linuxha-misc

[LHA-misc] FW: Info

[Niranjan K. <kn...@so...>]

> Hi all,
> 	We want to develop an application in Linux, which would act as a
> readymade soft box for any kind of power line communication protocols.  I
> had some basic doubts about cebus, if any body is aware of, do help me out
>  
> *	What are the minimum requirements needed to set up a CEBus network. 
> *	What are the CEBus products available? 
> *	Is it mandatory to have a PC interface with the network, what kind
> of interfaces do the products provide?
> *	Does each individual chip needs to be programmed for the
> functionality?
> *	What is the implementation architecute, ie the various components
> involved in the CEBus system?
> *	If we want to write an application (to be run on a PC) to configure
> the CEBus network, what are the details we need to know?
> *	Is CAL a set of API's provided by the manufacturer. Can we write the
> application without CAL's help?
> 
> 
> thanks a million
> 
> regards
> Niranjan
*********************************************************************
Disclaimer: The information in this e-mail and any attachments is
confidential / privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee or
addressees. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message, you may
not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy
this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise
immediately if you or your employer does not consent to Internet email for
messages of this kind.
*********************************************************************

Re: [LHA-misc] FW: Info

[Neil C. <nc...@co...>]

Niranjan K. wrote:
>>Hi all,
>>	We want to develop an application in Linux, which would act as a
>>readymade soft box for any kind of power line communication protocols.  I
>>had some basic doubts about cebus, if any body is aware of, do help me out
>> 
>>*	What are the minimum requirements needed to set up a CEBus network. 
>>*	What are the CEBus products available? 
>>*	Is it mandatory to have a PC interface with the network, what kind
>>of interfaces do the products provide?
>>*	Does each individual chip needs to be programmed for the
>>functionality?
>>*	What is the implementation architecute, ie the various components
>>involved in the CEBus system?
>>*	If we want to write an application (to be run on a PC) to configure
>>the CEBus network, what are the details we need to know?
>>*	Is CAL a set of API's provided by the manufacturer. Can we write the
>>application without CAL's help?

My experience with CEBus has been nil. I haven't been able to find much in
the way of controllers or devices to control. From the people I've spoken
to on the subject the impression I got was that CEBus would go nowhere.
Anyone else care to add to this?


-- 
Linux Home Automation           Neil Cherry             nc...@co...
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/ncherry/                  (Text only)
http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/lightsey/52           (Graphics)
http://linuxha.sourceforge.net/ 
			(SourceForge)

Re: [LHA-misc] FW: Info

[Brian <br...@fu...>]

At 09:03 AM 3/28/2002 -0500, Mike Baptiste wrote:
>expensive.  And that is the key - CeBus is expensive.  Getting chipsets
>is expensive.  And due to the complexity of the system, anything that
>uses it is bound to be expensive due to teh development effort and CPU
>horsepower required.

And CeBus share([s|d]) many of the same noise and interference problems as 
X-10.

>becomes less useful.  Sure it coudl transmit over wireless, AC, twisted
>pair, etc.

So can any protocol.  The physical layer choices aren't exclusive to CeBus.

Re: [LHA-misc] FW: Info

[Mike B. <mi...@th...>]

I'd have to second Neil's opinion.  Cebus had a lot of promise.  However
it suffered from being overly complex.  My favorite example was an
article in Circuit Cellar a few years ago dedicated to how Cebus works.

The whole premise was turning a relay on and off.  Fairly simple (on,
off, etc)

It took MANY pages of info and code to describe a fairly complex system
just to turn a relay on or off.

CeBus is in use - GE has a system based on it - but it is really
expensive.  And that is the key - CeBus is expensive.  Getting chipsets
is expensive.  And due to the complexity of the system, anything that
uses it is bound to be expensive due to teh development effort and CPU
horsepower required.

Compare this with something like the HCS - 8-bit Microchip CPUs can
handle plenty - including X-10, etc.

Given how quickly embedded ethernet has come down in price (I still
can't believe you can get Dallas TINI boards for just over $50), CeBus
becomes less useful.  Sure it coudl transmit over wireless, AC, twisted
pair, etc.

But look at it from a different perspective.  Use RS-485 twisted pair
for simpler control like the HCS and use Ethernet for more complex wired
AND wireless control.

So in teh next few years I'd say any HA controller would HAVE to haev
ethernet control, should have RS_485, but CeBUs?  Nah.

Now many complain about X-10 and how CeBus is so much better.  Well,
check out A-10 from ACT - I've seen demos of this technology and it is
amazing how powerful and reliable it is.  Plus the switches are much
more feature rich than your usual X-10 gear.  Yes, its more expensive,
but not obscenely.

Mike


Neil Cherry wrote:
| Niranjan K. wrote:
|
|>> Hi all,
|>>     We want to develop an application in Linux, which would act as a
|>> readymade soft box for any kind of power line communication
|>> protocols.  I
|>> had some basic doubts about cebus, if any body is aware of, do help
|>> me out
|>>
|>> *    What are the minimum requirements needed to set up a CEBus
|>> network. *    What are the CEBus products available? *    Is it
|>> mandatory to have a PC interface with the network, what kind
|>> of interfaces do the products provide?
|>> *    Does each individual chip needs to be programmed for the
|>> functionality?
|>> *    What is the implementation architecute, ie the various components
|>> involved in the CEBus system?
|>> *    If we want to write an application (to be run on a PC) to configure
|>> the CEBus network, what are the details we need to know?
|>> *    Is CAL a set of API's provided by the manufacturer. Can we write
|>> the
|>> application without CAL's help?
|>
|
| My experience with CEBus has been nil. I haven't been able to find much in
| the way of controllers or devices to control. From the people I've spoken
| to on the subject the impression I got was that CEBus would go nowhere.
| Anyone else care to add to this?
|
|

Re: [LHA-misc] FW: Info

[Mike B. <bap...@cc...>]

I didn't mean to imply the physical layer was exclusive.  However one of
the 'selling' points of CeBus was that it would 'join' the physical
layers with a common protocol/architecture. That was my point.

TO this day one of Home Automation's problems is the continued lack of
industry wide standards for various phsyical layers.  CeBus tried to
fill this void, but it went WAY overboard to try and please everyone.
X-10 is a 'standard' I guess, but it is lacking.  RS-485 sure could use
a control and protocol standard.  Ethernet is making a splash in HA, but
it too needs soem type of standard as well (ports, protocol over
sockets, etc)

A few have tried to support as many modules as possible (Commander-X)
but its difficult to do and standards would make that a lot easier.  But
vendors see standards and think loss of monopoly in that once they sell
a controller, the user has to buy their add ons.  Th eproblem is not
every company has every type of add on - so often it would be nice to
buy fro9m another vendor.

But I digress ;)

MB

Brian wrote:
| At 09:03 AM 3/28/2002 -0500, Mike Baptiste wrote:
|
|> becomes less useful.  Sure it coudl transmit over wireless, AC, twisted
|> pair, etc.
|
|
| So can any protocol.  The physical layer choices aren't exclusive to
CeBus.
|

Re: [LHA-misc] FW: Info

[Brian <br...@fu...>]

At 09:27 AM 3/28/2002 -0500, Mike Baptiste wrote:
>I didn't mean to imply the physical layer was exclusive.  However one of
>the 'selling' points of CeBus was that it would 'join' the physical
>layers with a common protocol/architecture. That was my point.

No problem.  My point was simply that the physical layer thing was/is a 
silly selling point.  It would be trivial to create a bridge for any of 
these protocols, should the need arise.

>TO this day one of Home Automation's problems is the continued lack of
>industry wide standards for various phsyical layers.  CeBus tried to
>fill this void, but it went WAY overboard to try and please everyone.

Yeah, no kidding.

>RS-485 sure could use
>a control and protocol standard.

Amen!



Brian Karas -
br...@fu...