speed controlled by the relay switch.

 

[beelzerob]

Using a relay switch to fan is fine. NOT a dimmer switch to a fan. Not that a dimmer wouldnt work as it would send power to the fan. the concern and liability is the manf doesnt know WHAT you would be connecting a dimmer to and that could present problems as outlets, fans and other items may not be able to be used with a dimmer. so its just safer to say DO NOT USE A DIMMER ON ANYTHING BUT A LIGHT. Use relays on other items as its just an off/on switch. the downside on a relay to a fan is you get one speed controlled by the relay switch.

Ok, that's good to know, and that makes sense to me.

I'm pretty sure the fan only has one speed...it's a house exhaust fan, not a ceiling type fan. I'm meeting with the electrician next week, so I can make sure the speeds then.

 

[rbroders]

They also included little splice tubs, which was somewhat of a disappointment. I had hoped there'd be an RJ45 connector on the switch somehow...I really don't look forward to trying to strip 24 gauge cat5 wires. It's like trying to work with hair. At least they're solid....

Well if RJ45 jacks are important, the EDT switches have them (two on each switch). I think it will really add to the space required in the back of the box though...

--Bob

 

[beelzerob]

Oh, it's not a deal breaker....I just don't like working with the little wispy gauge wires. And I think I just like complaining.

 

[beelzerob]

Figured this was as good a thread to bring up this question.

I'm wiring the house now for eventual OnQ installation, and I'm running a cat5e wire to ALMOST every switch. In some cases where gang boxes are particularly close, I'm just going to daisy chain the cat5 to it.

However, I'm still not understanding the whole length-limitation mentioned a couple times. I know hubs are highly suggested because of this, but I want to understand the issue better before making decisions like that.

Here is an example diagram we can work from.

So, the Cat5 goes from the wiring room (where the controller will be, obviously) to a 3-gang box 50 ft away. It then continues to a single gang box 20 ft further. There is also a run going to a 2-gang box 25 ft away.

So, from that....how is this max distance calculated? And in the cat5 bundle, how many different pairs do I use? Do I put each switch on a different pair?

Thanks a lot for the help! I got my 900w switch for show and tell with the electrician, and we noted no problems. It'll fit in any gang box no problem, and all the pre-requisite wires are in each box. I'm less scared with this install now!

 

[Sacedog]

The length is measured as the total length for all runs. The length limitation is also "per-branch". So in you scenario, if all of those runs were on the same branch, you would have a total length of 95'.

 

[beelzerob]

The length is measured as the total length for all runs. The length limitation is also "per-branch". So in you scenario, if all of those runs were on the same branch, you would have a total length of 95'.

Thanks Sace!

I admit I don't understand how the OnQ controller works yet (not having one....), but how does this length limitation work? Does it treat it like it's one long 95' single run instead of 2 separate runs?

How would those 2 runs connect to the controller itself? Are all the wires connected together?

For those 2 runs, and any other runs, all lights use the same pair in the cat5 cable, right? I think I understand now that if all 3 lights in the 3-gang box used a separate pair, then it'd be 3 X 50 ft for length, not just 50? So in that sense, it'd be shorter to put as many lights as possible on a single run, as opposed to running cat5 separately to each light switch, right?

 

[rbroders]

Great hands-on review. Thanks!

When you say the OnQ didn't fit in the box....that seems like that would kind of be a bad problem. It didn't fit in the gang box on the wall??

Nope, it was too tall for the box. This house was built ~25yrs ago, and this particular box was made out of bakelite or something. Dark brown plastic. I assume the switches fit properly in modern boxes, but I haven't tested it yet.

--Bob

Okay, I finally tested this in a modern box. The internal dimensions were 2"W by 2-7/8"H. The OnQ switch fit fine. Obviously the boxes in my old house are shorter than new ones. One possible concern is that if you wire the cat5 in the box you have to bend the little wires back 180 degrees, and they are squeezed up agianst the top of the box a bit. If you pull the switch in and out of the box alot, it could cause problems. They obviously prefer you to wire the LV stuff outside the box.

--Bob

 

[beelzerob]

Something else just occured to me.....

My plan had been to run Cat5 to each switch bank where there was a switch I wanted to control. The only exception to this is where I'm going to replace a 3-way switch with a dummy switch. In that case, I was going to run Cat5 directly from that switch box to the powered switch box, without going down to the wiring room first.

However....if all switches use just 1 pair of wires from the cat5 bundle....then if I ran all boxes just down to the wiring room (even the dummy switch cat5 run), I could use a different pair of wires in the cat5 bundle to connect that dummy switch to the cat5 run going from the wiring room to the powered switch, right?

so instead of going from switch box to switch box, I could go from dummy switch box down to wiring room, connect to an unused pair of wires in the run going to the powered switch, and then connect that pair up in the powered switch box as coming from the dummy switch.

Does that make any sense to anyone? Should I make another drawing...?

 

[Ranger Digital]

beez, yup makes perfect sense. But, why? Its usually MUCH easier to run from the dummy to the dimmer/relay you want to control. also less connections and easier to trouble shootn not to mention USUALLY less wire to run, less holes to drill, etc. The less wires in a can the better, IMO.

You previous post about the 180 bending? You can remove the top of the switch cover if you are not running the wires out of the top of the switch and that puts the wires coming to the back of the switch. Highly reccommended if not pushing the wires out of the top front. you see the little plastic top cover that snaps off to allow the wires to run to the back of the switch instead of the top front?

 

[beelzerob]

beez, yup makes perfect sense. But, why? Its usually MUCH easier to run from the dummy to the dimmer/relay you want to control. also less connections and easier to trouble shootn not to mention USUALLY less wire to run, less holes to drill, etc. The less wires in a can the better, IMO.

Well, I don't know yet if it would result in any less wiring, because most of the 3-way switches reside in gang boxes that are inhabited by other powered switches. So I'd have to run cat5 to that location anyway...in fact, it'd then be MORE cat5 to run a line directly from 1 gang box to another gang box, if they're both already serviced by cat5.

If my dummy switches were going to reside in gang boxes by themselves, then I'd say it would be more economical not to homerun everything.

I guess what I'm REALLY saying is that I just suddenly realized that if all switch boxes already have cat5 runs to the wiring room, then it'd be needlessly redundant to add another cat5 wire between switch boxes. Again, I don't know for sure yet if that's the case, but once I'm done wiring the loaded switches I can take a look and see. If nothing else, I guess homerunning every switch gives me some more flexibility (and the total cat5 for just the lighting was pretty low).

By the way, your "less wire in a can is better" opinion certainly wasn't shared in this thread I posted. h34r:

You previous post about the 180 bending? You can remove the top of the switch cover if you are not running the wires out of the top of the switch and that puts the wires coming to the back of the switch. Highly reccommended if not pushing the wires out of the top front. you see the little plastic top cover that snaps off to allow the wires to run to the back of the switch instead of the top front?

Well, I'm looking to wire this the best way possible for FUTURE installation of OnQ switches....so I had thought to wire the cat5 to the top of the gang box, and then I could fish it out and connect it when needed. That works the best with the wires coming out the front and bending back. If they went out the back....that could MAYBE be done too...maybe fish inside there with a bent wire to try and pull them back out front. dunno, I'll have to see how it goes.