Contents

Talk:Z-Wave

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Networking Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Low-importance). Telecommunications Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. Bernie44 (talk · contribs) has been paid by Z-Wave on their behalf.

Hi guys, and thanks for the good information on Z-wave. There is one item that I am having trouble understanding. The Radio specifics section says:

Z-wave units can be in power-save mode and only be active 0.1% of the time, thus reducing power consumption dramatically.

But then the Topology section says:

In order for Z-wave units to be able to route unsolicited messages, they cannot be in sleep mode.

So even though the protocol allows for sleep mode, sleep mode is not used in actual products. Is this correct? Perhaps a clarification of this point would be useful.

Thanks again!

When units are in sleep mode, they cannot relay messages. So you cannot have re-routing of messages in a network where all nodes are sleeping. Typically, sensor units with very stringent power requirements would sleep most of the time, wake up periodically and submit data. If the recipient is multiple hops away, there needs to be non-sleeping nodes along the path to the receiver. Snielsen 21:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding range, the article includes this line:

"Range: Approx. 100 feet (30 meters indoors) assuming "open air" conditions, with greatly reduced range in normal situations."

So the range is 100 feet assuming "open air" conditions, and "30 meters indoors". But 100 feet is approximately 30 metres and the indoor range should be considerably less than the open air range, so this doesn't make sense.

This is also not good style. The text in parenthesis should be either a translation into metric, or a statement of the range indoors vs. outdoors. It shouldn't be both.

I will edit the article to remove this contradiction, but someone who knows more than my about this topic should fill in the indoor range.

I agree. I might add that it is almost impossible to generalize about the indoor range of such units. I have seen specs mentioning 100 feet indoors. And I have seen real life deviations of more than 50%. Snielsen 21:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There should probably be a Z-Wave versus ZigBee comparison section. They both begin with the letter 'Z' and people may think they are one and the same, or Z-Wave a derivative of ZigBee, which doesn't seem to be the case. --Ray (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see an article/list of products that implement Z-Wave, maybe manufacturer link. Or is this Googles job? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.15.240.60 (talk) 09:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried several times to change the Z-Wave link to the official Z-Wave.com website, but it seams like someone changes it back to z-wave.ru as soon as i have changed it. The official site is Z-Wave.com please leave the link as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.95.44.86 (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added and named several references that can be used to support more statements within the article. They're are

• <ref name="zensys"> - http://www.z-wavealliance.org/modules/iaCM-ZW-PR/readMore.php?id=254803968
• <ref name="zwave"> - http://www.zen-sys.com/modules/Products&Techonology/?id=2&chk=9cfacb0936245e541b36940d76150450

I've done this for the regulars that contribute to the article. I'm off on a new mission :)

E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 00:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In order for this article to be more reference oriented, I'd like to see

1. A clearer discussion of advantages and disadvantages. In particular there should be a reasonable mention of critiques / weaknesses.

 -Added disadvantage of slight delay occurring with multiple repeater hops and advantage of not requiring a neutral wire like some powerline communication technologies. --68.147.95.248 (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. The alternative, competing, or overlapping protocols & standards should be promoted from a short list in See Also to section of its own to allow for expanded discussion.
2. The impact (or potential impact) of the protocol being closed/proprietary.
   • Is Z-Wave covered by patents?
   • What happens if Zensys closes its doors?
   • How is pricing of components affected by licensing costs?
   • What's the impact on the ability to distribute open source software thatinteracts with Z-wave devices?
   • Does the large number of manufacturers that are signed up mitigate the issue of it being a closed protocol?

I think these contributions would balance the article and help others like myself. Disclosure, I'm just an interested consumer and have no ties to any home automation companies. --Rob Terzi (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see at least 2 major problems on the way to world-wide protocol adoption: 1) Undocumented protocols are basically bad things, just as any other kind of vendor lock-ins. 2) Sub-gigahertz frequency usage may put consumers into troubles and harm technology adoption. Usually, sub-gigahertz frequencies are already tightly occupied and their usage is prohibited or restricted and may require consumer to obtain license for given frequency, this costs moneys and takes some time and efforts, or licensing could be denied if other important services (like army, emergency, transportation, television, etc) are already using desired frequency band. Therefore I can see it as DISADVANTAGE vs 2.4GHz based systems if I'm going to deploy home automation system. 2.4GHz systems could be just installed without administrative hassle in most parts of world and this is their strong competitive advantage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.210.145.118 (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In section Setting up a Z-Wave network: "key-fob controllers". Couldn't it be interpreted as a controller that controls a key fob? Isn't it just key fobs? --Mortense (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing, yes, but for a reason. In the Z-Wave world the word "controllers" refers to devices that are the "general" or "traffic cop" of the network. As strange as it seems, most battery powered remotes, be they key-fobs or "TV remote" looking devices usually are programmed to act as network controllers. FYI, there can be more than one controller in the network. The way to parse "key-fob controllers" would be a Z-Wave network controller device that has the form factor of a key-fob. All of that said, yes a little word smithing would help the article. Mountainlogic (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section that sounded like an advertisement in 2008 is gone. I'd just remove the tag myself, but I don't like to do that while I'm not logged in. --50.133.131.206 (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a section on security would be appropriate. I was checking G.9959 and could not find anything about authentication of nodes and encryption of data. How is that done? To me it looks like the technology is very unsecure? Can somebody comment?

+1. ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Security: "Z-Wave is based on a proprietary design and a sole chip vendor."

Anyone a citation? Otherwise I'll delete that sentence.

--176.5.21.248 (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Z-Wave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140717060540/http://www.sigmadesigns.com/zwave_frequency_coverage.phptohttp://www.sigmadesigns.com/zwave_frequency_coverage.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121213015518/http://www.vesternet.com/understanding-z-wave-networkstohttp://www.vesternet.com/understanding-z-wave-networks

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]