New Z-Wave hardware: Neo Coolcam PIR 5 in 1, NAS-PD07Z

This Z-Wave device is Neo Coolcam PIR, NAS-PD07Z, of the so-called 700 series. I purchased it from AliExpress. It does not exist yet in the current Z-Wave DB of OpenHAB. In attachment you will find the XML and a picture of the device. Unfortunately I don’t have the manual.
Neo-Coolcam-NAS-PD07Z.xml (12.2 KB)

Can you take a look, @Bruce_Osborne ?
PS: any news on that other Z-Wave device (with the many entries) the Haseman RS-10PM2. Is it in the DB yet ?

[quote=“david_vanhuffel1, post:1, topic:120845”]

It’s complicated. It is in the database and is is likely in a 3.1.0 snapshot but those are no longer compatible with 3.0.x. OH2 build are disabled and have been broken for a while.

I just received a couple of new devices myself to add to the DB.

1 Like

Will you add the PIR device (messages above) too ?

One at a time. It is a community maintained database. Here is the guide if you want to try.

My knowledge level is too low to produce anything with that unfortunately. Didn’t mean to offend you. Hope somebody else can pick it up… You are the only one I know so far that can do this, that’s why I asked…

It seems to be at the moment. No offense taken. I can be here to help if you want to try though.


@david_vanhuffel1 @chris
I’ve added the NAS-PD07Z to the Z-Wave database. It should work after installation of the next Z-Wave binding snapshot. As I couldn’t find a manual for this device, I couldn’t define the configuration parameters in the database.

The device is missing in the official Z-Wave database and isn’t listed on the manufacturer’s website:

EAN: 6924715900322.

Edit: has some information on the configuration parameters, but the word lengths are missing.

Edit #2:
Word lengths can be retrieved from

Now the definitions in the Z-Wave database should be complete.

Please test your device with the next snapshot and please report back.

Is there a way to specify the signedness of values of parameters?

No - this is a painful area of the zwave definition. The specification specifically states that all values are signed - eg a 1 byte value ranges from -127 to +128. However many devices require values of (for example) 255 so ZWave doesn’t actually enforce this definition when companies submit their definitions for certification.

openHAB will require the values to be between the min and max numbers set in the database.

OK, but I’m not sure whether OH 3.1 and the latest Z-Wave binding snapshot are working as designed:

min and max values for parameter 180 are 0…255 (according to the database).

Wouldn’t it make sense to add a new item ‘signed’ (yes/no) to the database to enable OH to display the correct representation of parameter values to the user?

I don’t really understand what this will do? If you enter a minimum of -20, and a maximum of 20, then you can enter values in that range.

When the binding receives data like -1, it will convert it to 255 and send this to the device. I don’t really understand what the issue is that you have and what you’re proposing?

Currently, ZWave doesn’t have the concept of signed or unsigned - the spec simply states that all values are signed.

I do understand that the Z-Wave specification has no concept of signedness for parameter values. Nevertheless, device manufacturers are using unsigned numbers for parameter values in their manuals and IMHO the OH user interface shouldn’t display parameter values as signed numbers if the manufacturer documents them as unsigned numbers.

If parameter 180 is defined as min 0/max 255, the OH UI shouldn’t display -80 for 176 …

Fair enough, but this is not a simple thing to change and I don’t think it’s likely to be implemented. Unless everything gets defined properly, it’s just another level of abstraction to cause confusion.

Given this is only for configuration and not everyday use I don’t think it’s a huge problem (especially given that this is the first time this has come up in many years of the bindings existence).

I guess it’s a shame that manufacturers don’t adhere to the standards, and the ZWave Alliance doesn’t check their standards during certification.

Well said.

The new snapshot of the Z-Wave binding is available and should support the NAS-PD07Z.

I’ve ordered a NAS-PD07Z and I’ll report back in a few days.

Just now, I tried to bind a NAS-PD07Z. But it doesn’t. It seams there are different models on the market. OH discovered: " Z-Wave Node 060 (0258:0010:0720:2.6). In the device information database it is the type 0010:0718. What can I do?

It might suffice to add 0010:0720 to ‘References’ in the Z-Wave database. It depends on the differences between the XML files for 0010:0718 and 0010:0720. The device in the database was created from the XML file provided by @david_vanhuffel1 (see post #1 in this thread).

Please feel free to share the XML file for your 0010:0720.

My XML file looks very similar. Could the difference be in the region? By the way, the definition mentioned above is also based on the product ID “0720” ( So the same configuration should work, right? So far I have not made any changes to the Z-Wave database. Maybe someone can help me here?

network_e5840fcd__node_60.xml (11.9 KB)

There are two changes:







These changes shouldn’t matter. I’ll ask @chris to add 0x720 to the Z-Wave database.

No help from @chris needed - I was able to add 0x720 to the Z-Wave database. @Home1907 Your NAS-PD07Z should be supported by the next Z-Wave binding snapshot.

1 Like

My NAS-PD07 arrived a few day ago.

I’ve updated the Z-Wave database with the information from the manual and I’ve uploaded the manual that came with my device. My device identifies itself as 258:10:720.

The latest Z-Wave binding doesn’t seem to contain support for the NAS-PD07Z:

2021-11-01 14:54:28.067 [DEBUG] [ding.zwave.handler.ZWaveThingHandler] - Checking zwave:reitz_zwesj300_00_000
2021-11-01 14:54:28.068 [DEBUG] [ding.zwave.handler.ZWaveThingHandler] - NODE 55: Unable to find thing type (0258:0010:0720:2.6)

But the Z-Wave database states:

So I would assume that Z-Wave binding snapshot 106 (01.11.2021, 03:47) should contain the NAS-PD07Z?

What I do to find out myself is look at the Zwave github page and look at the changes in the latest code.

Anyway when a device is in a modified state, but not approved it is deleted. Although I see it is now approved, the timing of approval and the database update can be out of sync. If I am looking correctly
this device is not in the latest binding. It was in fact deleted. Should be in the next one.


1 Like

I don’t think this was approved when I did the export so it didn’t make it in to the last update (IIRC).