X10 Community Forum

Reviews => X10 Hardware => Home Automation Reviews => Topic started by: Tuicemen on October 13, 2015, 02:52:27 PM

Title: New PAT03 (2015 Review)
Post by: Tuicemen on October 13, 2015, 02:52:27 PM
I just received this unit. This thing has some weight to it, it doesn't feel cheep.
Running some simple tests thus far the most noticeable nice feature is the quiet relay.
Authinx has reduced the loud clicking relay sound we grew to hate.  :)%
Testing this with the XTB Pro I see just how much of a difference the new internals make.
This unit appears to max out the XTBM signal strength read out of 9.99.
I know the signal strength is above this as a repeater returns the same strength.
Tests with other transmitters show a 0.04 to 0.08 strength difference using a repeater so it is obviously sending a stronger signal then the XTBM reports.  ??? ::) :'  :)%
This unit hasn't changed in appearance so it is good they gave it a new model #.
This sees even my weakest remote

Bottom Line:
This thing is Just Awesome!
It is a Power house!
The only X10 transmitter that matches this kind of signal strength (that I have) is the new Wi-Fi module I'm testing.
You should have no problems with PLC signals not making it to their destinations using this.
 >!
Title: Re: New PAT03 (2015 Review)
Post by: Tuicemen on October 13, 2015, 07:27:54 PM
Talking with Jeff Volp, he explained how to get a more precise  signal reading using another transmitter to figure out a drop off measurement to  calculate with.
Doing this from several different locations it seems the PAT03 signal strength is 15Vpp.
That is assuming I did my math right ::) :'
 >!
Title: Re: New PAT03 (2015 Review)
Post by: dhouston on October 14, 2015, 02:52:08 PM
...it seems the PAT03 signal strength is 15Vpp.

Before the CM11A, all X10 PLC transmitters output 10Vpp. The CM11A and other PLC transmitters introduced after it, output 5Vpp-6Vpp. There was no apparent reason for the change.

As I was developing some PLC transmitters capable of much higher outputs, I did some limited research, communicating with some people who had used PLC in commercial applications. As far as I could ascertain, there are no FCC (or other) regulations that limit PLC levels. At the time the CM11A was introduced, I thought it possible X10 was trying to meet European limits but it turned out that European limits are even lower at approximately 3Vpp so the reason for the reduction to 5Vpp remains a mystery.

In any event, it's a positive sign that Authinx has done this. The higher signal levels will do a lot to address issues that have bedeviled N. American X10 users for many, many years.
Title: Re: New PAT03 (2015 Review)
Post by: Tuicemen on October 14, 2015, 03:26:26 PM
I suspect X10WTI went with smaller cheaper transformers for the power supply thus not able to deliver the output.
We all know they went for the cheap! ::) :'
The new units do have a heavier feel to them suggesting a larger transformer.
Things that run on a wall wart may not get as big a boost due to a size constraint of the wall wart. B:(
However time will tell. ;)
Title: Re: New PAT03 (2015 Review)
Post by: artk13 on December 11, 2015, 05:26:36 PM
Here's a puzzle.  Just replaced a TM751A with a PAT03.  The new puppy is happy with signals from my  HR-12A Palm Pads but does not respond at all to the SS13A Remote Wall Switch from a distance greater than 2 feet!  If I replace the PAT03 with the TM751A (at the same location) the SS13 does fine through two walls at a distance of about 30 feet.  WTF?
Title: Re: New PAT03 (2015 Review)
Post by: Tuicemen on December 11, 2015, 06:10:25 PM
Sounds like you got a defective unit.
Although I never had much luck with the SS13A stick a switches the PAT03 should see the signal if the TM751 does.
It is also possible that the larger transformer With AGC in the PAT is reflecting the week signal from the SS13A ::) :'
I never compared RF receives in my tests.
I'll see if I can see any difference in the two units on my end.
 >!
Title: Re: New PAT03 (2015 Review)
Post by: Tuicemen on December 12, 2015, 10:31:35 AM
Ok dug out my Pat03,TM751, and a SS13A
There is a noticeable RF range reception difference! :(
In my original tests I only used a palm pad which works the same for both (however my place is small)

Just for Kicks I installed a RS571 RF repeater opposite end of the house. With the ss13a I was able to trip things plugged into the PAT03 while sitting 4 feet away from the PAT03 with out the repeater it wouldn't work.
Not a good Sign and I will be reporting this to Authinx.
Title: Re: New PAT03 (2015 Review)
Post by: dhouston on December 12, 2015, 12:05:19 PM
Not a good Sign and I will be reporting this to Authinx.

Stick-a-switches have always had poor range. It's a poor design and powered by battery. It was the reason I first tried a passive repeater (which solved the range issue for me).
Title: Re: New PAT03 (2015 Review)
Post by: Tuicemen on December 12, 2015, 12:27:44 PM
Stick-a-switches have always had poor range. It's a poor design and powered by battery. It was the reason I first tried a passive repeater (which solved the range issue for me).
I agree, however I feel the PAT03 should at least perform as well with them as the TM751.
My TM751 is from X10WTI and when a old X10WTI module out performs a newly designed Pro module something is wrong.
Title: Re: New PAT03 (2015 Review)
Post by: Brian H on December 12, 2015, 01:54:43 PM
How the TM751 performed. May depend on how old it is.
I have seen two versions of the RF receiver in them. Newer ones had the same basic receiver as in the CM15A.
Title: Re: New PAT03 (2015 Review)
Post by: Tuicemen on December 12, 2015, 03:49:35 PM
How the TM751 performed. May depend on how old it is.
I have seen two versions of the RF receiver in them. Newer ones had the same basic receiver as in the CM15A.
This is true. And it is for that reason I never tested to see the maximum distance it performed at.
I simply tested both at a distance of 4 feet (the most distance I ever got from a stick a switch)
Title: Re: New PAT03 (2015 Review)
Post by: dhouston on December 12, 2015, 07:33:33 PM
How the TM751 performed. May depend on how old it is.
I have seen two versions of the RF receiver in them. Newer ones had the same basic receiver as in the CM15A.

The older ones had super-regenerative receivers which have wide bandwidth. Newer ones have super-heterodyne receivers which have a much narrower bandwidth. With (mostly) LC controlled X10 transmitters, the older TM751 will outperform the newer version. The newer version will probably work well with SAW controlled transmitters.