Researcher has developed, at a cost of less than one dollar, a wireless light switch that runs without batteries, can be installed anywhere on a wall and could reduce the cost of wiring a house by …::A U of A engineering researcher has developed a wireless light switch that could reduce the cost of wiring a house by as much as 50 per cent.

  • Zink
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Harvesting stray RF energy sounds like a cool technology for certain niche applications.

    But for switching lights in particular, I much prefer smart bulbs vs installing stuff to put the switches in nicer places. It also makes it easy to dim a room or the entire house in the evening.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wouldn’t it make more sense to make the light switch the smart part then you can have cheap bulbs. You want the technical bit to be the bit that doesn’t wear out and has to be replaced.

      • Nurgle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        As someone who has smart bulbs and smart switches. The switches are a 1000x more preferable. It’s nice to be able to use my phone, but it fucking sucks needing to use my phone every time I want to control them.

        • jonne@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Smart switches are one of the next things I’ll upgrade in the house. But some of my switches control fans as well, so there’s not a huge amount of choice when it comes to finding something that’s compatible and works with some sort of standard instead of having their own app.

        • BK85@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s where occupancy sensors shine. I generally don’t have to touch my phone or switches.

      • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, I agree. And then you can have your override immediately available and not be forced to use your phone all the time, or have to keep the switch on all the time.

        If you have smart bulbs and want to turn them off temporarily, you have to do it through your phone or if you use the switch you need to remember to turn the switch back on or you can’t control the bulbs through your phone until you do. Makes so much more sense to have the controllers in the switches instead of the bulbs.

        Plus less much heat to wear down the circuits.

      • Zink
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        For simple use cases, maybe. But if you want to use multi-colored bulbs or turn on only one bulb in a multi-bulb light fixture, you get that granular control with smart bulbs.

        As for where I’d want to have the technical bits, what you said makes sense, but led bulbs are also supposed to last a long time. Maybe upgrading their technical bits every several years isn’t a bad thing.

    • gorogorochan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The conclusion of the research is that solution energy efficient and cheaper. Smart bulbs are nice, but they solve neither of the issues mentioned. They need to be powered on all the time and you still need the switches either way, unless you design your home to be solely smartphone controlled but nobody does that.