The market leader would be Clipsal 'C-Bus'
>formatting link(it's really re-badged LONTalk with a fancy front-end,
> but don't tell anyone ;-)
As a matter of fact, C-Bus has nothing in common with LONTalk. C-Bus more resembles EIB, but still differs from it significantly.
Which version of C-Bus are you referring to? IIRC, the original version (not the current CBus2) used Echelon chips to get them to market - and was one reason the modules were so outlandishly expensive.
As far as similarities, let's see: Same network topology, same "OSI 7-layer protocol", same access method (CSMA/CD)... The only differences I see is that LONTalk is a bit more "sophisticated" (ie. several versions ahead). And why should Clipsal (a tiny player in the world market) invent their own system when everyone else is talking LONTalk or BACNet??
Perhaps you know something different? Clipsal don't say much these days.. Even the salespeople don't really know how it works.
Cameron:-)
All
What is IIRC? The original C-Bus and the current C-Bus2 are compatible to each other, while both are not compatible to LON.
C-Bus uses CSMA/CA (collision avoidance). It does not waste time on collisions.
Perhaps the reason was the same as for Siemens to invent EIB. BTW, LonWorks is a "peer-to-peer" bus; C-Bus is a "producer-consumer" bus. That makes C-Bus very efficient.
IIRC-If I Recall Correctly.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required