The flip-switch version of motorised volume faders

Looks crazy when you have a big audio mixer full of these things: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPXeULcDa5w

A little DIY one: https://i.imgur.com/GnEzaKl.mp4

Yep, a while back I got to use a Behringer X32 where you could control the volume faders remotely with an app on your phone and thought "Why don't all smart controls work that way?" Smart features, but you retain the advantages of physical, tactile controls.

My smart switches have a little light on them that shows whether they're on or off. The actual light they control is also a pretty good indicator of the switch's state.

Switch position isn't just a visual indicator; it's also a tactile indicator, allowing you to to feel the position of the switch when you reach to turn it on, and feel when you've successfully flipped its state. Lights aren't the only things that get hooked up to switches, so an indication of state can sometimes be helpful.

Physical switches also have other UX benefits, such as having zero learning curve, and being easy to operate without looking at them. I've built up enough muscle memory at this point that I don't even have to think about toggling the light switch when I walk into a room in my own home; it's so automatic at this point that if I'm distracted I'll sometimes even forget there's another person in the room and flip off the lights on my way out the door.

These are all minor things obviously; but I still wish I didn't have to sacrifice them to get the benefits of a smart switch. I understand the desire to avoid moving parts; but surely a couple properly engineered solenoids wouldn't be that prone to failure.

I’ve had the same idea and totally agree. It would also be great for when you have multiple switches controlling one light like in a hallway.

A voice-coil motor like from a hard drive arm could work well: fast, quite, and could work like an analog dimmer in the middle positions.

I think if cost was no object, driven switches would be the ideal user interface. It’s basically what high end audio mixing boards use.

AFAIK remote controlled circuit breakers are sometimes used on large ships, and presumably in other applications with heavy loads.

When you have a 200 Amp breaker, just running a cable from a load location to a convenient control location (and back) calls for: a) extra lengths of heavy wiring; and b) a lot of crowding and layout constraints in your control panel area.

Haven't read the article yet, but perhaps something could be said for e.g. British wiring practice, where last I heard lighting was commonly all run on one circuit. I imaging that could make for an easier wired network for control. By varying the bridge to such a wired lighting-control network, new wireless communications/controls could be accomodated.

Aren't relays pretty standard technology for such purpose. And you can have software or basic logic to control such relays.

Next step would be to add wireless connection to the logic controlling the relays.

I should have said remote-monitor and remote-reset circuit breakers, and not mixed in the issue of wired lighting control.

Generally for protecting wiring you need circuit breakers which will operate without relying on software.

> The UX of a physical switch whose position always accurately reflects the state of the circuit is hard to beat

True, but modern houses commonly have a ton of 3-way switches with multiple switches for each light, so they rarely reflect state anyway. At least my Lutron switches and dimmers can show me status with the tiny LEDs...

That’s actually another perfect use case: 3 way switches that flip to the correct position!

There are some switches I've seen that can snap back to "neutral" when another switch in the circuit is turned off, so anywhere you go the normal "push up to turn on and down to turn off" works, but if I recall they were weirdly expensive.

That sounds nice, but I've got enough circuits with two or more switches on them, you quickly learn to just toggle the switch to toggle the circuit. Maybe if I had fancy switches, you could just press up to turn on and down to turn off and that would help the couple times where two people toggle their nearest switch around the same time.

A switch exists for this, however they’re quite expensive and had some financial issues in the past (although they seem to be under new management now)? https://dendevices.com/products/switch/

Random thought, but it makes me think that it could potentially be possible to hack into someone's light switches and burn their house down by setting the motor to leave the switch in the exact middle of on and off position so it arcs electricity.

Properly designed switches have a hysteretic snapping action on the contactor, so that there is no position of the switch that would result in the contactor not being fully open or fully closed.

The “correct” design of this concept would not have any actual current (or maybe a very small DC current) going through the switch. Like the Shelly devices in this blog post there would be a relay that actually switches the current. The switch hardware would just be for show.

This shouldn’t happen in theory in a properly engineered and built system. The switches have arc chutes inside of them already, and the contacts are spring loaded to open and close as fast as possible to minimize. On the motor end, the maximum amount of amperage a motor pulls is called the Locked Rotor Current. You can achieve LRC by stopping a running motor with a screwdriver. But a motor also hits LRC for a brief second every time it starts from a rest state. So a UL rated motor sees maximum amperage all the time in its normal lifecycle.

Alternating current helps too. That’s why many switches have no DC rating or much lower DC rating compared to AC. A common mistake of hobbyists is to undersize a switch for a DC circuit based on its AC rating.

I don't think it would start a fire since all the materials surrounding the contact area are supposed to be fire resistant, and the arch is pretty small.

I asked an electrician about this once and they told me the arcing generates heat that travels up the conductor and into the wall, damaging the insulation and sheathing over time, and eventually exposing the bare, hot (as in warm) wire in the wall. This might introduce the wire to conditions where additional arcing (and additional heat) is likely -- for one thing you probably now have multiple bare wires in close proximity -- which is a common source of electrical fires.

Try it - it won't arc.

Also an arc with little current behind it (because of the light bulb inline with the circuit), isn't going to get very hot.

Ditto, been looking for exactly the same thing. I don't want to lose control of my lights just because my WiFi goes down, I want a smart light switch that becomes a dumb light switch when the smart part fails

I don't think there are any smart switches that don't also have physical, local control.

You mean 'SwitchBot'? We use them in the house

There's always SwitchBot:

https://www.switch-bot.com/pages/switchbot-bot

I'm really not sure if it's a joke product.

It is a bug of light switches that they share the state of the device they command. A forgivable one, given how light switches have worked, historically.

This is fine for one switch, but it doesn’t scale to N switches. If you have more than one switch, you now have to synchronize the light state to all switches.

A better switch would have a spring loaded neutral position which you deflect towards the state you want. That way each switch is sending commands to the light, not trying to match its state.

Multi switch lights would benefit from this. That includes physical switches, as well as software ones.