No announcement yet.

Remote-only switch

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Remote-only switch

    Here is one I suggested sometime back (possibly before the forums): a switch that cannot control any load, and will act only as a remote.

    Generally in a 3-way (or more) scenario or something with a embedded device (such as the "micro" line of devices), one of the switches does not connect to any load. And while there is no harm in capping off the unused load line, the switch contains additional electronics that are unused (relay/triac/etc.), which could cause problems with the device if the load line isn't capped, or the cap/wire nut falls off. While I doubt this would reduce the cost of the device much, it does reduce the number of components that that are powered by the internal power supply and also reduces the number of components that could fail. Plus. an reflection of that cost reduction in the purchase price (if just a little) is attractive to me, since I have a number of devices that are in a remote-only mode.

    While I could also use the single-paddle remote for this situation, that is a battery powered device, so I would either need to figure out how to power the device, or remove it regularly to charge the battery (and then try to deal with it when the battery finally fails - see the request for replaceable batteries in the remotes).

    Topics that interest me.
    Last edited by INSTEON John; 06-25-2023, 01:10 PM. Reason: Erased hidden code linked to a non-relevant web site like spam


      Thank you for your suggestion regarding a remote-only switch. It sounds like you are proposing a switch that functions solely as a remote control without any load control capabilities. I understand your concern about the unused electronics in a switch that is not connected to a load, and the potential issues it may cause.

      While I cannot directly implement or provide products, I can offer some insights. Designing a switch specifically for remote control purposes could be a viable option to address the concerns you mentioned. Such a switch could omit the internal components related to load control, reducing both the complexity and potential failure points.

      To power the remote-only switch, alternative power sources could be considered. For example, you could explore options like low-power wireless technologies (e.g., Bluetooth Low Energy) or energy harvesting techniques (e.g., solar or kinetic energy) to power the remote control without relying on replaceable batteries or frequent charging.

      Ultimately, it would be beneficial to share your suggestion with the relevant product manufacturers or providers. They can assess the feasibility and market demand for a remote-only switch and potentially consider incorporating it into their product offerings. Official Site
      Last edited by Nastredams; 06-21-2023, 10:12 PM.


        I completely agree with you randyf . at $40 is too much to have to charge and have a failed battery. have the same thing with a Hot and natural and internally it just has a AC to DC voltage converter to power the switch for $20 and SOLD! i have 10 places in my house to use this and will not by a full switch to act as a dummy