From: Monte F. <mo...@bv...> - 2012-01-07 02:24:59
|
I think I mistakenly sent this originally just to Bart Bunting, instead of to the entire list. Bart, you will probably get two copies; sorry about that.... So, here's what I discovered today. There's a difference between the CADDX NX-8 and NX-8e. The 'e' version has a serial port onboard the main NX-8e board. The non-'e' version (plain NX-8) does not have a documented serial port onboard, but requires an add-on card called the NX-584. I have an NX-8 system, not an NX-8e system. I do not have an NX-584 card. After much fiddling, a considerable amount of cursing, a marginal amount of caffeine and a small amount of hair pulling; I coaxed the NX-540 X-10 module that's installed in my system into sending X-10 events that mh could act on. At present, I have the NX-540 sending X-10 events when the main door to my house is opened and closed, and mh can see those signals and generate speech that tells me "the kitchen door is open", "the kitchen door is closed". The NX-540 seems capable of generating X-10 "on, off, all units of, all units off, dim, bright and all light off" commands. No other commands are documented. These X-10 commands are listed in the NX-540 "documentation" (and I use that term rather graciously) as "Function codes 1-6". It states that codes 7-15 are "SUPPRESS command". I don't know of a way to sniff the X-10 traffic, to see if plugging codes 7-15 into the NX-540 config actually send anything out on the power lines through the PSC04, so no way to know if there are any 'undocumented' features or not. The X-10 Pro PSC04 that the CADDX documentation references is a listen-only device. It appears to have a brother, the PSC05, which is bi-directional. It's not clear whether the NX-540 could process inbound X-10 commands generated by mh (my guess is probably not). So having my mh system send arm/disarm commands to my alarm system doesn't seem possible without adding more hardware. The traffic between the NX-8 and DL900 appears to be encrypted traffic, as a considerable amount of traffic capturing with wireshark and subsequent dissection, yielded nothing useful other than that it does communicate back and forth on TCP port 9998. That's about all I know at this point. While I'm tinkering with this stuff on my system, anyone that has any suggestions or tests; speak up. I'll try and test and document what I can. -- -Monte |