On 06/03/2013 13:45, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
polygonum wrote:
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.).

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?

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.

--
Rod

On 06/03/2013 13:59, dennis@home wrote:
On 06/03/2013 10:30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


I also doubt it can do two way and multi-way switching for halls, etc.


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.


One Switch to rule them all,
One Switch to find them,
One Switch to bring them all,
And in the darkness bind them.

Apologies to JRRT.

--
Rod

In article ,
polygonum wrote:
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?

Given the electronics within LED lighting, is it going to be any less
reliable?

I rest my point. ;-)

--
* I like you. You remind me of when I was young and stupid

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
GB wrote:
I was looking at this
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Single-Switc...im_sbs_light_3

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?

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.

All of the X10 systems can, even if that one can't.

"Chris Bartram" wrote in message
...
On 06/03/2013 10:30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Years of experience of wireless links of all types says you only use them
where a cable option isn't practical.


This.

Wires are reliable, and can be positively tested.

I have the wires with most of the lights and prefer
the wireless approach anyway, essentially because
the bulk of the lights are completely automated,
only come on when it dark enough and someone
is in the room the light is in etc.

The other massive advantage over wires is that you
can turn everything off with one switch when going
to bed and on when you get up if its still dark enough.

And you can even completely automate those two
collective switches with the right movement sensors too.

Leaves wires for dead.

"polygonum" wrote in message
...
On 06/03/2013 13:23, Chris Bartram wrote:
On 06/03/2013 10:30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Years of experience of wireless links of all types says you only use
them
where a cable option isn't practical.


This.

Wires are reliable, and can be positively tested.

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.

It has, its just not widely used.

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 wireless is even simpler to install the switches.

And can be automated so you can turn everything off when
going to bed with one switch and turn the commonly used
ones on when you get up and its still dark, and turn off the
bedroom lights etc after a delay etc too.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
GB wrote:
Wires are reliable, and can be positively tested.



Hmm. Good point.

OTOH, your TV controller isn't corded, is it?

But is it always 100% reliable? Mine aren't.

Then you need a better one.

And with something like that it doesn’t need to be
100% reliable when you can see if its worked anyway.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
polygonum wrote:
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.).

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?

Don’t need to, I prefer the advantages of having most of the
lights completely automated so I don’t even use switches at all.

On Wed, 06 Mar 2013 10:08:56 +0000, polygonum
wrote:

On 06/03/2013 10:00, Tim Watts wrote:
On Wednesday 06 March 2013 09:33 GB wrote in uk.d-i-y:

I was looking at this
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Single-Switch-Remote-Control-
Ceiling/dp/B009E6D1TI/ref=pd_sim_sbs_light_3

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'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:

http://www.enocean-alliance.org/en/products/

What you cannot avoid, it seems, are the cost of purchase issues.

I looked at the MK Echo version last year when thinking about some
wireless controls and decided that whilst it would probably be the
best option in the longer term I would like to try out something less
expensive to start with.

I went for some LightwaveRF kit, a couple of in-line relays to site in
the loft and a small hand held remote controller and a wall switch in
the living area.

The current arrangement controls a set of halogen LV downlights so
that all of them or a single light is on. Relatively simple to setup
and in use since December last year with no problems as yet.

Now thinking of some more applications including some more lighting
and programmed TRVs in a couple of rooms.
--
rbel

On 06/03/13 13:32, GB wrote:
On 06/03/2013 13:23, Chris Bartram wrote:
On 06/03/2013 10:30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Years of experience of wireless links of all types says you only use
them
where a cable option isn't practical.


This.

Wires are reliable, and can be positively tested.



Hmm. Good point.

OTOH, your TV controller isn't corded, is it?
True, but it's less reliable than my light switch :-)