Z-Wave RF range

Here's a thread which gives figures for Z-Wave RF range derived from real
world experience.


http://www.automatedhome.co.uk/modul...iewtopic&t=203

1mW doesn't go far and you cannot increase the output power without
violating FCC rules.

http://davehouston.net
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/roZetta/
roZetta-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:20:43 GMT, nobody@whocares.com (Dave Houston) wrote in
message <458008c3.5218515@nntp.fuse.net>:

>Here's a thread which gives figures for Z-Wave RF range derived from real
>world experience.
>
>
>http://www.automatedhome.co.uk/modul...iewtopic&t=203
>
>1mW doesn't go far and you cannot increase the output power without
>violating FCC rules.

Why not cite the actual numbers instead of misrepresenting them?
The url cited indicates that z-wave goes up to 30-40 feet. Given typical home
and lot dimensions (and the undesirability of inadvertent house-to-house
signaling) these distances seem to be purty near _optimum_. More range and
power is not necessarily better. Greater distances are designed to be achieved
by repeaters.

.... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org

> Greater distances are designed to
> be achieved by repeaters...

Or vice versa. :^)

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
941-866-1100
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34233
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
=============================>

> Why not cite the actual numbers instead of misrepresenting them?

Dave? Misrepresent z-wave info? No! Say it ain't so! He's had it in for
damn near anything other than X-10 for ages. Sad, really.

> The url cited indicates that z-wave goes up to 30-40 feet. Given typical
home
> and lot dimensions (and the undesirability of inadvertent house-to-house
> signaling) these distances seem to be purty near _optimum_. More range and
> power is not necessarily better. Greater distances are designed to be
achieved
> by repeaters.

Agreed. I'd much rather have the RF coverage stay inside the general
footprint of my residence than have to deal with excessive interference
should my neighbors decide to automate as well.

Bill Kearney wrote:

>>Why not cite the actual numbers instead of misrepresenting them?
>
>
> Dave? Misrepresent z-wave info? No! Say it ain't so! He's had it in for
> damn near anything other than X-10 for ages. Sad, really.
>
>
>>The url cited indicates that z-wave goes up to 30-40 feet. Given typical
>
> home
>
>>and lot dimensions (and the undesirability of inadvertent house-to-house
>>signaling) these distances seem to be purty near _optimum_. More range and
>>power is not necessarily better. Greater distances are designed to be
>
> achieved
>
>>by repeaters.
>
>
> Agreed. I'd much rather have the RF coverage stay inside the general
> footprint of my residence than have to deal with excessive interference
> should my neighbors decide to automate as well.
>

OTOH such a weak RF link leads to inconsistent operation. A link that
used to work nicely might quit out of the blue one day just because
someone hung a large white board. The professional ones are aluminum-backed.

Out here the houses that were insulated "extra good" also have
insulation inside some interior walls. This is aluminum backed as well.
For example, I can see the cell tower from here and the signal strength
indicator on the cell phone pegs at the max when in the living room.
Walk into the room next to the garage just a few steps away there is one
wee flickering bar remaining and after a while ... "Not in Service Area".

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

>> Why not cite the actual numbers instead of misrepresenting them?
>
> Dave [Houston]? Misrepresent z-wave info?
> No! Say it ain't so! He's had it in for damn
> near anything other than X-10 for ages. Sad,
> really.

There's a reason for that. DSave has been trying for years to market X10 compatible hardware. He's had almost no success to date
though. The unfortunate part for the readers is that he's almost convincing in his constant attacks. Folks who don't realize his
bias and are not aware of his dishonesty get snowed into investing in junk rather than some of the better options available.

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
941-866-1100
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34233
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
=============================>

> OTOH such a weak RF link leads
> to inconsistent operation...

Have you tried Z-Wave?

> Out here the houses that were insulated
> "extra good" also have insulation inside
> some interior walls. This is aluminum
> backed as well...

I'm not surew where "out here" might be but I can assure you after working on construction sites for over 24 years that aluminum
foil backed insulation is uncommon and that any backing in interior walls is rare since it represents an unnecessary cost (something
builders are loathe to accept).

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
941-866-1100
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34233
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
=============================>

nobody@whocares.com (Dave Houston) wrote:

>Here's a thread which gives figures for Z-Wave RF range derived from real
>world experience.
>
>http://www.automatedhome.co.uk/modul...iewtopic&t=203
>
>1mW doesn't go far and you cannot increase the output power without
>violating FCC rules.

It may be even worse than I thought. I had assumed the thread was discussing
US units imported to the UK but AutomatedOutlet sells European versions as
well. If these are European devices with much higher output power, 30-40
foot _OUTDOOR_ range is abysmal.

http://davehouston.net
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/roZetta/
roZetta-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

> It may be even worse than I thought...

Rather, it's much better than what you claimed. The following is from the Z-Wave FAQ:

Q. Zigbee representatives claim a better range for ZigBee 2.4GHz than Z-Wave

A. This claim is untrue. The Z-Wave sub-1 GHz FSK radio has a superior communication range compared to 2.4 GHz DSSS radios. There
are two main reasons for this. Firstly, the sensitivity of the Z-Wave radios is approximately 6 db better than a 15.4 DSSS radio.
Secondly, the physical propagation range of a 868/915 MHz signal is approximately 2.5 times the equivalent 2.4GHz signal..

BTW, Mr Houston has claimed (weithout ever having actuially tested it) that Z-Wave suffers from severely limited range due to the
max number of hops. What he fails to mention is that Z-Wave will seek the best routing and that with a macximum of 232 nodes, the
system has a much better chance of "getting through" than simpler systems. Also, with a conservative distance of 30' between nodes
and the controller located in a central position Z-Wave could handle a home that is 180' x 180'.

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
941-866-1100
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34233
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
=============================>

nobody@whocares.com (Dave Houston) wrote:

>nobody@whocares.com (Dave Houston) wrote:

Obviously, our fish doesn't understand the "first law of holes".

Zigbee can also use the same ISM band as Z-Wave so the deliberate
misrepresentation would appear to be in the Z-Wave FAQ. Here's one of about
a zillion links showing this.

http://www.cirronet.com/pdf/brochure_zmn900.pdf

4 hops MAX means that the node at the end of the 4th hop is the end of the
universe as far as Z-Wave is concerned. It cannot hop again to reach any of
those other 217 nodes - they may as well be in parallel universes.

Why anyone would buy anything from such a clueless idiot who tries to cover
his ignorance with bluff, bluster, character assassination, distortion and
outright lies is beyond me.

http://davehouston.net
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/roZetta/
roZetta-subscribe@yahoogroups.com