Ah, okay, I'm really sorry! That explains a lot.
You don't have to be sorry for that, but this probably explains my first reaction.
Why is everyone turning away from the communication medium Powerline when, for the reasons mentioned, it would be the most universal, elegant, and least labor-intensive method?
Because the Powerline approach simply is not. It is indeed very labor-intensive, far from elegant, universal, etc., and also simply more expensive, and so on.
At least I meant the implementation using the existing power grid, not a solution from D-Link. So the quality of implementation would be independent of the Powerline functional principle.
No, data transmission via the power grid existed long before D-Link was founded in Taiwan.
Because Powerline itself, with good implementation, should be just as good and fast as TP. Or at least in the maximum millisecond range.
That's where the problem lies. Even milliseconds are enough to condemn a system to a niche existence.
With lighting, I think automation needs two components: lamp and sensor. Both are powered. So both are connected to the power grid. Thus, a cable already exists that connects both with each other and with the control unit/server. So, when building, you could just install a normal lamp, then later install a Powerline sensor and a Powerline lamp connection/socket (say from KNX), and then define their locations in software.
Yes, that works. It's called Digitalstrom. But it's more expensive and by far not as flexible and fast as KNX.
Basically as if the Powerline electronics were simply in the wall socket (the hardware). It doesn't matter which end device is plugged in, because you turn the power of the outlet on or off. For a lamp and many other consumers, actually a simple, binary principle. And for a lamp, roughly simplified, not much more complicated than a classic motion detector. The motion detector registers motion and then switches the built-in lamp on. In automation it would be exactly the same, only that the lamp is not built-in and therefore a simple signal would need to be sent to the server, which switches the "socket" on and done.
Yes, that's how it is done in KNX. Only that SELV and 230V are separated. This has many advantages, which I have partially already mentioned. Reliability, reaction time, cost, etc.
And a power grid is also basically more stable than a TP cable. The wires are significantly thicker, there are fewer damage points.
No, you are also mistaken here. It's not about physical stability.
As I said, I wonder whether the technology is the problem or whether more complex solutions are being tried to be sold here because they also bring in more money.
No, the exact opposite is the case. Simpler solutions are being tried to be sold. Simpler than KNX hardly exists. Star wiring and bus line and everything is switchable, remotely controllable, etc., then possibly also by radio if you include an interface.
And yes, technology and costs are the problem. With Powerline you need more technology than with TP.
Having an additional cable laid costs a lot more after all.
No, it practically costs nothing in new construction. Because it is laid directly with the NYM cable. Maybe 100-200 euros more per typical single-family house.
That is not an accusation; I’m just wondering why this more cumbersome and more expensive way is chosen for such an elegant and universal solution like Powerline (with such low required bandwidth).
The shoe is on the other foot. Because Powerline is far from elegant and universal, and cost-wise it is far from cheap and also far from KNX-TP.
