The X10 motion sensors use a Passive Infrared Detector to detect motion. By a change in detected heat in predetermined time frame.
From the X10 wiki on automation sensors.
http://kbase.x10.com/wiki/What_is_Passive_Infrared_Detection
http://kbase.x10.com/wiki/Optimizing_Motion_Sensor_Detection
If you are using security sensors there is a section in the wiki for those also. They also use a PIR detector.
http://kbase.x10.com/wiki/Security_Motion_Sensor
Issue is that the sensitivity and range(field) will change as the temperature and conditions change. The greater the difference between ambient temp. and body temp. the greater the range and sensitivity. Also concrete (driveways),buildings,grass and other vegetation will heat at different rates depending on exposure to sun and wind.
Now, I suppose macros might be used cleverly to enhance the detemination of what part of a common area that motion is occurring in via some sort of "triangulation" - but I think that might require even more precise determination of each sensor's actual field of view (?)There is no magic formula. It is trial and error. Mounting high and pointing downward helps control the field of vision. However, as everydayflyer pointed out; what is true today will change tomorrow. What is true during the day will change at night. It is a five buck PIR detector with range parameters that will change daily.
Anyway, the need here is to figure out how to restrict the detections to only motion in specific areas, mainly because the motion sensors' field of "view" is wider than the field of view of the associated camera.
It is a five buck PIR detector with range parameters that will change daily.
Yes, I know, sometimes I tend to be overly optomistic. :'It is a five buck PIR detector with range parameters that will change daily.
They're stable for that long? rofl
Now, I suppose macros might be used cleverly to enhance the detemination of what part of a common area that motion is occurring in via some sort of "triangulation" - but I think that might require even more precise determination of each sensor's actual field of view (?)There is no magic formula. It is trial and error. Mounting high and pointing downward helps control the field of vision. However, as everydayflyer pointed out; what is true today will change tomorrow. What is true during the day will change at night. It is a five buck PIR detector with range parameters that will change daily.
Anyway, the need here is to figure out how to restrict the detections to only motion in specific areas, mainly because the motion sensors' field of "view" is wider than the field of view of the associated camera.
B:(
Trying to align something you can't see with something else that you can't see is going to be very difficult at best...
...
I know there are many here who use the motion sensors reliably, but you'll probably find that their requirements tend to be a little more vague than the exact critical sensing conditions that you're trying to achieve .
No. The detectors are not junk, neither the xxxEyes, nor the floodlight PIRs. But what you want to do with PIR motion detectors isn't possible, and that has been pointed out several times in this thread. Did you bother to read the Wiki sites you were provided earlier in this thread? One of the sites gives typical field of view for X10 PIRs and can be overlays for your cameras...BUT...B:(
Gee, thanks for the "help". :-\ I take it you're claiming the motion sensors are junk, and not only does their performance change over time with changing environmental conditions, but their behavior also changes at random from minute to minute? If so, then there's no hope of using them to control cameras to monitor any real time events? In that case, I guess my question has to become one of what sort of sensor can be used to detect intruders reliably in the viewed area and trigger cameras to observe them in a timely manner?
No. The detectors are not junk, neither the xxxEyes, nor the floodlight PIRs. But what you want to do with PIR motion detectors isn't possible, and that has been pointed out several times in this thread. Did you bother to read the Wiki sites you were provided earlier in this thread? One of the sites gives typical field of view for X10 PIRs and can be overlays for your cameras...BUT...B:(
Gee, thanks for the "help". :-\ I take it you're claiming the motion sensors are junk, and not only does their performance change over time with changing environmental conditions, but their behavior also changes at random from minute to minute? If so, then there's no hope of using them to control cameras to monitor any real time events? In that case, I guess my question has to become one of what sort of sensor can be used to detect intruders reliably in the viewed area and trigger cameras to observe them in a timely manner?
The PIRs depend upon seeing a MOVING heat differential. THIS INCLUDES EDGE OF FIELD DETECTION. A warm body moving into the field of view will be detected sooner on a cool day than on a warm day. The edge of field detection is dynamic, and heavily influenced by ambient temperature, the size of target, amount of sunlight (background IR), etc. What you want to do: find precises and dependable, repeatable edge of field detection points using PIR motion detectors, just isn't possible.
What you want is a video switcher/multiplexer which will output a trigger when movement is detected in the video frame.
It also sounds to me like "precision" that I am "requiring" is being over-estimated: I really only need to segregate the detection areas into about 6-8 "quadrants" around the building, and be able to tell which quadrant motion has been detected in - without getting triggers on two or more sensors for any given motion. For example, if motion is occuring to the northwest of the building, I need it to trigger only the northwest sensor, and not the north, northwest and west sensors.
OK Let me put this another way. There ain't no "tools", there ain't no magic formulas. It is all trial and error and that includes masking the detectors. You could use a portable IR source (there are battery video camera lights which are IR, not full spectrum light) to define the borders of the field, but the borders will be true only for the concentrated IR source, a warm body would produce completely different borders). And even with masks on the PR511s detector windows, the edge of field detection, and the sensitivity of the detector will not be consistant.
The variance you claim for borders still puzzles me; I just can't get my head around how a sensor's performance variances can cause it to "see" beyond the "hard stops" (masks) such that it would produce the varying boundaries that you describe. ???The sensors detection sensitivity (performance) remains the same. What the sensor is detecting (IR emission) is the variation.
It also sounds to me like "precision" that I am "requiring" is being over-estimated: I really only need to segregate the detection areas into about 6-8 "quadrants" around the building, and be able to tell which quadrant motion has been detected in - without getting triggers on two or more sensors for any given motion. For example, if motion is occuring to the northwest of the building, I need it to trigger only the northwest sensor, and not the north, northwest and west sensors.
I'm sure that given enough time and motivation it's entirely possible to do almost what you need.
Imagine the purely hypothetical set-up...
All motion sensors are active until motion is detected in one zone. As soon as motion is detected in a single zone all other motion sensors become deactivated. When motion is no longer sensed in the first zone all sensors become active again. Scenario repeats.
This could possibly be achieved with clever use of macros and flags. Sensor one sets a flag so that motion on other sensors is ignored until sensor one no longer sees motion.
Obviously there must be 'blind' space between the sensors for this to occur - the blind space must be fairly significant to allow for heat, light and temperature variations that will naturally occur.
You can see the variance between two seemingly identical motion sensors by mounting them immediately next to each other and running a set of tests to see which one activates and when - the angle and range will differ even on high end motion sensors.
{Rhetorical Question}
What do you want to happen if your motion source tracks around your property (looking in different windows, trying doors, climbing downpipes)?
{/Rhetorical Question}
Intruder approaches from NorthWest (NW motion detected), intruder moves left (N motion ignored), intruder moves further and smashes window on NorthEast side of house as camera system happily records no motion to NorthWest.
Intruder approaches from NorthWest as intruder 2 approaches from North - since you only want motion detection in a single zone that must mean that only one intruder is detected.
If you need to detect movement within the view of the camera and nowhere else, you MUST use the camera to detect the movement.
If you need to vaguely detect motion somewhere near the camera, then you have all the stuff and you just need to set it out as best you can.
There's no polite way of saying it, but although you may think that a video detector is not practical for your application, I think the truth is that your application is not practical unless there's something vital that I'm missing - it makes absolutley no sense to focus motion on a single zone and ignore any and all motion in other zones.
I'll stand aside now and wait to see what happens :)
The variance you claim for borders still puzzles me; I just can't get my head around how a sensor's performance variances can cause it to "see" beyond the "hard stops" (masks) such that it would produce the varying boundaries that you describe. ???The sensors detection sensitivity (performance) remains the same. What the sensor is detecting (IR emission) is the variation.
A video camera "sees" farther on a clear day than a foggy day. Apply that axiom to the motion sensor with ambient temperature and body size being the fog. Masking will restrick the width of the field just like zooming a camera lens but the fog is still there.
OK, but my point is that the variations should affect only the depth of view, not the width - which is what I'm concerned with as far as preventing overlap of the sensors.
OK, but my point is that the variations should affect only the depth of view, not the width - which is what I'm concerned with as far as preventing overlap of the sensors.
Just because you WANT something to work in a certain way, that does not make it so. >*<
... be really grateful.
Oh, by the way, I have nothing worth stealing. Feel free to look around, but please don't break in. I promise you, there's nothing worth taking; well, unless you think my cat is valuable.
Thanks. >![/center][/b]
Yup, I think that should work. #:)
..... And the kicker is that these devices were marketed to me as being not only capable of doing this job, but actually intended to do it. Apparently, that was a patently bogus claim.
Bogus.
OK, but my point is that the variations should affect only the depth of view, not the width - which is what I'm concerned with as far as preventing overlap of the sensors.
Bogus.
OK, but my point is that the variations should affect only the depth of view, not the width - which is what I'm concerned with as far as preventing overlap of the sensors.
You continue to make the same wrong assumptions when it has been clearly explained by multiple people. Why would the width of field NOT be effected????
My fun meter is pegged - I'm outta here.
Yep. You are.
I'm the one making wrong assumptions???
OK. I got it now.
I'll agree with you. Physics is broken. -:)
Call your local reality inspector and have him run a standard testing sequence to work out exactly why radiant heat patterns do not work the same way as visual light patterns in your locale. I'm sure that when you speak to him he'll bring several friends with white jackets. It's likely his friends will bring you a special coat with the fastenings down the back and extra long sleeves with strings on the ends :'
Last time I needed to get reality adjusted, it got pretty expensive - you may find it a lot less expensive to just move.
Yep. You are.
I'm the one making wrong assumptions???
And the fact that you have not been able to to do what you want to do, should confirm that fact to you.
Ambient temperature and other environmental factors will effect the "visibility" of the heat source target to the sensor. It will effect depth of field, and it will effect width of field. If a heat source is nearly invisible to the sensor, the heat source will be able to move farther into the field FROM ANY DIRECTION before the sensor will trigger. Continue to deny that all you want, it's becoming humorus.
I suggested the IR movie light source, but like I said, the perimeter you are able to define will only be true for the IR movie light.
I fail to understand why a perimeter that is determined via a strong (enough) IR source would vary for some other source;
I've never denied that a weak IR source will be (much) more difficult to detect than a strong one!
Regarding a movie light source, I apologise if you suggested that, but I must have missed it.Here:
I fail to understand why a perimeter that is determined via a strong (enough) IR source would vary for some other source;
I've never denied that a weak IR source will be (much) more difficult to detect than a strong one!
You talk in circles! You can't have it both ways.
So, my question is: Is there any more effective, more definite/reliable, and less time-consuming, method for getting a motion sensor "aligned" to the desired detection area - so that it reacts properly to any motion in the desired area, while ignoring all motion outside of that area?
Also, what is the best/most reliable way to induce triggering in order to test the alignment? (I've simply been wandering around in the desired area, and this does not seem to produce consistent results in any way, shape, or form,
so I'm wondering whether there is something -maybe a light or reflector?- that I should use in order to get definite triggering results).
I sure would appreciate any/all helpful hints, because I'm thoroughly frustrated by my attempts to date. B:(
Thanks in advance!
Please, enlighten me.Nope.
I think I've adequately attempted to explain but since the explanations seem to be confusing, I'll try the simple route with your original questions...
...Quote
so I'm wondering whether there is something -maybe a light or reflector?- that I should use in order to get definite triggering results).
Nope. The very nature of PIR detectors is that they give different results under different heat and light variances. They also give different results depending on the size and heat of the subject detected. You may get different field results simply by wearing a different jacket when you re-run the same tests. You may get a different result if you wear or don't wear a hat.
...
<sigh> B:(
With regard to speaking to a wall, I think you should try it.
Perhaps if you stand and talk to the wall for long enough it will come up with what you need. On the other hand, the wall may also get pissed off and walk away.
This one's all yours now Dave, I'm gonna make like a wall and leave. :)%
In this thread, there are three pages of you, in effect, saying "no, I don't believe you". So take your experience and what you've learned in school and fix your problem.
... In other words, to give someone an opportunity to correct my allegedly "faulty" understanding. Since that did not happen, I can only assume my understanding was actually correct.I don't understand that logic. From the way I see it, you're saying that although the system is not doing what you THINK it should (based on information that you now know may be wildly inaccurate), since nobody can tell you WHY that is happening, then the false information you were given MUST be correct? MAybe nobody here has an answer for you, so they are staying quiet, instead of saying "I don't have an answer for you".
Please understand that I have already wasted big bucks cumulatively on this project due to taking other people's unsupported claims at face value - even though against my learning and experience - because those people were in a position where they should know what they were talking about, but obviously in retrospect they did not.Are you referring to anyone BESIDES the X10 sales staff? Did any of the other users here give you bad information, which caused you to go out and spend more money?
So, I'm now extremely reluctant to go with anything that seems inconsistent, until those inconsistencies can be cleared up; consequently I try to discuss the reasoning in hopes of resolving any misunderstandings. It's frustrating that nobody seems willing to do that... or else they are not understanding my concerns.Well, I can understand wanting to try and figure out what's going on, especially when things just don't seem to make sense.
... In other words, to give someone an opportunity to correct my allegedly "faulty" understanding. Since that did not happen, I can only assume my understanding was actually correct.I don't understand that logic. From the way I see it, you're saying that although the system is not doing what you THINK it should (based on information that you now know may be wildly inaccurate), since nobody can tell you WHY that is happening, then the false information you were given MUST be correct? MAybe nobody here has an answer for you, so they are staying quiet, instead of saying "I don't have an answer for you".
QuotePlease understand that I have already wasted big bucks cumulatively on this project due to taking other people's unsupported claims at face value - even though against my learning and experience - because those people were in a position where they should know what they were talking about, but obviously in retrospect they did not.Are you referring to anyone BESIDES the X10 sales staff?
Did any of the other users here give you bad information, which caused you to go out and spend more money?
QuoteSo, I'm now extremely reluctant to go with anything that seems inconsistent, until those inconsistencies can be cleared up; consequently I try to discuss the reasoning in hopes of resolving any misunderstandings. It's frustrating that nobody seems willing to do that... or else they are not understanding my concerns.Well, I can understand wanting to try and figure out what's going on, especially when things just don't seem to make sense.
From my understanding, IR motion sensors in general are affected by temperature, light, etc. Since they are looking for variations in the IR pattern they see, a person's body heat would be easier to spot against the background on a very cold day, than it would be on a very hot day.
I like to think of this similar to dropping a grey Lego piece dropped on a grey carpet vs. a red carpet. You might find it on the grey carpet, but you'll have to get a lot closer to pick it out of the background. You should be able to see it at a greater distance if it falls on a red carpet, since the color contrast is greater.
Since X10's motion sensors are not very expensive devices, I am guessing their detection window sensitivity might be more prone to variations based on environmental conditions than other very expensive units.
I wonder if "beam-breaker" type of motion sensors (the ones where you break the invisible beam to trigger them) might work better, and with more consistency. Of course, since X10 doesn't have any of those, you'd need to find another way to tie them into your system (perhaps using PowerFlash modules, or hacked security sensors).
The definition I was using in that context is "those people who work for X10, who are involved with selling you products sold by X10."QuoteYes - well, depending on how you define "sales" staff.QuotePlease understand that I have already wasted big bucks cumulatively on this project due to taking other people's unsupported claims at face value - even though against my learning and experience - because those people were in a position where they should know what they were talking about, but obviously in retrospect they did not.Are you referring to anyone BESIDES the X10 sales staff?
Well, since there are only a few X10 employees who contribute to these forums, and very rarely at that, I don't think any of the people here are the same ones at X10 who " induced [you] to buy stuff that did not do what they claimed it would". Just to be sure, though, I went back through this thread and the other one (about the macro triggers), and did not see any posts from any of the X10 staff.QuoteDid any of the other users here give you bad information, which caused you to go out and spend more money?
Not that I'm AWARE of - although I can't say whether anyone here might be the same as who induced me to buy stuff that did not do what they claimed it would.
It has been suggested here, however, that I buy certain ghastly expensive piece of equipment to "try"... after the same person implied earlier that it would not work anyway.Sorry, can't help you on that one.
Once again, I don't have any experience with X10's motion sensors, but I have to imagine that since the sensor's ability to detect things changes with the weather, the EDGE of the field of vision can change, too. Think about my LEGO example. Looking out of the corner of your eye, and rotating your head toward the place where you dropped the LEGO, you'll see it sooner on the red carpet than on the gray carpet. The edge of YOUR detection window is not absolute, it is related to the ability to process the image you are seeing. If the image has low contrast, it is harder to process.QuoteThat's the rub: I'm already aware of those issues, but I see them as operational problems - that should be mostly irrelevant for the edge-of-field mapping scenario that I'm trying to do... UNLESS the propagation behavior of IR is vastly different from what I have learned it to be.QuoteSo, I'm now extremely reluctant to go with anything that seems inconsistent, until those inconsistencies can be cleared up; consequently I try to discuss the reasoning in hopes of resolving any misunderstandings. It's frustrating that nobody seems willing to do that... or else they are not understanding my concerns.Well, I can understand wanting to try and figure out what's going on, especially when things just don't seem to make sense.
From my understanding, IR motion sensors in general are affected by temperature, light, etc. Since they are looking for variations in the IR pattern they see, a person's body heat would be easier to spot against the background on a very cold day, than it would be on a very hot day.
I like to think of this similar to dropping a grey Lego piece dropped on a grey carpet vs. a red carpet. You might find it on the grey carpet, but you'll have to get a lot closer to pick it out of the background. You should be able to see it at a greater distance if it falls on a red carpet, since the color contrast is greater.
It was only a suggestion. Beam-breakers generally have a much narrower detection area than motion sensors, and could be triggered by things like blowing leaves or small animals (that probably wouldn't trigger an IR motion sensor).QuoteSince X10's motion sensors are not very expensive devices, I am guessing their detection window sensitivity might be more prone to variations based on environmental conditions than other very expensive units.Of that, I have no doubt whatsoever... and can readily confirm it from my own experiences, along with anecdotal evidence from most everyone else.QuoteI wonder if "beam-breaker" type of motion sensors (the ones where you break the invisible beam to trigger them) might work better, and with more consistency. Of course, since X10 doesn't have any of those, you'd need to find another way to tie them into your system (perhaps using PowerFlash modules, or hacked security sensors).We've explored that option on-site, and found it to be nonviable for several reasons, not the least of which is the problem and expense of replacing the X10 motion sensors with all the stuff that is needed to make the beam-breakers work. We even tried to "fudge" a beam-breaking approach by using a heavily-masked X10 floodlight sensor and an IR source, but this proved to be a wild goose chase.
Anyway, the beam-breakers would be useful only in certain types of areas, so I'd still have to deal with the other types of areas somehow.
The definition I was using in that context is "those people who work for X10, who are involved with selling you products sold by X10."QuoteYes - well, depending on how you define "sales" staff.QuotePlease understand that I have already wasted big bucks cumulatively on this project due to taking other people's unsupported claims at face value - even though against my learning and experience - because those people were in a position where they should know what they were talking about, but obviously in retrospect they did not.Are you referring to anyone BESIDES the X10 sales staff?
QuoteWell, since there are only a few X10 employees who contribute to these forums, and very rarely at that, I don't think any of the people here are the same ones at X10 who " induced [you] to buy stuff that did not do what they claimed it would". Just to be sure, though, I went back through this thread and the other one (about the macro triggers), and did not see any posts from any of the X10 staff.QuoteDid any of the other users here give you bad information, which caused you to go out and spend more money?
Not that I'm AWARE of - although I can't say whether anyone here might be the same as who induced me to buy stuff that did not do what they claimed it would.
...Once again, I don't have any experience with X10's motion sensors, but I have to imagine that since the sensor's ability to detect things changes with the weather, the EDGE of the field of vision can change, too. Think about my LEGO example. Looking out of the corner of your eye, and rotating your head toward the place where you dropped the LEGO, you'll see it sooner on the red carpet than on the gray carpet. The edge of YOUR detection window is not absolute, it is related to the ability to process the image you are seeing. If the image has low contrast, it is harder to process.
One other thing you might try, is to speak to an alarm company. They install a lot of different types of motion sensors, and they might be able to give you some pointers for how to aim and map them.
Perhaps I should have referred to them simply as "X10 staff" from the beginning. ;)QuoteThe definition I was using in that context is "those people who work for X10, who are involved with selling you products sold by X10."In that case, I'd have to change my reply to a qualified "No" - based on the assumption that everyone who works for X10 has a vested interest in selling more product. (My original reply was based on the assumption that you meant only X10 reps who were titled as "sales" staff).
Well, I suppose you can use some black tape to mask the sensor window, and then try to trigger it. Since I don't think it will detect anything where it is masked, you might be able to better define the edges of its field of view that way. It would take a lot of trial-and-error, but it might be the only way to go.Quote...Once again, I don't have any experience with X10's motion sensors, but I have to imagine that since the sensor's ability to detect things changes with the weather, the EDGE of the field of vision can change, too. Think about my LEGO example. Looking out of the corner of your eye, and rotating your head toward the place where you dropped the LEGO, you'll see it sooner on the red carpet than on the gray carpet. The edge of YOUR detection window is not absolute, it is related to the ability to process the image you are seeing. If the image has low contrast, it is harder to process.Contrary to popular opinion, I've never disputed the liklihood that there there will be variance of detectability within the field of view, rather my need boils down to finding out where the sensors' views are blocked - so that I can orient or mask the sensors such that only the blocked areas of one sensor overlay the viewable areas of the other sensors, or in simplest terms, to configure things so that only one sensor can physically "see" any given area (or else do something very clever with macros in order to "triangulate" the target based on multiple "simultaneous" triggers - a complexity that I would prefer to avoid ::)).
That might be your best option to move forward with this. I don't think any of the users here have the extensive experience installing and file-tuning PIR detectors that you seem to need to resolve this.QuoteOne other thing you might try, is to speak to an alarm company. They install a lot of different types of motion sensors, and they might be able to give you some pointers for how to aim and map them.Thanks for that suggestion! :)
Well, I suppose you can use some black tape to mask the sensor window, and then try to trigger it. Since I don't think it will detect anything where it is masked, you might be able to better define the edges of its field of view that way. It would take a lot of trial-and-error, but it might be the only way to go.
For testing, you might want to set an appliance module to the same HC/UC as the sensor, and use it to turn on a light or radio - something that will alert you when you trigger the sensor.
I'd really like to have "field access" to the equivalent of the AHP Activity Log - in order to see if there might be any unexpected signals going on that may be adding to the confusion while trying to do mapping operations... although I don't know how that could be accomplished.There is an example using the SDK, and there are other 3rd-party (free) utilities, that will watch the line, and log commands to a file, etc.
I'd really like to have "field access" to the equivalent of the AHP Activity Log - in order to see if there might be any unexpected signals going on that may be adding to the confusion while trying to do mapping operations... although I don't know how that could be accomplished.There is an example using the SDK, and there are other 3rd-party (free) utilities, that will watch the line, and log commands to a file, etc.
Use a laptop to look at these in real-time.
Or, you could just use something like VNC or LogMeIn to directly watch the AHP activity log from a laptop.
Maybe I'm missing something. You want to have "field access" to the AHP Activity Monitor (or an equivalent listing of commands as they happen), but you want to do it WITHOUT a computer? In order to collect the data, you NEED a PC connected to the CM15A, with AHP installed. Moving the CM15A from its "standard" location (using a long extension cord) might cause other issues (signal/noise, RF reception, etc), that could potentially skew your testing results. So, you would need some sort of method to remotely see what's going on with the CM15A.I'd really like to have "field access" to the equivalent of the AHP Activity Log - in order to see if there might be any unexpected signals going on that may be adding to the confusion while trying to do mapping operations... although I don't know how that could be accomplished.There is an example using the SDK, and there are other 3rd-party (free) utilities, that will watch the line, and log commands to a file, etc.
Use a laptop to look at these in real-time.
Or, you could just use something like VNC or LogMeIn to directly watch the AHP activity log from a laptop.
I'm not sure I follow how this would be done "out in the yard". Wouldn't I either have to get another computer to network to the laptop/notebook that I'd carrying around... or else drag the CM15A around with me (on an extension cord or something). Unfortunately, I don't have another computer that would be capable of a wireless network connection to the laptop/notebook. Dragging the CM15A and extension cords, etc. along with a portable PC would be possible - but not very convenient (especially if I'm also serving as the IR "target" while doing this). Or, am I just missing something?
... You want to have "field access" to the AHP Activity Monitor (or an equivalent listing of commands as they happen), but you want to do it WITHOUT a computer? ...
... If you don't have another device you can use, perhaps you can find a helper, who can sit in front of the AHP computer, and give you updates via walkie-talkie/cell phone/yelling out the window/etc. In fact, that might be a good option as you don't need to keep looking at a laptop screen, and you don't need to worry about wifi signal strength outdoors.
After reading four pages of this interesting dialog, I thought I put in my two bits as well. Following is my experience with X10 motion sensors, floodcams and flood lights.
Sensors: indoor: They work fine till the batteries weaken or room temperature is low, then it will take more than one movement to activate it.
Outdoor: unreliable in summer or winter, I live in Quebec. In summer due to heat and hot air flowing past the sensor and in winter because of reflection from snow. Last summer I installed a piece of black hard plastic on top of the eye sensor unit (sensor is black in color). The performance has improved a lot. I get very few false alarms in summer and it is working in winter as well. Field of vision of the sensor also has shortened, I haven't measured the angle of vision but judging from the low number of false alarms, I would say there is a big improvement. I am surprised to see it working for the first time in -15C.
Flood Cams. Have a very low video range. ... lucky if your CM15A gets the signal from a distance of 25 ft.
Flood lights are basically the same. I prefer lights sold in electrical stores. They seem to work for ever, summer or winter.
The PIRs depend upon seeing a MOVING heat differential.
I assume this means a moving IR source. I am no sensor expert but I what I have read about them looks like there is an IR detector with lenses that focus IR onto the detector. When a warm body moves around where the sensor is looking, its IR gets focused on the detector sometimes and gets focused off of the detector at other times. This causes the IR intensity on the detector to change, and triggers the sensor. (Do I understand this correctly? If I do, then read on).Yes.
IR LED sources were mentioned somewhere in this thread, and I got wondering whether a stationary IR LED source would trigger the detector if its LEDs were simply turned on and off, without being moved around. If this would work, maybe it could help solve the problem here. Or not.
...Don't know if ON-OFF would do it or not, but an interesting idea. I suggested the IR video light because the OP kept asking for a "tool" to precisly define the sensors borders. As I pointed out, the video camera IR source would probably trigger the sensors more reliably, but (also pointed out) the camera IR source defined borders will probably not be the same as when a warm body would cause the sensor to trigger.
IR LED sources were mentioned somewhere in this thread, and I got wondering whether a stationary IR LED source would trigger the detector if its LEDs were simply turned on and off, without being moved around. If this would work, maybe it could help solve the problem here. Or not.
But, I'd also be very interested in knowing why it works better than other IR-LED sources, because that is not logically apparent to me.How do the motion sensors work? Do they emit IR, and look for reflected pulses, or do they look for radiated energy coming off an object?
But, I'd also be very interested in knowing why it works better than other IR-LED sources, because that is not logically apparent to me.How do the motion sensors work? Do they emit IR, and look for reflected pulses, or do they look for radiated energy coming off an object?
Perhaps pointing an IR light source at them isn't workng, because it is a different frequency than the detector is looking to see bounced back.
If they look for changed in a detected heat pattern, perhaps mounting a hair dryer on a stand, and aiming it at the detector might create a "burst" of heat that the detector might pick up.
I'm imagine there is probably a way to then put that stand on wheels (perhaps an A/V tripod, or something low-tech like a rolling office chair), and move it slowly into the field of view of the detector, to see where it triggers?
...My understanding (which people seem to feel is generally "defective") is that the sensors are "passive" and only look at changes in the ambient IR "background" - in which case, any strong IR source ought to get a reaction out of them.As long as the frequency of your IR source is in a range that it can detect.
That hair dryer idea is intriguing. That's one potential IR source that I hadn't thought of - and it's quick and easy to do with on-hand household items (so it meets my criteria ;)). I'll give that a try and see what happens. Thanks!Perhaps you could block it with some heat-resistant material? Like one of those silicone baking dishes?
Unfortunately, it won't really test the stationary on/off scenario - because the hair dryer will have some heat-up/cool-down hysteresis, so it wouldn't work well as a "snap switch" like an IR-LED source should... but it certainly should be appropriate for the moving-source scenario.
...My understanding (which people seem to feel is generally "defective") is that the sensors are "passive" and only look at changes in the ambient IR "background" - in which case, any strong IR source ought to get a reaction out of them.As long as the frequency of your IR source is in a range that it can detect.
... you could mount it and estimate the edges of the field, and test them again by moving the source.
That's essentially the point that I'm at in the process; that is, I've mounted the sensors and am trying to define the areas they can actually "see" (with masks, as needed), so I can make sure there is no overlap (hopefully), and in some cases, to make them non-reactive to irrelevent motion that occurs in nearby off-premises areas.I'm guessing that the "no overlap" is so that you don't have two sensors starting up the same macro?
I'm guessing that the "no overlap" is so that you don't have two sensors starting up the same macro?
... I know your macro setup is already pretty complex (by AHP / CM15A standards, at least), but I suppose you could use flags to prevent double-triggering of the macros. Of course, with only 16 flags available, you might not have enough to cover all your macro scenarios.The response macros are triggered by individual H-U codes from each sensor, and are prevented from re-triggering by conditions set for the monitored H-U codes of lights, each of which is controlled by the respective macro. So there is no problem of double-triggering the sensor-response macros.
Anyway, I have two questions:
Do the motion sensors actually react to automotive lights, or are they triggering on something else?
Why do the sensors trigger much better on cars and trucks that are on the road, which is further away, than they do for cars and trucks in my driveway, which is closer to the sensors? My driveway averages about 35' away from the two motion sensors, and the road is at least another 30' beyond my driveway. I believe even the driveway is beyond the specified range of the sensors anyway, and the road is almost twice as far, so things do not make sense to me.
PS: I really do not want the sensors to detect the traffic on the road, but if they detect traffic in my driveway, that would be OK. Any suggestions how I could get the sensors to give that desired result? Thanks!
I think the reason trucks/ cars on the road are able to trigger more easily is because, may be your sensor is at right angle to the road. Sensors react better when motion is across than towards them.
IPS
They do detect better when the motion is across their field horizontally than directly towards them.
http://kbase.x10.com/wiki/Optimizing_Motion_Sensor_Detection
Are you using the X10 floodlight sensors? If so, try adjusting the sensitivity ("range") setting, or change the aiming angle (downwards). If you're using other sensors, see if there is any comparable adjustment(s) that you can tweek. One extreme option - that probably isn't practical - might be to put up some sort of wall or obstable between your driveway and the road... although others here have claimed that the sensors can "see" around obstacles! How that works is beyond my understanding, though.
If there really is no way to set this, it seems to be a glaring omission because it makes them waste all that energy during the day when it the lights are not needed. Am I missing something?No, sadly you are not.
If there really is no way to set this, it seems to be a glaring omission because it makes them waste all that energy during the day when it the lights are not needed. Am I missing something?No, sadly you are not.
Do you have AHP for home automation?
If there really is no way to set this, it seems to be a glaring omission because it makes them waste all that energy during the day when it the lights are not needed. Am I missing something?No, sadly you are not.
Do you have AHP for home automation?
Yes. But I gave up on it because it seems to be squirrelly. Is there something in AHP to suppress the floodlights? I thought the floodlight operation was all local to the PR511s themselves. (?)
Just put a screw-in photocell controller between the floodlight bulb and it's holder. The power will come on, but the bulb won't be turned on unless it is dark. Or if you're compelled to use X10... use SocketRockets (and a complex series of macros).
OK, let me see if I have all this straight: The only options for making the PR511 units turn on their floodlights only at night are:
...
3. Put individual photocell controllers on each floodlight bulb. (Has anyone actually tried this? It seems to me the photocell controllers might be fooled by the light from the floods reflecting off of nearby surfaces like the soffits that are right above the floodlights, and might cause the floods to oscillate on and off).
4. ... (If I read it correctly, I think it was mentioned that there was a way to do this directly with the hardware by using a wired-in X10 module to control the floodlights, but I am not sure I am understanding how to set up the PR511 so that it would make the floods come on only at night. Is it done by wiring an X10 module between the relay output of the PR511 and the floodlight holders, and setting the X10 module to one of the dusk output codes of the PR511? In such a scheme, wouldn't the PR511 have to be currently triggered by the motion sensor at the time that it issues the dusk or dawn code? This sounds very unlikely to to happen. Or am I misunderstanding the arrangement here?)
....
I find that my PR511s quite often stop reacting to motion for no apparent reason. This seems especially true at night. ... The weird thing is ... there will come a point where the PR511s stop reacting at all, no matter where I move around in their view. ... Anyone know why they behave like this? ... And is there some sort of work-around to prevent the shutdown?
4. Re-wire the floodlight holders to a separate control feed, instead of using the motion sensors for direct control of the floods. Use AHP conditional macros triggered from the motion sensor outputs with a nighttime-only condition to activate the floodlights. (If I read it correctly, I think it was mentioned that there was a way to do this directly with the hardware by using a wired-in X10 module to control the floodlights, but I am not sure I am understanding how to set up the PR511 so that it would make the floods come on only at night. Is it done by wiring an X10 module between the relay output of the PR511 and the floodlight holders, and setting the X10 module to one of the dusk output codes of the PR511? In such a scheme, wouldn't the PR511 have to be currently triggered by the motion sensor at the time that it issues the dusk or dawn code? This sounds very unlikely to to happen. Or am I misunderstanding the arrangement here?)Besides MD Corie's method of using two wire-in Appliance Modules (yes two modules in series work fine) if you have the CM15A computer interface and AHP software, use a macro triggered by the motion sensor to turn on the lights only in the time window you want. i.e nightime.
Besides MD Corie's method of using two wire-in Appliance Modules (yes two modules in series work fine) if you have the CM15A computer interface and AHP software, use a macro triggered by the motion sensor to turn on the lights only in the time window you want. i.e nightime.