Innovative wireless light switch could cut house wiring costs in half
ualberta.ca
ualberta.ca
Mostly it's not to save the cost of the actual cable - but to save the install cost on an old brick building, where installing a new switch requires fairly extensive work to the house and brickwork.
I already have these in my house
A few bucks in house wiring is nothing over the lifetime of the structure. Do it right.
And running wire in a house as it's being constructed is going to be far less expensive than doing it after the fact. I'd much rather add, for e.g., the ability to charge a car in the garage while the house is getting built, than after.
Okay but can you fold the electrician's bill into your home loan ? No ? I thought not. It comes out of your current cash flow. Which might be hand-to-mouth for many people.
If this is rework or an addition, it's exactly as much work as just running a line between the switch and the fixture.
It's really nice to be able to use a remote to turn lights on and off from my bed or desk, or use voice control when my hands are full.
Plus, I can have dimmable lights even in locations with a three way switch like a hallway.
Color temperature control is not really possible with hard wired controls either. I'm actually considering replacing all my switches with in-wall remotes.
That way, it's easy to extend the circuit later if you make modifications to the structure.
They become the electrical equivalent of tech debt. A few dollars to install, thousands to move or change.
Some of this is solved in commercial spaces using modular dropped ceilings, but I never saw that in residential spaces and never anywhere for walls.
Then it becomes buying a whole new wall panel instead of just patching the drywall.
Beyond that, you have the problem of insulation. If your wall isn't a contiguous piece of plaster, it will leak air. Then you have to contend with your insulation material releasing fiberglass fragments or whatever into the room. You also have to deal with some way of fixturing the wall panels to the support structure, or they'll all rattle any time you open a door. You also have to just hope that someone is still making the exact same panels decades after the fact. Most rework is done in houses that are several decades old. I don't think that many building materials suppliers that built my house in the 1920s still exist.
Any sort of modular system will always be more expensive than drywall and plaster. If you want to address all of the problems and make it as good as drywall, no one could afford it.
The electrical system is just as integral to the structure as plumbing or ventilation is. You are not going to be replacing things often, and the effort of patching drywall every decade or so is not that much. If, for some reason, you want to move your outlets every six months, we already have solutions for that. You can put conduit and boxes on the outside of the wall.
All in all, it's an awful lot of trouble and expense to make it very slightly easier to do work you only do every decade or so.
I don't think so - just have some spare panels with pre-made holes (perhaps off center, so the holes can be positioned more precisely by rotating the panel).
> Then you have to contend with your insulation material releasing fiberglass fragments or whatever into the room.
Hm.. Ok, where I live it's usually going to be concrete on the other side, not insulation material.
> You are not going to be replacing things often
I think the popularity of wirelessly controlled lights and speakers says otherwise. Not to mention various decorations (especially if they require electricity - wall hanged bookshelf with decorative lights, paintings with a light above it, or maybe you simply want to move TV to the other wall). And this would allow renters to customize their apartments much more easily.
It might be that you (possibly also most people?) just change their mind about these kinds of stuff less often.
I grant you that it might end up being pretty expensive because of the mounting structure.
The wireless switches/sensors/bulbs are already handled by various things in the Zigbee ecosystem. RF energy harvesting is already a thing[0]. I've even got a Zigbee switch[1] that uses the energy from pushing the button to power its transmitter. Turning lights on and off based on occupancy is also a solved problem, as is HVAC zoning.
The only innovation here is to combine the various pieces into one package. Hopefully it uses an existing standard like Zigbee, ZWave, or Thread/Matter instead of inventing something new and incompatible.
I am 100% on board with anything that eliminates the need to change batteries in all of these devices.
[0] https://www.mouser.ca/new/e-peas/e-peas-aem30940-rf-energy-h...
Isn't this how any and all innovations work? (At least in the consumer product area)
There are already a bunch of Zigbee energy harvesting switches on the market that work well. There's the Hue Tap that I mentioned, plus other commenters have pointed out other ones.
If you replace the "one or two RF power transmitters to power up all switches inside the house" with a Zigbee gateway you've got a packaged solution that you can buy right now.
The rest of the article talks about sensors, "seamless automation", etc and feels like future thinking (i.e., they don't have a solution here but they're working on it), but also feels like more already-solved problems.
For example, lighting driven by occupancy is something you can easily do by adding a Zigbee motion sensor to the system.
HVAC zoning is also a thing, but a lot more complicated as it requires dampers and needs to be designed as a complete system. You can't simply open the dampers for just the occupied rooms, you have to keep in mind that the furnace needs to maintain a minimum amount of airflow so that it doesn't overheat. You could also go with a mini-split heat-pump system where each major room (e.g., bedrooms and living rooms) will basically have its own HVAC system. I doubt that the costs of a zoned HVAC system would ever pay for itself in energy savings vs, e.g., an Ecobee thermostat plus sensors (another off-the-shelf solution that you can buy right now).
Also:
> Imagine heating a 3,000-square-foot house, but you’re only using a room at any given time. If your house has wirelessly controlled vents, you can close the vents outside that room, or maybe a couple of bedrooms,
The problem with a damper-based zoning system (which this is) is that the system needs to be fairly carefully designed to work well, that there are lots of moving parts, and that failures are common and suck. By the time you’re designing a system to work well with zoned dampers, you might as well use wires. The actuators take non-negligible power when moving, too.
I suppose one might be able to retrofit something with wireless controls, but this is IMO a terrible idea for new construction.
(Also… ductless systems are inherently zoned and are usually considerably more efficient.)
I really wish they’d make a Pico in the Maestro shape though.
There used to be a switch made by Lutron that's close. It's held in the wall plate with a little tab and it works with Hue, but they discontinued it a few years ago, and it's exceptionally hard to find them now.
It is basically this (different brand but identical housing): https://www.amazon.com/Self-Powered-Wireless-Receiver-Linpte...
> JUNG wall-mounted transmitters for Philips Hue work according to the principle of “energy harvesting”. As only small amounts of energy are needed to transmit the wireless signals, the kinetic energy arising from the switching action is sufficient to operate the transmitter without batteries and thus virtually maintenance-free.
[1] https://www.jung.de/en/10245/products/technology/transmitter...
I think the new part of this proposed system is that power is provided wirelessly so each switch can be cheaper than the fancy mechanically powered transmitters. I do wonder how much energy it ends up wasting though.
I guess obviously not or we would see a lot more of it?
I suspect you'd need a panel that's a few inches large for it to charge faster than a device like an air tag could draw power. But again, that assumes it'll routinely see some fairly bright light.
I suppose you could use a little solar strip to make a button battery last longer? But you're talking about a difference of like 100 days of life versus 102 days of life.
Seriously, though, with smart lights you probably do actually want to consider what happens when the power goes down, or more precisely when the power comes back on.
With a dumb light controlled by a dumb switch when power comes on the light goes back to the state it was in when power failed (unless you have flipped the switch while the power was out).
With smart bulbs some of them come at full brightness when power comes back (and white if they are color bulbs), regardless of what on/off, brightness, or color state that were in when power failed.
This can be irritating.
Some brands let you set the default power on action, ideally letting you chose between off, on in whatever state they were in before lower was lost, or on in a specific state you specify.
Power outages are rare, though; I've not bothered configuring the soft-switched bulbs.
Edit: They do exist: https://www.iebelong.com/u2-us-standard-kinetic-light-switch...
14/2 is about $0.45/ft and 14/3 is about $0.75/ft. A single pole switch is about $2.50-5.00.
This will cost more, assuming the wireless switch costs more than $15.
These wireless switches need relays to work, so factor that in. And then factor in the time it takes your $120/hr electrician to figure out how the wireless switches work.
I would use a $30 Lutron Pico with a button cell and RF communication over this silly device that generates its own power.
But what do I know, I only sell electrical services for a living.
Also, for places where I don't have a wire but would like to add a recessed light, I wish I could find a battery powered one. I wouldn't mind getting on a ladder and plugging in a USB-C charger once or twice a year if it means I don't need to hire an electrician and fish wires around
That being said, if you have an RF source, why not have it be the transmitter? Have a passive antenna in the switch that activates when the switch or sensor is active. The RF source detects the returned signal and then communicates with the powered device. Hell a clever engineer could probably get this to work with standard wifi.
As others have said, there are already wireless switches, some using battery-free ultrawideband.
But even if you prefer wires, it makes no sense to have the actual load-carrying wires routed to the switch - have a separate two-wire switch/control network.
Or have it all run on single-pair ethernet - which can carry enough power for lighting too, with PoE/PoDL.
Most systems like that are home run back at the house electrical panel. You don't save any copper at all compared to the traditional switch. In fact, you use more of it!
edit: In case I wasn't clear. The relay is back at the house electrical panel. So now every light requires a full copper run. This is because the relay has to be serviceable. An alternative would be to have special light fixtures with an accessible relay. This way the light electrical supply can hop from light to light.