Yeah I am not sure why they don't do that. I have noticed though that most dimmer switches have pigtails so I think it is pretty unavoidable.
Neil
I hinted at it and here it is...
- Thread starter AnthonyZ
- Start date
Yeah I am not sure why they don't do that. I have noticed though that most dimmer switches have pigtails so I think it is pretty unavoidable.
Neil
MillardS
Member
For Simply Automated, the question is always about providing our customers with the best possible solutions.
Based on our tests, we see that the existing ‘Gen I’ UPB solution transmits farther, is less susceptible to attenuation and what we believe to be the most common types of power line noise (e.g. 50k Hz ballasts/inverters and dynamic noise) compared to Gen II.
As many communication engineers know optimizing transmission and reception is a balancing act, modifying one affects the other. In the case of UPB, we observed that improved performance for specific noise sources (dimmers) comes at the cost of decreased sensitivity and poor reception of low ‘attenuated’ UPB signals.
For Simply Automated and our customers, solving noise problems is relatively easy (and far less frequent) in comparison to solving attenuation issues (far more frequent). To date we have been very successful, employing inverting phase couplers (even in multiple breaker panels) and if necessary noise-filter isolators (to isolate noisy and or attenuating devices) to provide our customers reliable solutions (i.e. good signal to noise ratios that ensure reliable performance).
What many people do not realize is that it is just as easy, and in fact more common for many high end home owners’ to plug in an attenuating device (a capacitive load, like a big plasma TV or a monstrous surge suppressor) as it is for them to plug in a noisy device. The perception of Gen II as noise insurance (especially in applications where noise is not an issue) may come at a cost of susceptibility to attenuation.
I’d like to add, all these issues discussed are few in number, rare in most UPB applications (except those with conventional dimmers, not completely turned off). With proper phase-coupling, one per house or breaker-panel, and a qualification 'Comm Test' from at least one UPB device (testing both phases of a home’s power line), noise or attenuation, if present, can be identified and addressed quickly.
For each customer and their application we believe the choice comes down to one of price vs. performance. It is Simply Automated’s mission to provide the best product solutions, in these terms.
If you have any questions or concerns we ask you to please call or write us directly.
Based on our tests, we see that the existing ‘Gen I’ UPB solution transmits farther, is less susceptible to attenuation and what we believe to be the most common types of power line noise (e.g. 50k Hz ballasts/inverters and dynamic noise) compared to Gen II.
As many communication engineers know optimizing transmission and reception is a balancing act, modifying one affects the other. In the case of UPB, we observed that improved performance for specific noise sources (dimmers) comes at the cost of decreased sensitivity and poor reception of low ‘attenuated’ UPB signals.
For Simply Automated and our customers, solving noise problems is relatively easy (and far less frequent) in comparison to solving attenuation issues (far more frequent). To date we have been very successful, employing inverting phase couplers (even in multiple breaker panels) and if necessary noise-filter isolators (to isolate noisy and or attenuating devices) to provide our customers reliable solutions (i.e. good signal to noise ratios that ensure reliable performance).
What many people do not realize is that it is just as easy, and in fact more common for many high end home owners’ to plug in an attenuating device (a capacitive load, like a big plasma TV or a monstrous surge suppressor) as it is for them to plug in a noisy device. The perception of Gen II as noise insurance (especially in applications where noise is not an issue) may come at a cost of susceptibility to attenuation.
I’d like to add, all these issues discussed are few in number, rare in most UPB applications (except those with conventional dimmers, not completely turned off). With proper phase-coupling, one per house or breaker-panel, and a qualification 'Comm Test' from at least one UPB device (testing both phases of a home’s power line), noise or attenuation, if present, can be identified and addressed quickly.
For each customer and their application we believe the choice comes down to one of price vs. performance. It is Simply Automated’s mission to provide the best product solutions, in these terms.
If you have any questions or concerns we ask you to please call or write us directly.
AutomatedOutlet
Senior Member
Thank you for your response Millard.
For those of you not aware, the last poster was Millard Schewe. He is the General Manager at Simply Automated.
For those of you not aware, the last poster was Millard Schewe. He is the General Manager at Simply Automated.
LightenUP
Active Member
I think that here is a great place for the discusion. If I were to address this with SAI directly I get the feeling that my opinion won't carry any influence. In my experience Gen II has a huge advantage. When the topic of attenuation comes up, to me my communication readings do not reflect Gen I having an advantage. In fact my testing is contrary, in homes 10,000 and above there could be attenuation issues with either type but Gen II reports higher signal levels. Compare a SAI Gen I SPIM and a Web Mtn Spim and even they will show different levels. The other devices show the same type of differences. I have been told that it isn't necesarily a stronger signal just different in interpretation and type. With respect to the Inverting phase coupler, no or little change isn't impresive. I have installed one in a house and saw no change. Added more in other panels and tada no change. That is my main reason for being a proponent of physical phase alligning. I have received reports that the PCS coupler has had better results and I will reserve them for trial in the future.
I am the retro fit kind of guy that runs into noise often and attempting to ID noise and filter several potential noise sources makes little sense. Especially since there is a core out there that has without a doubt proven itself to be superior to the the units I used before. I also am uncomfortable with having a system that might have problems if the units are not Gen II. I have not run into a signal sucker yet. I know it can happen but I have seen noise being introduced after a flawless install and then problems became present. I have also seen were the neighbor moves in and all of a sudden there were issues.
After installing Gen II into those specific jobs.....no more issues. Proof is.....as proof does. Gen II or bust.
I am the retro fit kind of guy that runs into noise often and attempting to ID noise and filter several potential noise sources makes little sense. Especially since there is a core out there that has without a doubt proven itself to be superior to the the units I used before. I also am uncomfortable with having a system that might have problems if the units are not Gen II. I have not run into a signal sucker yet. I know it can happen but I have seen noise being introduced after a flawless install and then problems became present. I have also seen were the neighbor moves in and all of a sudden there were issues.
After installing Gen II into those specific jobs.....no more issues. Proof is.....as proof does. Gen II or bust.
Steve
Senior Member
Well, while I admittedly have not had the time to do extensive testing yet, Millard may very well have a compelling argument. I preface this all up front that I have not done extensive testing and offer no real proof yet, just casual observation. I had all 'Gen I' SAI stuff and it worked fine except for when my now infamous cooktop would be on spewing anywhere from 5-25 units of noise on the line I would sometime miss a signal. Then I added a 42" plasma tv. Still no issues other than the cooktop. I have an 8 button controller at bedside where I press an 'almost' all off button and I can see light going off throughout the house. No problems. So, then I replaced just 1 switch with a PCS Gen II switch and replaced the PIM with the PCS GenII PIM so I can see how well it performed over cooktop noise. Yes, I agree, Gen II really seemed to make a difference and worked 99% over the cooktop noise.
BUT... Now when I hit my off button, all the lights EXCEPT the PCS switch go off. If I shut off the plasma tv in the bedroom, then the switch responds. So... this does sound exactly like what Millard was explaining with attenuation. It is very funny that all the SAI switches work over the plasma, but the PCS doesn't, but the PCS switch will work over the cooktop, where SAI doesn't. So, it looks like I either need to filter the cooktop for SAI to be 100%, or if I went PCS I would I to filter (or do something with) the plasma. Bottom line is I don't think there is a 100% answer, but Millard may be right on...
I will update after I have some real testing done...
BUT... Now when I hit my off button, all the lights EXCEPT the PCS switch go off. If I shut off the plasma tv in the bedroom, then the switch responds. So... this does sound exactly like what Millard was explaining with attenuation. It is very funny that all the SAI switches work over the plasma, but the PCS doesn't, but the PCS switch will work over the cooktop, where SAI doesn't. So, it looks like I either need to filter the cooktop for SAI to be 100%, or if I went PCS I would I to filter (or do something with) the plasma. Bottom line is I don't think there is a 100% answer, but Millard may be right on...
I will update after I have some real testing done...
MillardS
Member
Two points worth noting:
(1) Signal level measurements in terms of 'Lesters' for Gen I vs Gen 2 are apples and oranges. There is no equivalence between the two, they can not be compared. The same signal or noise levels in terms of dB yield different 'Lester' readings from any Gen I to Gen II reference.
(2) Inverting phase couplers we're designed for homes with the street side transformer close to the home (e.g. within 150 feet) to prevent cancellation/degradation of the original signal from the reflected/inverted signal coming from the street side transformer. Each house is different and depending on the home a conventional or inverting phase may work better. The fact sill remains that only one conventional phase coupler can be used for a home without degrading the signal, as opposed to the inverting phase couplers where two or more could be used to boost signals. Of course, as we know, phase couplers take signal from one phase an apply it to the other, adding more inverting phase couplers does not necessarily increase the signals between phases, but it can - specially in large homes with multiple breaker panels. The inverting phase couple has proven to be an invaluable tool, saving the day for all UPB manufactures' again and again.
(1) Signal level measurements in terms of 'Lesters' for Gen I vs Gen 2 are apples and oranges. There is no equivalence between the two, they can not be compared. The same signal or noise levels in terms of dB yield different 'Lester' readings from any Gen I to Gen II reference.
(2) Inverting phase couplers we're designed for homes with the street side transformer close to the home (e.g. within 150 feet) to prevent cancellation/degradation of the original signal from the reflected/inverted signal coming from the street side transformer. Each house is different and depending on the home a conventional or inverting phase may work better. The fact sill remains that only one conventional phase coupler can be used for a home without degrading the signal, as opposed to the inverting phase couplers where two or more could be used to boost signals. Of course, as we know, phase couplers take signal from one phase an apply it to the other, adding more inverting phase couplers does not necessarily increase the signals between phases, but it can - specially in large homes with multiple breaker panels. The inverting phase couple has proven to be an invaluable tool, saving the day for all UPB manufactures' again and again.
