h a l f b a k e r yReformatted to fit your screen.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
RF-operated "home automation" units are handy, but even when off they still represent a small current drain.
Why not save even more with the BorgCo range of pneumatically operated remote switches ? Simply plug the unit between the outlet (wall or lighting) and the RF-controlled switch, then route
the pneumatic tube to a convenient spot. The switch can be toggled on and off using a squeeze-bulb, or by blowing.
Batteries not included, because they are not needed.
[link]
|
| |
Why pneumatic? Wouldn't hydraulic be more interesting? |
|
| |
The simple answer is that a lot of home automation systems use relays. So that hitting one switch will in turn activate another switch like the one that controls your lights. Much easier to wire in relays than to rely on a "series of tubes" much like how the internet works. |
|
| |
1 RF unit uses how much electricty? 3-5 watts? 100 watts a day? probably saves more electricty for all the extra time you have lights off. |
|
| |
or you could simply install a wired remote switch. I presume all the lights in your house are already LED and thus you are really, reeaallyy, struggling to find extra wasted watts. Or here's one: Screw automation and walk all the way to the switch. (also why are your light switches so far away that you need a remote? Fire your architect/rewire your home!) |
|
| |
8th, assuming that hive mind doesn't do irony, have you
calculated the energy expended in making such a device, as
opposed to the energy saved during its lifetime? |
|
| |
Also, all these ideas are going to look really stupped when
the ice age comes. |
|
| |
All these ideas look really stupped already, [MB] |
|
| |
Seems to me like it would take more energy to actuate than flipping a switch. That's not saving me any calories. |
|
| |