I was looking at this
It seems to be a ceiling light with a switch that controls it wirelessly, rather than with a cable looped in. Why isn't that used more? I'm looking at some major electrical rewiring, and this would save an awful lot of chasing out the walls to drop the cables down to the light switch. Compared to the cost of chasing, making good, and redecs, this is only £15.
What am I missing? Why isn't this done routinely, even for new-builds?
I guess because at some point down the line, like wireless doorbells, when it stops working you then have the aggro of not knowing whether it's the bell/bulb or the battery in the transmitter.
Having said that, I retro-fitted two switches like this to save a hell of a lot of aggro when I wanted to reposition the switches and they'd worked perfectly since. I would certainly use something like this again in similar circumstances.
Tim
You want to put a battery in every light switch in a new build?
On Wednesday 06 March 2013 09:33 GB wrote in uk.d-i-y:
I'm not totally convinced of the reliability and battery related hassle over "proper" fixed wiring. However, I'm giving it serious thought for outside lights - driveway and garden and maybe pond. Then those become a simple radial circuit for power (which is enough digging as it is) with some radio switches indoors. Good candidate for a pocket remote and one in the car too.
The battery hassle there is limited to probably a couple of banks (front and rear doorways) and if it goes wrong, your toilet for example is not blacked out!
You can avoid the battery issues:
What you cannot avoid, it seems, are the cost of purchase issues.
I'm extrapolating from our wireless bell push, which has lasted on its original battery for around 10 years. That gets pushed on average 3 or 4 times a day, I guess. Our kitchen light switch probably gets toggled 10 times as often, but most others in the house probably the same as the door bell. So, I'm not sure the battery hassle really would be, IYSWIM.
Years of experience of wireless links of all types says you only use them where a cable option isn't practical.
It's also a vast number of batteries to need regular replacement in the average house.
I also doubt it can do two way and multi-way switching for halls, etc.
I'd have thought two- and multi-way switching would actually provide the greatest benefit in terms of less and simpler wiring.
But agreed about batteries - if the kit needs them.
I have a "Celect" wireless C.H programmer and on a couple of occasions the final "stop calling for heat" event of the day has not been received, and the heating as stayed on all night.
You would think that it would repeat the command at intervals but it doesn't seem to.
The biggest joke are wireless PIR sensors for a burglar alarm.
On Wednesday 06 March 2013 12:18 Graham. wrote in uk.d-i-y:
That's where the Honeywell CM Zone wins - it repeats the status broadcast (either a call for heat or confirm of the opposite).
It just goes to show how clueless many designers are. Unfortunately it is very difficult for your average person to check.
This.
Wires are reliable, and can be positively tested.
Countless reports of cordless door bells failing or sounding for no reason too.
Installing a cable on a new build is trivial: you're pulling a lot of cable anyway, one more is no bother. I'd say the best uses for this would be retrifits to avoid pulling cables and/or chasing channels.
Also, reliability and cost. A mechanical switch is very simple, and will last until a rewire is needed.
Hmm. Good point.
OTOH, your TV controller isn't corded, is it?
I think you are, basically, right. But I am somewhat surprised that something like a low voltage circuit has not been developed for light switches. That could allow an extremely thin (or flat) conductor to be used and would give much of the advantage of being wired, with pretty much the safety of wireless (i.e. fewer 230V cables down walls, architraves, etc.).
But is it always 100% reliable? Mine aren't.
You would need electronics to allow that low voltage signal to control mains. And, of course, a means of producing that low voltage. Light switches and cables have a long trouble free life. Can you guarantee the same with electronics?
Mine is, well was. It was a Dynatron 22inch with Tambour sliding doors. Long thick black cable with the controller on the end. Had it well into the 1990s
The first TV remotes were ultrasonic. Some of them were so unsophisticated they would change channels if you rattled your keys.
That is the easy bit. Typically you can have as many switches as you like. You can even have multiple lamps with multiple switches.
With some you can have one switch to turn them all on or all off and other switches that just work a group of lamps.
Given the electronics within LED lighting, is it going to be any less reliable?
Indeed, if there were a 100% commitment to LV LED, perhaps we would not need any 230V for lighting itself, nor switches? Maybe the lamp itself should have an extremely simple pair of contacts which permit switching? So the complexity would be in the item that does require replacement. We already have LED lamps which respond to key-fob controllers and at not that high a price.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.