Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 30
  1. #14
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    9,564
    I can see wireless thermostat to nearest locally wired ASC controller. I see and use these wireless systems with receivers and mapping or binding becomes alot of work. Then, if the wireless receiver craps out you are in a pile of .....

    I'd say your wireless absolutely must be mesh if it working off individual controllers. I'd say otherwise don't bother unless you absolutely have to use it.

  2. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by nikko View Post
    I think it's great you guys are developing wireless, but perhaps your immediate engineering efforts would be better spent on making the BACnet t-stats you sell now work.

    When I see your product quality come back to where it was before I'll consider looking at your wireless products. Until then, you're not even on the radar.

    Nikko
    Interesting take Nikko - and I certainly appreciate you cander -

    May I ask what the problems are which you experienced? and with integration to what type of system -

  3. #16
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    9,564
    .... wouldn't that be a "bacnet" system?

    What could possibly be the difference as bacnet is a stellar open protocol?
    Could you elaborate why you would try to distinguish a "type" of system?

    I get the impression by your comments not all bacnet systems are the same or that there is differences in the way bacnet systems work from manufacturer to manufacturer which is surprising because I thought they had standards.

  4. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    17
    Sysint -

    I am interested which brand of BACnet system Nikko has been working with.

    I would like to further investigate Nikko's remark regarding our product integration quality to ascertain whether this is a total-system related issue or a manufacturing problem we should be investigating further.

    Being unaware of any immediate quality issues with our product, my curiosity is certainly peeked -

    REM

  5. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    17
    Yes Sysint -

    Not all bacent systems are created equal - but then ofcourse you already realized this.

    BACnet standard supports different level of services and settings from device to device and device to system.

    I see this as a bit of a hangover from the days of prop -485 systems and the features they support -

    BACnet and Lon have there place, from Viconics perspective - we are working to satisfy both allegiances -

    It is clear to me which side of the fence you reside - Viconics push is to simple make the protocol argument go-away and have buildings equipped with devices which best suit the application -

    REM

  6. #19
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    9,564
    I'm on the side of honesty. I really don't think you knew which "side".

    If the bacnetters would be honest and ASHRAE wasn't a lying piece of garbage with their business interests in promotion of bacnet it would be different for me.

    They aren't.

    It's only when the honesty comes through that bacnet moves forward. ASHRAE consists of cowards that won't stand up against the manufacturers in the industry because everybody has to try to keep advantage with their product via being less than forthcoming. That's the reason you have a problem with your product. It is a simple ASC that the big's don't want to mess with and really could care less about you. It's a circus and you have to jump through their hoops. Maybe they give you treats once and awhile for being good.

  7. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    What? Who? Where?
    Posts
    1,734
    Quote Originally Posted by sysint View Post
    I can see wireless thermostat to nearest locally wired ASC controller. I see and use these wireless systems with receivers and mapping or binding becomes alot of work. Then, if the wireless receiver craps out you are in a pile of .....

    I'd say your wireless absolutely must be mesh if it working off individual controllers. I'd say otherwise don't bother unless you absolutely have to use it.
    Yes, Andover's solution is a "self healing" mesh network. Works with both their propriety Infinet networks and their BACnet MS/TP controllers. If you lose your wired connection you will probably lose all controllers down line of the break or if your FTT-10/RS-485 Rx/Tx craps out you might drag down the whole network.The controllers have to be ordered with the wireless option and then the receiver/transmitter plugs into the controllers service port. If there is a gap in the network a receiver plugged into a power source acts as a repeater. As I said all in all it was a nice solution.

    The project cost was the same as if it was piped and wired as the money saved on installation was spent on the cost of the extra hardware. I probably would not design a new construction project with wireless unless it was absolutely necessary, but for a retro-fit application where running pipe and wire would be not a cost effective solution or if it was say a historical building where you had installation constraints it would be great.

    The biggest hang-up I saw at the time was that the controllers have to be ordered either wired or wireless. You can't have one controller on the wireless network wired to say 3 or 4 other controllers in the same enclosure. Every controller on that BCX has to be either wired or wireless, you can't have a hybrid wired/wireless network.

    knotrol out.
    "Open is as open does." - Forrest Gump
    "Can't we all just get a Lon?" - Garry Jack
    "BACnet: integration or interrogation?" - The Janitor
    "Open protocols? You can't handle open protocols!" - Nathan R. Jessup
    “What’s that? Aaa… open protocols? Don’t talk about…. open protocols? Are you kidding me? Open protocols? I just hope we can hardwire an interface!” - Jim Mora http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7fjDS0jKiE

  8. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    17
    "It is a simple ASC that the big's don't want to mess with and really could care less about you. It's a circus and you have to jump through their hoops. Maybe they give you treats once and awhile for being good. "

    Sysint -

    I have seen far too many post from you to debate your position. I doubt you are on the side of honesty, and obviously cannot offer a simple non-biased approach regarding lon or BACnet.

    I dis-agree with your position regarding BACnet, and respect your thoughts regarding Lon devices.

    I would re-think your assessment of the "circus" you are referring to.

    As for the treats....due your diligence, we are something "the bigs" are dealing with.

    REM

  9. #22
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    9,564
    Sorry, I'm just an integrator. If bacnet were honestly promoted and worked as they say it did I'd be using it. I cannot buy a full array of bacnet devices and configure them without software packages for each.

    I can however do that with Lonworks. That's an honest fact of the matter.

    Further, communication is not guaranteed as you have not only admitted but experience with bacnet.

    Honestly, that's not the case with Lonworks. Communication is not to be worried about with Lonworks devices. (note I don't say "gateways" or "interfaces".)

    Where can I buy a standard config tool for bacnet devices? --- CAN'T.
    Where can I buy programmable bacnet devices w/standard config tool? --- CAN'T
    Where can I buy retail bacnet devices? --- CAN'T.
    Where can I buy wholesale bacnet devices? --- Nowhere except for somebody who handles your line.

    You are simply a fence-straddling manufacturer. I don't have that bias and I could give a crap about what ASHRAE thinks.

  10. #23
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    9,564
    Quote Originally Posted by kontrolphreak View Post
    Yes, Andover's solution is a "self healing" mesh network. Works with both their propriety Infinet networks and their BACnet MS/TP controllers. ....knotrol out.
    That's an impressive start. I take it the ASC's downstream are still all wired devices?

  11. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    What? Who? Where?
    Posts
    1,734
    Quote Originally Posted by sysint View Post
    That's an impressive start. I take it the ASC's downstream are still all wired devices?
    No, all devices have to be wireless off that BCX (32 nodes), now you could connect that BCX to other BCX controllers that could be either configured as wired or wireless.

    You just can't have both wired controllers and wireless controllers under the same BCX. Now, this wired/wireless deal is only for the network between controllers, all inputs and outputs at this point are hardwired back to the wireless networked controller.

    The BCX is Andovers media converter/controller from the Infinet/BACnet MS/TP networks to the IP level. It also can be ordered with memory for programming, web pages, I/O expansion slots etc.

    kontrol out
    "Open is as open does." - Forrest Gump
    "Can't we all just get a Lon?" - Garry Jack
    "BACnet: integration or interrogation?" - The Janitor
    "Open protocols? You can't handle open protocols!" - Nathan R. Jessup
    “What’s that? Aaa… open protocols? Don’t talk about…. open protocols? Are you kidding me? Open protocols? I just hope we can hardwire an interface!” - Jim Mora http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7fjDS0jKiE

  12. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    17
    sysint -

    Obviously a very experienced integrator with Lonworks devices.

    When developing our line we wanted to satisfy "market requirements", not to say that I have my own opinion.

    Right on all counts for the BACnet devices, I do have a question though...


    Where can you purchase a fully programmable lon programmable controller, say 8x8 card and NOT have to utilize the manufactures specific tools....I am not sure how different this is than BACnet, aside from the service difference.

    I to come from an integrator background to which I have enjoyed installing both types of systems, pre true open and interoperable systems (and Yes aside from lon)in my opinion we still have a long way to go.

    From a manufacturing and marketing standpoint, I will tell you however that our BACnet to Lontalk device sales are 2 to 1.

    Again - manufactures are inherently fence-sitters as you so elequently pointed out. We are out to manufacture devices to meet the need of the market not a protocol specific opinion or even fact.

    You sincerely sound like a knowledgeable fellow - and I respect your opinion, however, you do not represent the market as a whole.

    REM

  13. #26
    You know. I see nowhere where the "market" was ever in question here. The market is what it is. The interoperability, however is the question. Just because you sell more BACNET over LON only proves the point more in favor of the Sysint argument. That engineers are in the hip pocket of ASHREA and don't think much about what is best for their customers, but what is best for themselves, and the good ole boy ASHREA network of greed and misinformation.

    The protocals speak for themselves and any non bias fool willing to investigate the truth can see the night and day advantages Lon has over BACNET (any Flavor of Bacnet).

    Freddy

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event