Hi!

I 've been researching protocols regarding PLC and I found that there are
lots of protocols.
I think that there isn't any International Standard for such applications,
so I would like
if any of you has implemented any of them with msp430, and how did it work.

Thanks.
B
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of msp430 -- send a blank email to msp430-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

There are standards in place for such things (ETSI for example) but unfortu=
nately, most of the implementations have been bull-dozed through and in rea=
lity do not meet any EMC requirements regarding H.F. interference.
I personally do not wish to see this implemented in any form as significant=
interference to all communications upto frequencies of 30MHz, beit Amateur=
, Broadcast, or otherwise is assured and the spectrum over the frequency ra=
nge in question will be destroyed by a massive increase in noise floor.
=A0
Just my thoughts
Graham
=A0
--- On Mon, 28/9/09, Franco Bucafusco wrote:
From: Franco Bucafusco
Subject: [msp430] POWERLINE COMMUNICATIONS
To: m...@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, 28 September, 2009, 5:48 PM
=A0=20

Hi!

I 've been researching protocols regarding PLC and I found that there are
lots of protocols.
I think that there isn't any International Standard for such applications,
so I would like
if any of you has implemented any of them with msp430, and how did it work.

Thanks.
B

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

=20=20=20=20=20=20

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

______________________________
Stellaris® MCU Family: New Parts, New Package, New Price.


(You need to be a member of msp430 -- send a blank email to msp430-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Hi Graham/B,

On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 10:14 +0000, Graham Barnes wrote:
> There are standards in place for such things (ETSI for example) but unfortunately, most of the implementations have been bull-dozed through and in reality do not meet any EMC requirements regarding H.F. interference.
> I personally do not wish to see this implemented in any form as significant interference to all communications upto frequencies of 30MHz, beit Amateur, Broadcast, or otherwise is assured and the spectrum over the frequency range in question will be destroyed by a massive increase in noise floor.
>
> Just my thoughts
> Graham
>
> --- On Mon, 28/9/09, Franco Bucafusco wrote:
> From: Franco Bucafusco
> Subject: [msp430] POWERLINE COMMUNICATIONS
> To: m...@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, 28 September, 2009, 5:48 PM
>
>
> Hi!
>
> I 've been researching protocols regarding PLC and I found that there are
> lots of protocols.
> I think that there isn't any International Standard for such applications,
> so I would like
> if any of you has implemented any of them with msp430, and how did it work.
>
> Thanks.
> B
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
I don't particularly agree with your thoughts Graham - let me elaborate,
since PLC has been a hobby horse of mine since a long time.

> I personally do not wish to see this implemented in any form as
> significant interference [snip]

It has been implemented since many years and never was a source of
EMI or RFI, at least not when implemented properly.
Also, the standards that have been around aren't concerned with the low
level of PHY, that's not their function.

Now, to partially answer the OP's question.
Around 1992, SGS-Thomson released the ST7537, then called a "Home
Modem". It uses a carrier around 132 kHz (IIRC) with FSK at 1,200 bps.
This part worked extremely well.
Once you convert to baseband digital stream, you can use whatever
protocol you wish. It would be as if you're using an RS485 half-duplex
network...
I used that part in industrial lighting monitoring apps and devised a
way to extend its range all through high rise buildings etc.
(my name is on the patent btw, it uses intelligent trunking)
There are at least 500,000 nodes in the field in Australia since years
using that part. EMI regulations are quite tight here and there's never
been a single complaint about interference.
The pilot site was actually the iconic Rialto building in Melbourne,
both North and South tower, using all floors.
So basically, it works - and it works very well.

In the mid '90s the CEBus standard emerged. Silicon implementing the PHY
and MAC (+ part of the CEBus DLL) was introduced by a company called
Intellon.
This system used something called "Spread Spectrum Carrier". Basically,
a sweep (or "chirp") from ~ 100-300 KHz was interpreted as one symbol, a
sweep from ~ 300-500 kHz (or thereabouts, off the cuff) the other
symbol. A correlator in the receiver turns it into ones and zeroes.
I used those parts in some lighting control systems as well. I found
them to be little improvement over the SGS method though (when it comes
to getting signals through very noisy media...
Don't forget that Power Line is just about the toughest media to deal
with for reliable communciation : impedances, phase shift, distortion
and a host of other factors constantly vary)

> I think that there isn't any International Standard for such
> applications,

I don't know about today, but CEBus was a full standard - further, it
was an OPEN standard.
Not long after, Microsoft came along and "bought" the CEBus standard,
thus slamming the door on open development. (I guess *technically* they
bought Intellon, which is sleazy IMO).
I wasn't too happy either, because I had invested considerably in CEBus,
and was starting to get good consulting business from it.

The last I heard (~late 1999), MS was going to use it in a "new,
revolutionary OS for the home" (like Vista or 7 ? :-).
It supposedly was going to provide every home that had a PC running WIN
with Power Line Carrier control built-in.

Well ? WTF is it, Microsoft ?
Before MS stuck its paws into this, MANY house/whitegoods appliances
were starting to get produced with the sticker "CEBus ready" (especially
in Germany IIRC) on it.

Short answer to the OP :
Look into the ST7537, see if that helps you.
In the interim, much higher speed PLC technology has been developed, but
I'm not sure about RFI/EMI there.......
--
Best regards,
Kris

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of msp430 -- send a blank email to msp430-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

--- In m...@yahoogroups.com, Microbit_Ubuntu wrote:

> I don't particularly agree with your thoughts Graham - let me elaborate,
> since PLC has been a hobby horse of mine since a long time.
>
> > I personally do not wish to see this implemented in any form as
> > significant interference [snip]
>
> It has been implemented since many years and never was a source of
> EMI or RFI, at least not when implemented properly.
> Also, the standards that have been around aren't concerned with the low
> level of PHY, that's not their function.
>
> Now, to partially answer the OP's question.
> Around 1992, SGS-Thomson released the ST7537, then called a "Home
> Modem". It uses a carrier around 132 kHz (IIRC) with FSK at 1,200 bps.
> This part worked extremely well.
> Once you convert to baseband digital stream, you can use whatever
> protocol you wish. It would be as if you're using an RS485 half-duplex
> network...
> I used that part in industrial lighting monitoring apps and devised a
> way to extend its range all through high rise buildings etc.
> (my name is on the patent btw, it uses intelligent trunking)
> There are at least 500,000 nodes in the field in Australia since years
> using that part. EMI regulations are quite tight here and there's never
> been a single complaint about interference.
> The pilot site was actually the iconic Rialto building in Melbourne,
> both North and South tower, using all floors.
> So basically, it works - and it works very well.
>
> In the mid '90s the CEBus standard emerged. Silicon implementing the PHY
> and MAC (+ part of the CEBus DLL) was introduced by a company called
> Intellon.
> This system used something called "Spread Spectrum Carrier". Basically,
> a sweep (or "chirp") from ~ 100-300 KHz was interpreted as one symbol, a
> sweep from ~ 300-500 kHz (or thereabouts, off the cuff) the other
> symbol. A correlator in the receiver turns it into ones and zeroes.
> I used those parts in some lighting control systems as well. I found
> them to be little improvement over the SGS method though (when it comes
> to getting signals through very noisy media...
> Don't forget that Power Line is just about the toughest media to deal
> with for reliable communciation : impedances, phase shift, distortion
> and a host of other factors constantly vary)
>
> > I think that there isn't any International Standard for such
> > applications,
>
> I don't know about today, but CEBus was a full standard - further, it
> was an OPEN standard.
> Not long after, Microsoft came along and "bought" the CEBus standard,
> thus slamming the door on open development. (I guess *technically* they
> bought Intellon, which is sleazy IMO).
> I wasn't too happy either, because I had invested considerably in CEBus,
> and was starting to get good consulting business from it.
>
> The last I heard (~late 1999), MS was going to use it in a "new,
> revolutionary OS for the home" (like Vista or 7 ? :-).
> It supposedly was going to provide every home that had a PC running WIN
> with Power Line Carrier control built-in.
>
> Well ? WTF is it, Microsoft ?
> Before MS stuck its paws into this, MANY house/whitegoods appliances
> were starting to get produced with the sticker "CEBus ready" (especially
> in Germany IIRC) on it.
>
> Short answer to the OP :
> Look into the ST7537, see if that helps you.
> In the interim, much higher speed PLC technology has been developed, but
> I'm not sure about RFI/EMI there.......
> --
> Best regards,
> Kris
>

A slightly different spin on CEBus is presented in this Wikipedia article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CEBus

I have always been under the impression if you wanted to use CEBus the chips were only available from two sources and the start up cost to develop a system were significant. Meaning you had to sell a large number of items to justify the cost. Corrections to this viewpoint are welcomed.

Howard

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of msp430 -- send a blank email to msp430-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Hi Howard et al,

> Corrections to this viewpoint are welcomed.

Glad to hear that, because Wikipedia has got it WRONG, and on several
issues.
After all, it's a Wiki. It's certainly not the first time and probably not
the last time Wikipedia articles are "manipulated"
(I have a good idea though why Wikipedia paints this "pretty picture" - and
frankly - it pisses me off at no end).

1. Intellon's products were NOT spread Spectrum. They were Spread Spectrum
Carrier.
There is a huge difference.

2. The raw bit decision had nothing to do with duration of chirps. that is
such crap.
As I mentioned before, the Intellon (hence CEBus) standard parts specified
a sweep between a lower
range and a different (higher) freq range to define the ones and zeroes.
The basic idea was that bursts at specific frequencies might "chop" out
parts of the spectrum, but the correlator
would still quite easily find the best part of the different freq sweeps,
since the sweeps covered a few 100 kHz.
The timing issues are to do with fallback.

3. It was not expensive at all to start using CEBus products. Intellon's
silicon was quite low cost (~ $5 IIRC)
You added a mains interface and voila, you've got a CEBus product, after
you add the MCU of course.
The Intellon part that did the correlation of the SSC also had a big part
of the Data Link Layer "on-board".
and oh yeah - I recall Domosys. At the time period I was referring to, they
were using "off the shelf lego blocks" that created a "proprietary
system (meaning they re-used someone else's IP and claimed it theirs). At
least it was back in 2000, at heavily marked up
prices. (I recall them touring in Australia, chest beating around and
flogging their expensive junk, the clients I knew didn't like this
very much and sent them on their merry way :-).

4. "The CEBus standard involves device addresses that are set in hardware
at the factory".
Crap again. You could freely code in a 32 bit DLL address in the Intellon
part.
CEBus never forced an OEM to hard-code it "at the factory". In fact you
were free (if desired) to reassign DLL IDs through the network. But that
should not be necessary. We're of course distinguishing logical and
physical addresses, and network binding

5. "Presently, all of the communications hardware, language, and protocol
is available on a chip produced by Intellon Corporation in Ocala, Florida
and by Domosys Corporation..."
What a joke...... Mind you, the sneaky word "presently" is inserted. How
convenient.
When Intellon was _actually_ Intellon, their silicon was freely available,
no license fees, no other costs.
(I know because I designed several products with the P200, P300/400 and
P500 myself).

CEBus was an OPEN, yes OPEN standard !!!!!!!!!!!!!
(I bought the 2-part books standard in the early '90s for a couple of 100
bucks).
That's what it always was meant to be - and it was vowed to *stay* that
way.

MS/Bill Gates came in, killed the whole fucking thing... and it actually
now make sense what you advise :

> chips were only available from two sources and the start up cost to
> develop a system were significant. Meaning you had to sell a large
> number of items to justify the cost.

Microsoft claimed that every one of God's children (that had a *Windows* PC
- of course) would have CEBus
technology "built-into their PC" . How sweet... how altruistic....

So now it's even worse.... What was always supposed to be public domain got
somehow (IMO *illegally*)
bought up, and now you have to fork out big $$$$ to use it....
****** Sound familiar anyone ****** ????

To see the funny side of it : Anyone recall Homer Simpson in the episode
"Das Bus" (The parody on "Lord Of The flies") with his
"Hyper-Global-Mega-Net" ISP business, being visited by Bill Gates ????
"Don't be fooled by the haircut, I am exceedingly wealthy" ....... OK, buy
him out guys !!! [smashing everything in the room )
Hehehe.

Honestly, until recently I never had a major gripe with M$/Bill Gates. I've
always admired him for his smarts, especially how he turned
BASIC - a flop at that time - into a huge succes.
But this is beyond Anti-Trust. Sheesz, that has really pissed me off.......
[note to moderator] : Sorry Bruce for not putting asterisks where people
normally put them (but everyone knows what it means anyway).
I just couldn't be bothered with it. That's how bad the whole
CEBus/MS/Domosys thing got under my skin....

And Wikipedia.. SHAME on you for providing such as BS cover-up story !!!!!

B rgds
Kris

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:33:10 -0000, "hrh1818" wrote:
> --- In m...@yahoogroups.com, Microbit_Ubuntu wrote:
>
>> I don't particularly agree with your thoughts Graham - let me elaborate,
>> since PLC has been a hobby horse of mine since a long time.
>>
>> > I personally do not wish to see this implemented in any form as
>> > significant interference [snip]
>>
>> It has been implemented since many years and never was a source of
>> EMI or RFI, at least not when implemented properly.
>> Also, the standards that have been around aren't concerned with the low
>> level of PHY, that's not their function.
>>
>> Now, to partially answer the OP's question.
>> Around 1992, SGS-Thomson released the ST7537, then called a "Home
>> Modem". It uses a carrier around 132 kHz (IIRC) with FSK at 1,200 bps.
>> This part worked extremely well.
>> Once you convert to baseband digital stream, you can use whatever
>> protocol you wish. It would be as if you're using an RS485 half-duplex
>> network...
>> I used that part in industrial lighting monitoring apps and devised a
>> way to extend its range all through high rise buildings etc.
>> (my name is on the patent btw, it uses intelligent trunking)
>> There are at least 500,000 nodes in the field in Australia since years
>> using that part. EMI regulations are quite tight here and there's never
>> been a single complaint about interference.
>> The pilot site was actually the iconic Rialto building in Melbourne,
>> both North and South tower, using all floors.
>> So basically, it works - and it works very well.
>>
>> In the mid '90s the CEBus standard emerged. Silicon implementing the PHY
>> and MAC (+ part of the CEBus DLL) was introduced by a company called
>> Intellon.
>> This system used something called "Spread Spectrum Carrier". Basically,
>> a sweep (or "chirp") from ~ 100-300 KHz was interpreted as one symbol, a
>> sweep from ~ 300-500 kHz (or thereabouts, off the cuff) the other
>> symbol. A correlator in the receiver turns it into ones and zeroes.
>> I used those parts in some lighting control systems as well. I found
>> them to be little improvement over the SGS method though (when it comes
>> to getting signals through very noisy media...
>> Don't forget that Power Line is just about the toughest media to deal
>> with for reliable communciation : impedances, phase shift, distortion
>> and a host of other factors constantly vary)
>>
>> > I think that there isn't any International Standard for such
>> > applications,
>>
>> I don't know about today, but CEBus was a full standard - further, it
>> was an OPEN standard.
>> Not long after, Microsoft came along and "bought" the CEBus standard,
>> thus slamming the door on open development. (I guess *technically* they
>> bought Intellon, which is sleazy IMO).
>> I wasn't too happy either, because I had invested considerably in CEBus,
>> and was starting to get good consulting business from it.
>>
>> The last I heard (~late 1999), MS was going to use it in a "new,
>> revolutionary OS for the home" (like Vista or 7 ? :-).
>> It supposedly was going to provide every home that had a PC running WIN
>> with Power Line Carrier control built-in.
>>
>> Well ? WTF is it, Microsoft ?
>> Before MS stuck its paws into this, MANY house/whitegoods appliances
>> were starting to get produced with the sticker "CEBus ready" (especially
>> in Germany IIRC) on it.
>>
>> Short answer to the OP :
>> Look into the ST7537, see if that helps you.
>> In the interim, much higher speed PLC technology has been developed, but
>> I'm not sure about RFI/EMI there.......
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Kris
>> A slightly different spin on CEBus is presented in this Wikipedia
article.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CEBus
>
> I have always been under the impression if you wanted to use CEBus the
> chips were only available from two sources and the start up cost to
> develop a system were significant. Meaning you had to sell a large
> number of items to justify the cost. Corrections to this viewpoint are
> welcomed.
>
> Howard
>
> ------------------------------------

______________________________
Stellaris® MCU Family: New Parts, New Package, New Price.


(You need to be a member of msp430 -- send a blank email to msp430-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Hi Howard et al

To complete my comments about Wikipedia, I noticed the link at the bottom
to C-Bus.
That article is not particularly forthcoming either... (notwithstanding
that C-bus is not like CEBus at all)

A few months ago I saw one of them "infomercials" on a morning show,
promoting
the "C-Bus revolutionary system, newly engineered".
Hum. Wikipedia is rather evasive about this too.

C-Bus was launched in the early '90s as a "large building" lighting control
system.
It flopped big time.... (it required massive rewiring in large buildings)
I guess they figured people would have forgotten, 15 years on....
I see it's now claimed to be a "home automation system". Okay, fair enough.

And I couldn't help this one :
Wikipedia lists a few buildings in Australia/New Zealand that have/had
C-Bus in it.
If I'd list all the buildings in Australia and New Zealand that have my PLC
(it's actually MLC) system in it, it'd be a hell of a long list.
I challenge any Aussie that reads this, to name a reasonably sized public
or government building in Australia,
I claim a 95% chance it's got my system in it... :-)

Note/disclaimer :
I know the Clipsal company quite well, and have nothing but good to say
about them.
I contracted a lot for them in mid '90s. I know the ESP branch quite well
and liased a lot with the Gerard
family. They were very professional and pleasant to deal with. At the time
of my dealings, Jason was in the pipeline to take over
from Robert Gerard. (his father).
I had quite a few lunches with Jason, he was a top bloke. Hope he's doing
well today....

B rgds
Kris

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:33:10 -0000, "hrh1818" wrote:
> A slightly different spin on CEBus is presented in this Wikipedia
article.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CEBus
>
> I have always been under the impression if you wanted to use CEBus the
> chips were only available from two sources and the start up cost to
> develop a system were significant. Meaning you had to sell a large
> number of items to justify the cost. Corrections to this viewpoint are
> welcomed.
>
> Howard
>

------------------------------------

______________________________
Stellaris® MCU Family: New Parts, New Package, New Price.


(You need to be a member of msp430 -- send a blank email to msp430-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

On 2009-09-30 09:18, m...@virginbroadband.com.au wrote:
> Hi Howard et al,
>
>
>> Corrections to this viewpoint are welcomed.
>>
> Glad to hear that, because Wikipedia has got it WRONG, and on several
> issues.
> After all, it's a Wiki. It's certainly not the first time and probably not
> the last time Wikipedia articles are "manipulated"
> (I have a good idea though why Wikipedia paints this "pretty picture" - and
> frankly - it pisses me off at no end).
>
> 1. Intellon's products were NOT spread Spectrum. They were Spread Spectrum
> Carrier.
> There is a huge difference.
>
> 2. The raw bit decision had nothing to do with duration of chirps. that is
> such crap.
> As I mentioned before, the Intellon (hence CEBus) standard parts specified
> a sweep between a lower
> range and a different (higher) freq range to define the ones and zeroes.
> The basic idea was that bursts at specific frequencies might "chop" out
> parts of the spectrum, but the correlator
> would still quite easily find the best part of the different freq sweeps,
> since the sweeps covered a few 100 kHz.
> The timing issues are to do with fallback.
>
> 3. It was not expensive at all to start using CEBus products. Intellon's
> silicon was quite low cost (~ $5 IIRC)
> You added a mains interface and voila, you've got a CEBus product, after
> you add the MCU of course.
> The Intellon part that did the correlation of the SSC also had a big part
> of the Data Link Layer "on-board".
> and oh yeah - I recall Domosys. At the time period I was referring to, they
> were using "off the shelf lego blocks" that created a "proprietary
> system (meaning they re-used someone else's IP and claimed it theirs). At
> least it was back in 2000, at heavily marked up
> prices. (I recall them touring in Australia, chest beating around and
> flogging their expensive junk, the clients I knew didn't like this
> very much and sent them on their merry way :-).
>
> 4. "The CEBus standard involves device addresses that are set in hardware
> at the factory".
> Crap again. You could freely code in a 32 bit DLL address in the Intellon
> part.
> CEBus never forced an OEM to hard-code it "at the factory". In fact you
> were free (if desired) to reassign DLL IDs through the network. But that
> should not be necessary. We're of course distinguishing logical and
> physical addresses, and network binding
>
> 5. "Presently, all of the communications hardware, language, and protocol
> is available on a chip produced by Intellon Corporation in Ocala, Florida
> and by Domosys Corporation..."
> What a joke...... Mind you, the sneaky word "presently" is inserted. How
> convenient.
> When Intellon was _actually_ Intellon, their silicon was freely available,
> no license fees, no other costs.
> (I know because I designed several products with the P200, P300/400 and
> P500 myself).
>
> CEBus was an OPEN, yes OPEN standard !!!!!!!!!!!!!
> (I bought the 2-part books standard in the early '90s for a couple of 100
> bucks).
> That's what it always was meant to be - and it was vowed to *stay* that
> way.
>
> MS/Bill Gates came in, killed the whole fucking thing... and it actually
> now make sense what you advise :
>
>
>> chips were only available from two sources and the start up cost to
>> develop a system were significant. Meaning you had to sell a large
>> number of items to justify the cost.
>>
> [snip]
>
> B rgds
> Kris
>

Hi Kris,

There is an Australian company who are doing the PLC chips which are
compatible and superior than the chips offered by Intellon.

http://semitech.com.au/

Using them currently.

Regards,
KF

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of msp430 -- send a blank email to msp430-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

On 2009-09-30 11:51, KF Leong wrote:
> On 2009-09-30 09:18, m...@virginbroadband.com.au wrote:
>> Hi Howard et al,
>>
>>> Corrections to this viewpoint are welcomed.
>> Glad to hear that, because Wikipedia has got it WRONG, and on several
>> issues.
>> After all, it's a Wiki. It's certainly not the first time and
>> probably not
>> the last time Wikipedia articles are "manipulated"
>> (I have a good idea though why Wikipedia paints this "pretty picture"
>> - and
>> frankly - it pisses me off at no end).
>>
>> 1. Intellon's products were NOT spread Spectrum. They were Spread
>> Spectrum
>> Carrier.
>> There is a huge difference.
>>
>> 2. The raw bit decision had nothing to do with duration of chirps.
>> that is
>> such crap.
>> As I mentioned before, the Intellon (hence CEBus) standard parts
>> specified
>> a sweep between a lower
>> range and a different (higher) freq range to define the ones and zeroes.
>> The basic idea was that bursts at specific frequencies might "chop" out
>> parts of the spectrum, but the correlator
>> would still quite easily find the best part of the different freq
>> sweeps,
>> since the sweeps covered a few 100 kHz.
>> The timing issues are to do with fallback.
>>
>> 3. It was not expensive at all to start using CEBus products. Intellon's
>> silicon was quite low cost (~ $5 IIRC)
>> You added a mains interface and voila, you've got a CEBus product, after
>> you add the MCU of course.
>> The Intellon part that did the correlation of the SSC also had a big
>> part
>> of the Data Link Layer "on-board".
>> and oh yeah - I recall Domosys. At the time period I was referring
>> to, they
>> were using "off the shelf lego blocks" that created a "proprietary
>> system (meaning they re-used someone else's IP and claimed it
>> theirs). At
>> least it was back in 2000, at heavily marked up
>> prices. (I recall them touring in Australia, chest beating around and
>> flogging their expensive junk, the clients I knew didn't like this
>> very much and sent them on their merry way :-).
>>
>> 4. "The CEBus standard involves device addresses that are set in
>> hardware
>> at the factory".
>> Crap again. You could freely code in a 32 bit DLL address in the
>> Intellon
>> part.
>> CEBus never forced an OEM to hard-code it "at the factory". In fact you
>> were free (if desired) to reassign DLL IDs through the network. But that
>> should not be necessary. We're of course distinguishing logical and
>> physical addresses, and network binding
>>
>> 5. "Presently, all of the communications hardware, language, and
>> protocol
>> is available on a chip produced by Intellon Corporation in Ocala,
>> Florida
>> and by Domosys Corporation..."
>> What a joke...... Mind you, the sneaky word "presently" is inserted. How
>> convenient.
>> When Intellon was _actually_ Intellon, their silicon was freely
>> available,
>> no license fees, no other costs.
>> (I know because I designed several products with the P200, P300/400 and
>> P500 myself).
>>
>> CEBus was an OPEN, yes OPEN standard !!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> (I bought the 2-part books standard in the early '90s for a couple of
>> 100
>> bucks).
>> That's what it always was meant to be - and it was vowed to *stay* that
>> way.
>>
>> MS/Bill Gates came in, killed the whole fucking thing... and it actually
>> now make sense what you advise :
>>
>>> chips were only available from two sources and the start up cost to
>>> develop a system were significant. Meaning you had to sell a large
>>> number of items to justify the cost.
>> [snip]
>>
>> B rgds
>> Kris
>
> Hi Kris,
>
> There is an Australian company who are doing the PLC chips which are
> compatible and superior than the chips offered by Intellon.
>
> http://semitech.com.au/
>
> Using them currently.
>
> Regards,
> KF
>
Arrgghh... type too fast.

Actually the chips are Echelon compatible, not Intellon compatible.

Regards,
KF

------------------------------------



(You need to be a member of msp430 -- send a blank email to msp430-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Hi Kris
=A0
I would agree if the communication rates and hence bandwidths are kept low.=
=A0 As the actual PLC requirement was not stated, I rather generalised and =
perhaps mistakenly assumed the higher speed broadband variants which are de=
finately spectrum damaging.
I apologise for the misunderstanding and would agree that the low carrier f=
requency / slow Baud rate type comms. are likely to be O/K.
=A0
Cheers
Graham
=A0

=20=20=20=20=20=20

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

______________________________
Stellaris® MCU Family: New Parts, New Package, New Price.


(You need to be a member of msp430 -- send a blank email to msp430-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Hi Graham !

Not at all.
Conversely, perhaps I should have enunciated better in my post (at the end)=
that when
higher speeds are used, I don=92t particularly disagree with your comment, =
on the contrary -
I would take it to heart too.
I have a lengthy background in Ham Radio myself, so I understand the concer=
n (vis-=E0-vis
RFI).

As you can tell, the SSC issue touched a nerve for me, and I sincerely hope=
I didn't
convey/direct any "anguish" towards you, certainly not the case !

73s & Best Regards,
Kris=20

> -----Original Message-----
> From: m...@yahoogroups.com [mailto:m...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of=
Graham
> Barnes
> Sent: Wednesday, 30 September 2009 4:57 PM
> To: m...@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [msp430] POWERLINE COMMUNICATIONS
>=20
> Hi Kris
>=20
> I would agree if the communication rates and hence bandwidths are kept lo=
w.=A0 As the
actual PLC
> requirement was not stated, I rather generalised and perhaps mistakenly a=
ssumed the
higher
> speed broadband variants which are definately spectrum damaging.
> I apologise for the misunderstanding and would agree that the low carrier=
frequency /
slow Baud
> rate type comms. are likely to be O/K.
>=20
> Cheers
> Graham
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ------------------------------------
>=20
>
>=20
>



(You need to be a member of msp430 -- send a blank email to msp430-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )