Hardwired Lighting System Using Cat5

[hult]

I installed an EDT i-line system in my new house by myself 2 years ago. The switches are very responsive and I have had no problems at all. I am controlling every load in the house (64) with the switches. The i-line software is a little hard to grasp initially, but if you are controlling with an ELK, there is no need to use the i-line software.

They do not have lamp modules, so for planning purposes, if you want a lamp controlled by the system, make sure you have the lamp outlet controlled via a switch.

Pete

What is your (NEC) code-compliant solution for a _dimmed_ lamp using EDT i-line?

... Marc

 

[hult]

Some 3-ways should never be changed. Like stairwells and hallways. Others like a switch at the back door and one in the Master Bedroom to control the rear ligths can (and should) be replaced with one way (at the rear door) and a scene switch in the master bedroom. Here again. OnQ is the winner.

Why not the hallways and and stairwells? i want all my lights automated. are you saying hard wire for three way then re-wired for HA?

ps. do you work for on-q? LOL. seriously.

Yes do automated these. But do not turn a 3-way into a one way just because it can be programmed so. No programming should be required to make safety related lights work. Stairwells and hallways can be automated but should never depend on programming to work. Who wants to come down the stairs in the dark when the lighting controller is down?

One virtue of INSTEON (PLC, not hardwired) is that swiches can be trivially made to be three-way or n-way using only the MCU's in the switches and with no need for a 'central controller'.

Is there a commercial hardwired system that is similarly robust? OnQ?

... Marc

 

[hult]

As a Crestron authorized dealer I certainly agree with most of your words about these type brands. But I was also one of the origianl Smarthouse installers up until 1995 when all of the manufacturers abandoned the system and left over $200 million dollars of R&D and several hundred homes wired with this system nationwide. One manufacturer was the orginal parent company of OnQ who later was bought by the employees and then recently by Legrand.

My point is that to date no company has spent as much money on a lighting system as did the Smarthouse manufactures and today there are almost no places to buy parts or service. While I don't wish this end to any current manufacturer, I think it wise to look at all the cards in the deck.

In all honesty I doubt that this would happent to the main names you mentioned but I thought this in 1992 when I installed several dozen Smarthouses nationwide. I am absolutely against proprietary wiring. That's why I love the OnQ ALC approach so well. Because programming is an option and the system can be replaced with a number of other products that use cat5 to communicate or can be replaced by standard swtiches from Lowes. And it's more dependable than some of the names mentioned.

The approach I've designed for my home-brew system is to create an analog 0-10vdc control signal at the wall plate that directly controls analog-input dimmers via Cat5 without any intervening MUC or CPUs.

Each of these components (potentiometer, wire, analog-input dimmer) is and has been available for decades from dozens of manufacturers in part because 0-10vdc analog was the defacto open-standards dimmed lighting system before DMX (DMX512a).

Automation is achieved by using _motorized_ potentiometers for the wall-mounted 'switches'.

The _physical_ position of knob or slider (aka "pot") is what controls the light lvel so system 'memory' in the case of a power failure is built-in. If the central controller goes down, nothing happens except that automation is lost.

Knobs and sliders are tactilely and visually unambiguous, transgenerational and multi-cultural. I dislike pushbuttons in part because they are not. (Most all professional audio or lighting console/desks use some combination of rotary knobs and(or) sliders.)

My website site www.ECOntrol.org is about six years out of date but if "the creeks don't rise," I will update it.

The simplified system diagrams out like this:

PC w/ lighting console & HA program hooks --> DMX controller --> DMX-to-0-10vdc converter --> Cat5 --> potentiometer motor

The potentiometer motor mechanically turns (is physically linked to):

Analog input light dimmer <--------------------------------------- < Cat5 < ---------------------mechanical potentiometer (0-10vdc output)

or Analog input audio/video selector matrix mixer <------- < Cat5 < --
or Analog input audio gain <---------------------------------- < Cat5 < --
or Analog input relay-based fan controller <---------------- < Cat5 < --
or Analog Control of Whatever <---------------------------- < Cat5 < --

And with a minimally smart centralized MCU, any potentiometer control can be a multi-scene lighting+ audio+ whatever controller.

After you've spent a $5-10K on a proprietary lighting system, one typically has made no progress on other HA systems such as audio. My DIY hardwired approach can trivially be made to control audio or other functions from the same wall plate with the same universal interface.

See, for example, www.ECOntrol.org/audio.htm

... Marc

 

[TonyStewart]

Some 3-ways should never be changed. Like stairwells and hallways. Others like a switch at the back door and one in the Master Bedroom to control the rear ligths can (and should) be replaced with one way (at the rear door) and a scene switch in the master bedroom. Here again. OnQ is the winner.

Why not the hallways and and stairwells? i want all my lights automated. are you saying hard wire for three way then re-wired for HA?

ps. do you work for on-q? LOL. seriously.

Yes do automated these. But do not turn a 3-way into a one way just because it can be programmed so. No programming should be required to make safety related lights work. Stairwells and hallways can be automated but should never depend on programming to work. Who wants to come down the stairs in the dark when the lighting controller is down?

One virtue of INSTEON (PLC, not hardwired) is that swiches can be trivially made to be three-way or n-way using only the MCU's in the switches and with no need for a 'central controller'.

There is certainly a place for no new wires technology. And their are far more needs for lighting in existing homes than new. But the question is how much aggravation factor can you stand? We tend to do a lot of testing. Since we are a distributor and a trainer, we get "samples" of most lines before we sell them. And as yet, nothing suits me as being dependable enough. But when doing your own home the aggravation factor is not as big a factor. Of course we should not forget our wives. Nuisance lighting can and does cause stress among family members who are not geeks. So what is the happy medium?

The results of our testing is as follows.
1. Most people with PLC issues think coupling or amplified coupling is the solution, but in fact noise elimination is far more a factor than coupling. And with X-10 PLC there are a number of filters to choose from. OnQ has a PLC line which is licensed by them from PCS. Meaning that the best PLC switch ever which was the scenemaster from PCS is still on the market as OnQ PLC (Don't confuse this with OnQ ALC). In many cases, good troubleshooting can still make X-10 perform decent.
2. Z-Wave is making a lot of noise as did CeBus did 7 to 10 years ago. While I wish all no new wires manufactures well, I owe my advice to the techies who install product. And at this point in time, my early tests of this technology are not satisfactory.
3. Insteon may too become a player. I hope so, but like Z-wave there simply is little available in the way of tools to fix problems with and test equipment to find it. Maybe one day that will change. We desperatley need. With Insteon we have done the least amount of testing so my words are a bit weak.
4. UPB while a much healthier signal than X-10 is still dependant upon the quality of the powerline. Couplers and test equipment is available, and standard X-10 filters do work. As it stands right now, we are actively promoting UPB above the others and hope to see both Z-wave and Insteon come on strong as well.

All UPB Swithces can be installed and used in scenes without a controller, however a scene switch is needed.

The Simlpy automated, Web Mountain, PCS and HAI UPB switches can all be configured to act as a 3, 4 or 5 way if you desire. And all OnQ ALC switches can have a 3-way added, just remember that the "cripple mode" operation of any switch must be considered. For example if the switch defaults to factory mode, is that desirable for the location you placed it? Or would it cause a nuisance and/or safety concern (there is no default for OnQ ALC to divert to, it's can't lose it address for example).

As for other hard wired systems compared to OnQ the answer is yes. With the postive that an electrician can wire it as a standard switch and the negative that it takes a cat5 ran to each swtich. This makes the retrofit difficult to say the least.

In Late August we are doing a multiday school to teach how to retrofit a complete automation system into existing home and will also include audio and thermostats. There will be hands on wire pulling comibed with no new wires technologies. UPB will figure heavily in this strategy but we will address other lighting schemes. And we will show how to retfofit OnQ ALC. It's tougher to do, but not totally impossible.

Is there a commercial hardwired system that is similarly robust? OnQ?

... Marc

 

[hult]

I am absolutely against proprietary wiring. That's why I love the OnQ ALC approach so well.

Thanks for the insight and experience you bring to this forum.

I see and agree with your characterization of the _wiring_ as being non-proprietary. But I would question/quibble with characterization of the _system_ as non-proprietary. That may not be what you meant.

Prior to the 1999 ( IIRC) NEC, getting a local inspector to approve low voltage control via Cat5 and 110VAC in the same switch box was at best problematic at least in my part of the US. This was my principal reaction when I revisited automated home lighting as a consumer in the late 90's. I also categorized ONQ ALC as decidely 'proprietary" because at the time, there was no drop-in replacement/ for this product. Has this changed?

In other words, what alternative suppliers are there for a topology of automated 110AC dimming *and* low-voltage control via Cat5 at the wall switch ?

TIA ... Marc

 

[hult]

I am absolutely against proprietary wiring. That's why I love the OnQ ALC approach so well.

Thanks for the insight and experience you bring to this forum.

I see and agree with your characterization of the _wiring_ as being non-proprietary. But I would question/quibble with characterization of the _system_ as non-proprietary. That may not be what you meant.

Prior to the 1999 ( IIRC) NEC, getting a local inspector to approve low voltage control via Cat5 and 110VAC in the same switch box was at best problematic at least in my part of the US. This was my principal reaction when I revisited automated home lighting as a consumer in the late 90's. I also categorized ONQ ALC as decidely 'proprietary" because at the time, there was no drop-in replacement/ for this product. Has this changed?

In other words, what alternative suppliers are there for a topology of automated 110AC dimming *and* low-voltage control via Cat5 at the wall switch ?

TIA ... Marc

Answering my own question:

Ahh ... so that's what the buzz about EDT i-On is ... That's what happens when you blink ;-)

Who else?

Marc

 

[TonyStewart]

I am absolutely against proprietary wiring. That's why I love the OnQ ALC approach so well.

Thanks for the insight and experience you bring to this forum.

I see and agree with your characterization of the _wiring_ as being non-proprietary. But I would question/quibble with characterization of the _system_ as non-proprietary. That may not be what you meant.

Prior to the 1999 ( IIRC) NEC, getting a local inspector to approve low voltage control via Cat5 and 110VAC in the same switch box was at best problematic at least in my part of the US. This was my principal reaction when I revisited automated home lighting as a consumer in the late 90's. I also categorized ONQ ALC as decidely 'proprietary" because at the time, there was no drop-in replacement/ for this product. Has this changed?

In other words, what alternative suppliers are there for a topology of automated 110AC dimming *and* low-voltage control via Cat5 at the wall switch ?

TIA ... Marc

One substitute for the OnQ ALC is standard non automated light switches. That is a major factor in what is proprietary or not. And of course should the no new wires manufacturers ever perfect their switches, then they could be used to replace OnQ ALC.

Other suppliers of automated versions are commercial suppliers like EDT I-Line, AMX, Crestron and Square D. Which puts them as a replacement on a whole different level price wise.

The NEC has a magic statement in their book that says "subject to local jurisdiction". Meaning that no matter what article 725 paragraph A54 exception 13 says, mixing high and low voltage inside the box is up to the inspector. Yes it is code to put the ALC low voltage wires inside the box, but not if the local inspector says otherswise. OnQ ALC unliek the other mentioned can terminated on top of the box or inside the box. My choice is to make connections on top of the box for future troubleshooting reasons (it's faster than uulling hte switch out of the box) and for the inspector's preference.

 

[Herdfan]

One substitute for the OnQ ALC is standard non automated light switches. That is a major factor in what is proprietary or not. And of course should the no new wires manufacturers ever perfect their switches, then they could be used to replace OnQ ALC.

I have a Lutron Homeworks Wireless system. That is probably about as close to "no new wires" perfect as it is going to get.

And if I ever build again, I will not hesitate to go with a Lutron hardwired system.

 

[TonyStewart]

One substitute for the OnQ ALC is standard non automated light switches. That is a major factor in what is proprietary or not. And of course should the no new wires manufacturers ever perfect their switches, then they could be used to replace OnQ ALC.

I have a Lutron Homeworks Wireless system. That is probably about as close to "no new wires" perfect as it is going to get.

And if I ever build again, I will not hesitate to go with a Lutron hardwired system.

We did install that system into our previous training center and tested it for a number of months. Yes it is a good system, but we chose not to relocate into our new training center for a number of reasons. Lutron out markets everyone in the lighting business and some people believe that they are the vaseline of petroleum jelly. Their name is certainly well known. I have not struck them off my list of products we would supply and train on. The price is probably the biggest drawback to me at this time.

 

[Sacedog]

The NEC has a magic statement in their book that says "subject to local jurisdiction". Meaning that no matter what article 725 paragraph A54 exception 13 says, mixing high and low voltage inside the box is up to the inspector. Yes it is code to put the ALC low voltage wires inside the box, but not if the local inspector says otherswise. OnQ ALC unliek the other mentioned can terminated on top of the box or inside the box. My choice is to make connections on top of the box for future troubleshooting reasons (it's faster than uulling hte switch out of the box) and for the inspector's preference.

How do you terminate "on top" of the box? Do you mean on top of the electrical box? How is that possible with the OnQ switch, and how does it make it easier to troubleshoot after the installation (if the wall is not sheetrocked, how would you access the top of the box)?

 

[TonyStewart]

The NEC has a magic statement in their book that says "subject to local jurisdiction". Meaning that no matter what article 725 paragraph A54 exception 13 says, mixing high and low voltage inside the box is up to the inspector. Yes it is code to put the ALC low voltage wires inside the box, but not if the local inspector says otherswise. OnQ ALC unliek the other mentioned can terminated on top of the box or inside the box. My choice is to make connections on top of the box for future troubleshooting reasons (it's faster than uulling hte switch out of the box) and for the inspector's preference.

How do you terminate "on top" of the box? Do you mean on top of the electrical box? How is that possible with the OnQ switch, and how does it make it easier to troubleshoot after the installation (if the wall is not sheetrocked, how would you access the top of the box)?

Unlike all the others who use cat5 who put an RJ45 in the rear of the switch (which often puts the Cat5 within 1/4" of the high voltage and may be considered a violation of the code) ALC has low voltage pig tails located on the top of the switch. This is also nice because it keeps the low voltage wires farther away from the high voltage for both inspector and installer reasons.

When installing the rough in box use a fasterner like the GKK1532 from Lowes to hold the cat5 to the top of the box. The drywaller will cut out around the box and leave about 1/8" to 1/4" all around. Then install the ALC switch and bring the pig tails out of the front top. Then fish out the cat5 on top of the box with a small home made hook or needle nose pliars. Butt splice your connections and insert the connection back into the cavity on top of the box left by the drywaller. Even if you need to cut out a little more room, the faceplate will still hide it.

As for troubleshooting understand this. All automated switches are about the size of an analog dimmer (Big). Meaning that they really fill the box up. So, the least number of times you can take the switch in and out is desirable. WIth other brands the cat5 cable on the rear is often a headache because if forces the already full box to be even more filled. Should you need to get to the data signals at the rear of the other brands to place a meter or data tester on them, then you must remove the entire assy and then poke it back into the hole. Do this a couple of times and the drywall may just need patching. And your aggravation factor is multiplied.

With OnQ ALC once the switch is installed into the box (which fits better due to no cat5 plug being needed) you never remove it from the box again. Instead take off the faceplate and you can get to the connections and change dip swith addressing while the switch is still in the box. This is also where you connect any 3, 4 or 5 ways wiring. All of which is simple contact closures which opens the door to many possibilities.

The polling loop for the ALC switch is normally 4 volts. It only uses two wires so the other 6 in the cat5 are spares. Read the cat5 with a voltmeter and if 4 volts is present, then all switches in that loop are wired with the correct polarity (which is the most common installation mistake) and shoudl work. Then you need only to set the dip switches on the face for each's address.

If the switch still does not operate you can attach the polling loop wires directly to your laptop using a product called branchtech. Branchtech software with serial interface Branchtech is very nicely priced and really gives you a way to test. However, it's not really needed and we seldom sell that part. Still it's a good tool box item.

Now if you really want to get spoiled, use the optional wiring hubs. The enhanced version has a dip switch for every ALC switch (or loop) up to 9 total. Then when you want to isolate a problem switch off all dip switches and bring them back on one at a time until you find the offensive switch.

Normally ALC problems are wiring related. Once you find the crossed wire and fix it the switch will work. If a storm surge does take one out, the ALC enhanced hub helps you find it without even taking off faceplates!!!!!! See the link above for these time saving masterpieces.

We ship a large quantity of these yearly and the failure rate is quite low. Almost all failures are related to improper connections and can be easily fixed.

One last tip. In new construction test all cables before the final coat of paint goes up. This way you can find and replace damagaed or lost cables.

 

[Ranger Digital]

sace. The on-q alc switches have LV wires that come out of the top of the switch and default to running the lv wire out of the top of the switch near the screw that holds the switch in the gang box. I think number20 is referring to setting up the hard wire with this default as it allows easy access to trouble shooting. BUT, i have the same concern as you. I dont like the default set up. I can just imagine the drywallers cutting the wires as they zip the drywall hole around the box. its good for early inspections to pass as the LV wire sits on top of the gang box, awaiting inspection. I think number20 suggested at one time to then fish the wires back thru the gang and wire the switch (using the suppplied 600v sheathing, this is what allows it to pass NEC inspection.)

I am confused on what number20 says later. is he saying leave the wire outside the gangbox and on top? I dont get this set up as where do you hide the wires? push them back under the drywall? sounds like a major pain. wire it right, set it up right, and trouble shooting will be minimized of course. Personally, i dont see much pain in taking off the cover of the on-q alc (this allows the wires to run out the back of the switch and not over the top, and its in the instructions as ok to do), wire it up, and if you have to trouble shoot, simply unscrew the switch if needed. I really dont understand the "wire over the top" issue. seems like that would be a mess and again, the drywallers WILL cut the wires at some point, i am convinced of that.

maybe number20 can shed somemore light on this. i am confused as first i thought it was just for initial rough in inspection, but later i get the impression he suggest keeping the wires on top of switch. Hopefully that will get cleared up here shortly.

Number20, again, you are a welcomed addition to the board as your experience is greatly appreciated!!! may your efforts be rewarded with new sales. LOL

 

[TonyStewart]

sace. The on-q alc switches have LV wires that come out of the top of the switch and default to running the lv wire out of the top of the switch near the screw that holds the switch in the gang box. I think number20 is referring to setting up the hard wire with this default as it allows easy access to trouble shooting. BUT, i have the same concern as you. I dont like the default set up. I can just imagine the drywallers cutting the wires as they zip the drywall hole around the box. its good for early inspections to pass as the LV wire sits on top of the gang box, awaiting inspection. I think number20 suggested at one time to then fish the wires back thru the gang and wire the switch (using the suppplied 600v sheathing, this is what allows it to pass NEC inspection.)

I am confused on what number20 says later. is he saying leave the wire outside the gangbox and on top? I dont get this set up as where do you hide the wires? push them back under the drywall? sounds like a major pain. wire it right, set it up right, and trouble shooting will be minimized of course. Personally, i dont see much pain in taking off the cover of the on-q alc (this allows the wires to run out the back of the switch and not over the top, and its in the instructions as ok to do), wire it up, and if you have to trouble shoot, simply unscrew the switch if needed. I really dont understand the "wire over the top" issue. seems like that would be a mess and again, the drywallers WILL cut the wires at some point, i am convinced of that.

maybe number20 can shed somemore light on this. i am confused as first i thought it was just for initial rough in inspection, but later i get the impression he suggest keeping the wires on top of switch. Hopefully that will get cleared up here shortly.

Number20, again, you are a welcomed addition to the board as your experience is greatly appreciated!!! may your efforts be rewarded with new sales. LOL

I talk so much I tend to confuse even the simplest of things. Let me explain better.
First OnQ supports two methods for making the low voltage connections. The one I share and the simple fact that you can leave the low voltage inside the box and hope the inspector don't want to fight about it.

I like the on top of the box method. At first it may seem that the space left by the drywaller is not adequte. But it is. Also, you should test the cat5 on top of the box to be sure it's not cut before the final paint. If you fasten the cat5 to the top of the box, near the rear of the box, the drywaller saw don't usually cut that far. Now some people try to leave the pif tail connection from the ALC switch behind the faceplate. They quickly learned that this pushed the faceplate out from the wall too far. So the only answer is the on top of the box method.

The low voltage polling loop and the contact closure wires for 3-ways always stay on top of the box Here is a little drawing that we created that may help. Slide 6 is the one that shows what I am saying. These and more tips are located on our tech support section.

Also I am not taling at all about high voltage in my discussion earlier.

The NEC says that the insulation on the LV must be at least two times the maximum voltage inside the box and to maintain 1/4" distance between LV and HV. My approach achieves this well.

At first glance it seems awkward but it is a proven method. Of course you can do the other method as well. If you stay on top of the drywallers work, then my method is do-able.

We built a new facility a year ago and used ALC exlusively. With almost 100 switches we had a zero failure rate. We wired as discbribed with no problems and now we enjoy the strategy.

 

[sic0048]

Just a side note, Setnet is near my house and I've bought hardware from them in the past. I even got a walk through tour of the facility and asked a lot of questions about the On-Q system and they went out of their way to answer them all. When I get to the lighting automation portion of my project, I will not hesitate in using the On-Q system.

Anyway, just wanted to say that I've seen the facility that Number20 is speaking of and feel that they system really does work well.

Keep the information flowing....I've still learned some things I didn't know about the system already.

 

[sic0048]

Number20 - I noticed in your little slide show that slide #4 seems to indicate that you need both hot and neutral at the switch location. Is that a requirement for the On-Q system? I will be doing a remodel job on my house, and I would be surprised if the wires are run with both hot and neutral at the switch. Some switches may be wired that way, but there is no way that all of them are.