OCT 01

Isn't this worse than what we have now? Doesn't it mean the remote sensor on the light has to be drawing electricity 24x7 so it can detect the signal? Doesn't this mean that infrequently used lights will use more juice just sitting there than they actually use for lighting?

Yes a remote does usually need a feed to receive a signal on the other end. But further, does it used more energy to produce this little device than a few meters of wire (think of the plastic, internal wiring, circuitry of wireless signal)? Also remember each bulb (or circuit will have to be fit with one of these receivers (more plastic most likely energy to receive signal). This sounds like a very bad idea unless they have figured out how to make a no-power solution for a receiver.

wow! ecologically it's a good invention, the problem that it's really difficult to buy in my country (Chile)

Regards,

Hardy
Web Hosting Provider.
Sysadmin

SeattleDave and Alexofthenation, you boys don't quite understand the way things work now if you think this is any worse. Almost every single appliance in your home sips a tiny bit of electricity whether they're on or off. Adding a small infrared sensor is not going to increase your energy usage by any noticeable amount, especially if you're switching from incandescent to CFL bulbs (which now have dimmable equivalents being produced en masse from an ad I heard this morning on the radio).

Where the big savings will be in the lack of screws, copper wiring and labour involved in installing a normal light switch. Less holes in the frame of your house, less copper being mined from the ground, less steel being mined to produce screws. Take a look at the big picture guys.

but we're not talking about appliances. we're talking about lights with switches. I just installed 3 ceiling fans- two wired, one wireless. The wireless has a slight buzz when off. Wasn't there all of this fuss about phantom loads from wall warts a year or so ago? This is the same thing, right?

While the advances for this technology are very cool and yes efficient. People prefer hardwired things in their home as opposed to radio the simple reason being is that people have a lot more faith in things that are physically connected (which is why the company i work for avoid radio alarm systems). Also people look at the maintenance costs and while a standard wired light switch will cost less then a pint of beer im betting this radio light switch unit will cost considerably more (to buy and replace when faulty). Most likely in the region of video game prices and while the installation is very minimal chances are the technical know how of who ever has to install the switch and sensor will be above the normal electrician knowledge and thus the installer will be a specialist charging specialist rates (admitadly probably still cheaper then installing the wires). As stated in the article i believe this will only really get used in older buildings were building work is very restricted due to historical value etc etc.

You guys are all missing one very large item. This switch sells for $149.95 on the manufacturer's web site. For $14.99 you can buy a conventional wireless transmitter - with battery. Add on a rechargeable battery and charger and it's still over $100 less. Just which one do you think the majority of people are likely to go for?

It is not so much what the author or inventor suggest to be the best use for this, but what other innovations are possible because of this. I would like to see this switch in TV, Garage door, key fob, etc switches. Yes the price tag is prohibitive right now, but that will be temporary.

I think the electrician hit it on the head. There are a few other practical items related to this though:

A. you can move the switch anywhere you want. Heck, you could carry it around with you over to the TV to turn the room light on or off without getting up. Bring your bedroom switch with you to bed.

B. Using these would decrease the amount of wire in the walls, which also reduces the chance that a nimrod without a circuit detector will cut into the wires while remodeling. OK, I'm stretching here, since outlets still need the wires.

The most pressing immediate concern is obviously the cost. At $150, this thing is not going to be practical for many people and is certainly not going to be environmentally friendly.

If the cost of such a device ever did get down to sub-$30 levels, then I could see it being used by do-it-yourselfers. It makes absolutely no sense to use such a device instead of copper wiring in the initial construction of a house.

The third issue, which no one has yet mentioned, is radio interference. This device is going to have to operate on unlicensed portions of the electromagnetic spectrum, which opens up a world of possibilities for interference with items from Wifi internet to garage door openers. This isn't likely to be a problem for most people, but it definitely should be considered when thinking long term.

Overall though, I like the direction this is going as a geek. Eventually such devices can be configured to work in combination with other home devices remotely from a computer, which would be very cool. Cost and compatibility will be an issue, but in 10 years it may be practical for the average Joe.

Ok, first off, I had to look at these things a while back. The switches are self powering, but the receivers still consumer power constantly. A low power chip receiver chip is going to require energy all the time, probably less than 1kwh/year, but orders of magnitude more than the wiring would. Then there is also the additional fabrication of the chip and related relays or whatever it uses to turn the light on.

The only way this is useful is if you are trying to retrofit a house or outlet with a switch.

Also, a switch does not have to use double the wiring. It just needs to be along the path where the wiring would normally go and it would use no extra wire.

http://www.lightningswitch.com/

These ones are a whole lot cheaper

Guys, you're missing the point. These things are not in competition with regular wall switches. Regular wall switches are cheap to put in (when the hous is under construction), they last for the life of the house, and consume zero power.

There is, however, a market for wireless light switches in the world: for people who want to add a switch somewhere where there wasn't before, but don't want to crawl in the attic/basement to run wires through the walls, and for people who want to add a light switch where they *cannot* run wires (e.g. 'historic' buildings where more invasive methods would not be permitted.)

Within the broader market of "light switches", this product makes no more or less sense than any other wireless light switch: *all* wireless light switches require some small amount of constant power to run the infrared or radio receiver. However, within the narrower market of wireless light switches, these particular wireless light switches have an advantage because they never need batteries.

As far as the 'greenness' of this invention, I agree with the previous poster who pointed out that the eco impact of manufacturing the circuit boards and components, plus the constant power usage throughout the life of the device, probably negates most of the benefit of not running the copper wire. On the other hand, if you're going to go wireless anyway, wireless without batteries is mildly greener than wireless with batteries...

I think it's a great idea! I would make it even simpler for the switch system. Make it work as a physoelectric one. A redesigned and updated old fashion tv conrol that used no batteries. At the other end I would have a modified fluorescent bulb that would carry a very small battery the size of one used in a watch. This intelligent fluorescent light bulb would sense if the battery is low and use it's own transformer connected to the grid to top it up. That way nothing is switched on other than the electronic receiving system in the bulb awaiting to be lit. All bulbs then would carry these integrated systems. The money invested in wiring and labor would be reduced and out way the cost of the new system. Imagine a building that you are only installing outlets. That would be fantastic!
Take it a step further, and also have the bulb and bulb fixture set up to receive juice from one outlet in the room (and to any other electronic and electric equipment) that would transmit the electrical load to it. To keep the setup working, the bulb would transmit to that one outlet a signal to send juice to it when the little battery goes low. Now you are down to one outlet per room!. All lights and outlets can be moved around to where you need them, and attach them to the wall as if they were pictures. Some day!!

if the light fixtures are remote control appliances then they could also be computer controlled with a computer controlled remote. this would allow timers to be set with pretty much limitless possibilities and if dimmers could be added remotely could control amount of light getting used. further if leds where incorporated the lights could change colors, strobe in emergencies, ect. the computer could also be programmed to monitor who is in the rooms and if nobody is there the lights could be turned down. many many possibilities to consider. its is expensive but as this type of technology hits the market and is made by multiple competing companies and becomes popularly embraced by the consumers then the price will most likely come down.

Didn't anybody think about disabled persons? Blind people or those people bound to a wheel chair or worse, people stuck in their bed, people who have lost their one or more limbs. Some of these people rely on remote controls so this is a really good development!

Cheers
~Seth
http://Blog.SethEden.com

Valid points from all, the key is that half the power is supplied. The innovation is great and it will develop. That's the game. First the need creates innovation, then the innovation comes, and a cycle of refinement begins. Focus on the little generator folks. See how cool that is and help the refinement part of the equation.

How about a storage component on the lamp that will hold enough energy to run the sensor/switch? Each time the lamp is on a calculator sized pv pad could recharge the system on the lamp end.

As with anything new, price comes down with competition as the technology becomes part of "normal" use.

Sorry, another thought. Why aren't small pv pads used more in home to recapture light energy? It's kind of a weird thought but we only "use" the light in or line of sight. In a sense, we waste the light that hits around us. What if we put a pv pad on the back side of a lamp shade? It seems like an odd idea, but the theory I keep hearing is every little bit makes an impact. If we recapture the portion of light we don't "use" it creates a cumulative effect, right?

wireless is ok for me