What are your thoughts on installing GFCI breakers? And combo AFCI/GFCI breakers for circuits that would benefit from it (bedrooms/kitchens)?
I would avoid adding GFCI to any refrigerator/freezer circuits. Losing hundreds of dollars worth of food, because of a faulty GFCI outlet/breaker, would not be fun.
3 Likes
I don't have GFCI, but the same thought here is exactly what got me into home automation to begin with was that I wanted notified immediately when the temp of my freezers was getting to warm. Thoughts on losing an $2k cow and a $500 hog would be beyond gut wrenching.
1 Like
Good thought there. Not to mention the incredibly messy cleanup, As someone who has cleaned up after Hurricane Katrina, the cleanup at home was awful; cleaning up at -80C and -20C freezers at work that stored clinical samples earmarked for research was just horrible.
3 Likes
Is this just for the Innovellis, or ZWave+ in general?
Thanks! = )
I am not an electrician, but I know there are two ways of protecting a circuit.
One is to replace the breaker in the electrical panel with a AFCI/GFCI breaker. That means that every device in that circuit will have protection.
However, because GFCI and AFCI receptacles (or combined AFCI/GFCI receptacles) have pass through capability, installing such protection in the very first outlet box of the circuit will also protect all downstream devices. However, you have to make sure that you correctly identify the first box and make sure all the outlets are wired in series with one another. Typically, when installing GFCI outlets, I have use one at each location where a ground fault might be a possibility. That way, the GFCI at the local outlet will trip without the entire circuit going off line.
I do have an outlet in my garage that I use to power my freezer. It is in the same outlet box that is used to power portable tools used in the garage. I wired the outlet box such that a GFCI powers the tool, but the freezer is connected to the circuit prior to the GFCI. Thus, a ground fault on a tool will not disconnect the freezer.
AFCI protection was first mentioned in the National Electrical Code in 1999. During 2000, protection against arc faults was expanded. In the 2020 edition of the NEC®, Section 210.12 requires that "for dwelling units, all 120-volt, single-phase, 15- and 20-ampere branch circuits supplying outlets or devices installed in dwelling unit kitchens, family rooms, dining rooms, living rooms, parlors, libraries, dens, bedrooms, sunrooms, recreation rooms, closets, hallways, laundry areas, or similar rooms or areas shall be protected by AFCIs."
In most instances, the changes in electrical code only apply to new installations such as building a new structure, remodeling the electrical system of an existing structure, or adding a new branch circuit. Check with your local electrical inspector to be sure. However, even in an older structures, although it might not be required, the most recent NEC represents best practice. Thus, adding AFCI and GFCI protection is not a bad idea.
in general. Locks should be the only secure paired devices for obvious reasons
1 Like
It shouldn't theoretically be a problem with S2 devices at all (they're far less chatty than S0 devices, which can indeed be a problem for some due to how much back-and-forth they need for what could be just a single round-trip without security; it could be up to three). I have all of my Inovelli devices paired with S2 on my C-7 and have not had any problems--even their first-gen dual indoor smart plug that I had no idea even supported it. 
(Not sure about their gen1 switches/dimmers...) S2 might even help some devices communicate more reliably if they support (and the driver implements checking for) Z-Wave Supervision.
However, as you've seen, there are matters of opinion regarding whether it's worth securely including devices that don't necessarily need to be secure (like locks and garage doors) with any level of security. Occasionally, there are also problems where there shouldn't be. The only problems I'm aware of with S2 on Inovelli were with pairing on either the switch or dimmer with original firmware, which has since been fixed (and didn't affect regular operation if you got past that point). Some S0-only devices also seem to have problems if paired as such (Zooz ZSE40, Inovelli LZW41/42 smart bulbs). If you don't care to use security, that's one thing, but I wouldn't issue any blanket caution against S2.
2 Likes
My experience exactly. Some of the Lutron switches have the added advantage of not needing neutral, which is a big plus in an older home.
4 Likes
I have found the Lutron Caseta devices to work very well. They are very responsive, especially since the interface between Hubitat and the Lutron Pro bridge is so fast. I like that I can control them with sensors or using the Lutron switches and Picos. Most of the time I control them using voice control with Alexa. However, since Alexa runs over an Internet connection, the response is slower.
Even if my Lutron bridge goes down, my lights can still be controlled using the switches.
The frequency used by Lutron is used by some older wireless phones, but it does not conflict with Z-wave, Zigbee, Bluetooth, or Wi-FI routers. The only thing that is not good about Lutron is that the devices, although the switches and dimmers are wall powered do not form a mesh network. Only the first device connected to the hub serves as a repeater. Therefore, it is critical that the hub and the first device paired with that hub are located such that all areas are covered. I have the hub located on the main floor about 1/3 the way from one end of the house and the first paired dimmer is about 1/3 the way from the other end. That has provided good coverage throughout the entire house.
1 Like
Are you sure about that?
I was under the impression that it’s the first plug-in dimmer connected to a caseta bridge that acts as a repeater. Caseta in-wall dimmers and switches are not repeaters. Lutron did recently release a dedicated Caseta repeater device with an increased range compared to the plug-in dimmer, for those that need it.
The amazing thing about Lutron’s clearconnect protocol is that it doesn’t need a mesh to work well in many, many homes. So I wouldn’t consider that to be like an inherent limitation of the protocol.
Larger homes do tend to need repeater devices, though (true for the other systems like RadioRA 2 as well).
But I’d be willing to bet most of the people in this thread singing Caseta’s praises don’t have a repeating device in their setup .
7 Likes
This is correct.
4 Likes
Also I think only one device can act as a repeater even if you have multiple "repeater capable" devices.
2 Likes
As Caseta repeaters, I'm 99.9% sure you can have one each dedicated extender (looks like bridge) and a plug. So both or either, but just one of each.
Though you can have multiple plugs, only the first one installed acts as a repeater. Not sure what happens if you attempt to install more than one dedicated extender - I'm guessing the app just won't allow it.
3 Likes
Strongly agree with this. In fact, the lack of needing to create a mesh for signal propagation creates just a single point of failure.
During design/testing of the first generation Wink hub, I know that ClearConnect signals from a Pico remote were received nearly half-a-mile away in "open air"; the Pico was in a car being driven toward the test facility which was in a neighborhood zoned for light commercial.
4 Likes
This is how Lutron explains the range of Caseta systems.
Thank you for correcting my misinformation. I knew that only one Caseta device could act as a repeater, but I missed the point about only plug in dimmers having that capability.
I do have two plug in dimmers in my system. I assume the first one added is acting as a repeater.
Whether or not a repeater is used, the coverage are of Caseta is quite good. The 434 MHz frequency is much lower than the 908 mHz frequency used by Z-wave and and the 2.4 gHz frequency used by Zigbee. The lower the frequency, the fewer channels it is able to offer, but the greater the broadcast distance. Lower frequencies are better able to penetrate walls than higher frequencies.
The 434 MHz frequency falls within the band assigned to ham radio. It is close to the 432 MHz frequency that ham radio operators use to bounce radio signals off the moon. Obviously, the power levels and antennas that hams use to do this are different. Much of the distance between the earth and the moon is free space, but it does give you some idea of the potential of radio frequencies in this range.
Many of the ham radio bands are shared with other applications. What is sometimes called the 70 cm ham band is officially 430-440 mHz worldwide, but in the USA, hams are allowed to use the range of 420-450 MHz with the exception of areas close to the Canadian border where use of frequencies between
The national calling frequency on the ham band is at 432.10 MHz.
Ham radio operators are licensed under Part 97 of FCC regulations. Applications such as home automation fall under the personal radio service/consumer device Part 95 rules for unlicensed applications.
This topic was automatically closed 365 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
