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?

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?

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

On Wed, 06 Mar 2013 09:33:08 +0000, 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?



You want to put a battery in every light switch in a new build?

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

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!

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

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.

--
Rod

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!

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.

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.

--
*Ham and Eggs: Just a day's work for a chicken, but a lifetime commitment

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

On 06/03/2013 10:30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.

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.

--
Rod

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?

Basically because most arent aware of that alternative.

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?

Nothing.

Why isn't this done routinely,

It is with the X10 system.

even for new-builds?

The saving isnt as great with new builds.

On Wed, 06 Mar 2013 10:30:08 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

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.

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.

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

On Wednesday 06 March 2013 12:18 Graham. wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On Wed, 06 Mar 2013 10:30:08 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
GB wrote:
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?

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 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.


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.

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

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.

In article ,
Graham. wrote:
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 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.

Countless reports of cordless door bells failing or sounding for no reason
too.

--
*Always drink upstream from the herd *

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

On 06/03/2013 09:33, GB wrote:

What am I missing? Why isn't this done routinely, even for new-builds?



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.

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?

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. 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.).

--
Rod

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.

--
*I thought I wanted a career. Turns out I just wanted paychecks.

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

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?

--
*You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers

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

On Wed, 06 Mar 2013 13:32:05 +0000, 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?

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.


--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

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.

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 :-)

On 06/03/2013 09:52, Graham. wrote:
On Wed, 06 Mar 2013 09:33:08 +0000, 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?



You want to put a battery in every light switch in a new build?

They don't have to have batteries. There are radio operated switches
that use tiny amounts of power and can self charge from changes in room
temperature, light, vibration or simply from the mechanical action of
pressing the switch. For example here is a mechanical one:

http://www.adhocelectronics.com/Prod...ghting-Control

SteveW

In article ,
SteveW wrote:
You want to put a battery in every light switch in a new build?

They don't have to have batteries. There are radio operated switches
that use tiny amounts of power and can self charge from changes in room
temperature, light, vibration or simply from the mechanical action of
pressing the switch. For example here is a mechanical one:

http://www.adhocelectronics.com/Prod...ghting-Control

149 dollars - so you can make that pounds for the UK. Think I'm happy with
cable. The OP was hoping to save money.

--
*You're never too old to learn something stupid.

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

On 06/03/2013 23:09, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
SteveW wrote:
You want to put a battery in every light switch in a new build?

They don't have to have batteries. There are radio operated switches
that use tiny amounts of power and can self charge from changes in room
temperature, light, vibration or simply from the mechanical action of
pressing the switch. For example here is a mechanical one:

http://www.adhocelectronics.com/Prod...ghting-Control

149 dollars - so you can make that pounds for the UK. Think I'm happy with
cable. The OP was hoping to save money.

It was only an example. I'm sure there are others. Even at $149 or £149,
it's cheaper than redecorating a whole room simply to channel a wall for
new cable.

SteveW

In article ,
SteveW wrote:
On 06/03/2013 23:09, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
SteveW wrote:
You want to put a battery in every light switch in a new build?

They don't have to have batteries. There are radio operated switches
that use tiny amounts of power and can self charge from changes in
room temperature, light, vibration or simply from the mechanical
action of pressing the switch. For example here is a mechanical one:

http://www.adhocelectronics.com/Prod...ghting-Control

149 dollars - so you can make that pounds for the UK. Think I'm happy
with cable. The OP was hoping to save money.

It was only an example. I'm sure there are others. Even at $149 or £149,
it's cheaper than redecorating a whole room simply to channel a wall for
new cable.

Then stick a conduit in for next time - and still save money.

How many decide to re-wire after decorating?

--
*Sorry, I don't date outside my species.

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

Well if its anything like the plug in ones there seems to be two main
issues. 1: number of channels so you don't switch on lights in anothe rhouse
2: the range can be crap.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"GB" wrote in message
...
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?

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , SteveW
wrote:
On 06/03/2013 23:09, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , SteveW
wrote:
You want to put a battery in every light switch in a new build?

They don't have to have batteries. There are radio operated switches
that use tiny amounts of power and can self charge from changes in
room temperature, light, vibration or simply from the mechanical
action of pressing the switch. For example here is a mechanical one:

http://www.adhocelectronics.com/Prod...ghting-Control

149 dollars - so you can make that pounds for the UK. Think I'm happy
with cable. The OP was hoping to save money.

It was only an example. I'm sure there are others. Even at $149 or
£149, it's cheaper than redecorating a whole room simply to channel a
wall for new cable.

Then stick a conduit in for next time - and still save money.

How many decide to re-wire after decorating?

we might not, but a higher authority might require it..

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

In article ,
Brian Gaff wrote:
Well if its anything like the plug in ones there seems to be two main
issues. 1: number of channels so you don't switch on lights in anothe
rhouse 2: the range can be crap.

I suppose at least it's line of sight from a wall switch to ceiling light.
;-)

But you've hit the nail on the head. These cheap radio links are fine
where only you use one. Fit them everywhere, and next door also has them,
means much more sophisticated control codes. And therefore costs.

--
*The man who fell into an upholstery machine is fully recovered*

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

In article ,
charles wrote:
How many decide to re-wire after decorating?

we might not, but a higher authority might require it..

But then take the opportunity to change the decor?

How many SWMBO actually care much about where a light switch is anyway? ;-)

--
*Where there's a will, I want to be in it.

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
SteveW wrote:
On 06/03/2013 23:09, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
SteveW wrote:
You want to put a battery in every light switch in a new
build?

They don't have to have batteries. There are radio operated
switches that use tiny amounts of power and can self charge
from changes in room temperature, light, vibration or simply
from the mechanical action of pressing the switch. For example
here is a mechanical one:

http://www.adhocelectronics.com/Prod...ghting-Control

149 dollars - so you can make that pounds for the UK. Think I'm
happy with cable. The OP was hoping to save money.

It was only an example. I'm sure there are others. Even at $149 or
£149, it's cheaper than redecorating a whole room simply to channel
a wall for new cable.

Then stick a conduit in for next time - and still save money.

How many decide to re-wire after decorating?

An awful lot of people. Usually new homeowners.

--
Adam

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Brian Gaff wrote:
Well if its anything like the plug in ones there seems to be two main
issues. 1: number of channels so you don't switch on lights in anothe
rhouse 2: the range can be crap.

I suppose at least it's line of sight from a wall switch to ceiling light.
;-)

But you've hit the nail on the head. These cheap radio links are
fine where only you use one. Fit them everywhere, and next door
also has them, means much more sophisticated control codes.

Yes.

And therefore costs.

Nope.