ᐅ Wireless or wired smart home systems? What about the issue of radiation?
Created on: 23 Aug 2022 17:47
B
Besenkammer84
Hello everyone,
we are currently undertaking an extensive renovation of a house from the 1970s. We have been considering for several weeks how to approach the entire electrical system and smart home setup.
As part of the renovation, electric roller shutters will be installed.
At the moment, we live in a rental apartment with electric roller shutters, where I have partially installed Shellys. The lighting works through various lamps (Yeelight, Philips Hue, Osram smart plugs, etc.). We also have several Amazon Echos, which makes the setup roughly the way we want it.
The configuration was somewhat tedious, and the system is not 100% stable. However, this is most likely due to the still poor Wi-Fi network.
Dependencies for triggering actions (e.g., closing the roller shutters when exposed to sunlight) are not very important to us. It’s more like managing about 10 roller shutters, 15 lights, and 15 sockets/outlets.
Our question is whether to use a wired system (bus) or wireless?
We are also concerned about the impact of wireless radiation on our health. Of course, wireless internet access will be provided throughout the house via multiple access points. Nevertheless, we find it difficult to assess whether smart wireless devices are significantly more harmful to health than wired devices, or if wireless devices increase health risks considerably.
Another alternative is EnOcean technology. What is your opinion on this? Can it significantly reduce harmful radiation?
Are there other technologies we might not yet be aware of?
PS: We are, of course, aware that except for EnOcean technology, everything else also means higher power consumption.
Best regards & thank you
we are currently undertaking an extensive renovation of a house from the 1970s. We have been considering for several weeks how to approach the entire electrical system and smart home setup.
As part of the renovation, electric roller shutters will be installed.
At the moment, we live in a rental apartment with electric roller shutters, where I have partially installed Shellys. The lighting works through various lamps (Yeelight, Philips Hue, Osram smart plugs, etc.). We also have several Amazon Echos, which makes the setup roughly the way we want it.
The configuration was somewhat tedious, and the system is not 100% stable. However, this is most likely due to the still poor Wi-Fi network.
Dependencies for triggering actions (e.g., closing the roller shutters when exposed to sunlight) are not very important to us. It’s more like managing about 10 roller shutters, 15 lights, and 15 sockets/outlets.
Our question is whether to use a wired system (bus) or wireless?
We are also concerned about the impact of wireless radiation on our health. Of course, wireless internet access will be provided throughout the house via multiple access points. Nevertheless, we find it difficult to assess whether smart wireless devices are significantly more harmful to health than wired devices, or if wireless devices increase health risks considerably.
Another alternative is EnOcean technology. What is your opinion on this? Can it significantly reduce harmful radiation?
Are there other technologies we might not yet be aware of?
PS: We are, of course, aware that except for EnOcean technology, everything else also means higher power consumption.
Best regards & thank you
Besenkammer84 schrieb:
NO, we are normal people :-DThen forget about radiation completely. It’s either “real” or “not at all,” and you definitely don’t want the “real” option. Besenkammer84 schrieb:
On the other hand, as I understand it, with a bus system you need a separate cable for every controllable light. With Shellys or Wi-Fi lamps, for example, you can simply control the device itself, so you don’t need a separate cable; branched electric lines would also work. For each lighting circuit or roller shutter, yes. Besenkammer84 schrieb:
@ALL: Is the extra effort for a bus cable really worth it? Probably not for your use case. Partial bus systems don’t make much sense; in your situation, Shellys should be completely sufficient.B
Besenkammer8424 Aug 2022 08:20Araknis schrieb:
Probably not for your use case. With the bus system, partial control areas don’t make much sense; in your situation, the Shellys should be completely sufficient.I wouldn’t exactly call them partial control areas. It only makes limited sense to make the outlet, where a vacuum cleaner or a coffee machine might be plugged in later, remotely controllable.
Or how do you come to that conclusion?
S
SaniererNRW12324 Aug 2022 08:30Besenkammer84 schrieb:
I wouldn’t call it partial areas now. What you want to “automate” is just a very small part of home automation, or a “smart home.” You can do this with a bus system, but it’s like putting a V8 engine into a Smart car—the potential is not fully utilized.
If you really want it to be smart, much more is involved. In that sense, the statement
Araknis schrieb:
the Shellys should be completely sufficient fits quite well.
B
Besenkammer8426 Aug 2022 11:36Ok, thanks for your feedback.
I just spoke again with the heating installer. Given the relatively small additional cost (~1000€), I would also make the system remotely controllable regarding room temperatures. For this, he suggested a system from AFRISO, the AFRISOHome Gateway, which is apparently distributed through Pfeiffer & May.
It even operates via ENOCEAN.
Does anyone know this? How compatible is it, or could it cause any issues down the line?
Best regards
I just spoke again with the heating installer. Given the relatively small additional cost (~1000€), I would also make the system remotely controllable regarding room temperatures. For this, he suggested a system from AFRISO, the AFRISOHome Gateway, which is apparently distributed through Pfeiffer & May.
It even operates via ENOCEAN.
Does anyone know this? How compatible is it, or could it cause any issues down the line?
Best regards
You are always exposed to radiation, and the better the reception, the less radiation there is.
Enocean, Zigbee, and Loxone Air transmit at very low power and not continuously.
When it comes to radiation, you shouldn’t use a smartphone, a mobile phone, not even a printer because they also transmit Wi-Fi and Bluetooth; no car either. A Smart TV is especially not recommended because it transmits via Wi-Fi and Bluetooth as well, even if you disable these functions.
If you want to use wireless technology, I would recommend Loxone Air (which, as mentioned, is wireless) because depending on the manufacturer, the system can also communicate directly with the heating system.
Enocean, Zigbee, and Loxone Air transmit at very low power and not continuously.
When it comes to radiation, you shouldn’t use a smartphone, a mobile phone, not even a printer because they also transmit Wi-Fi and Bluetooth; no car either. A Smart TV is especially not recommended because it transmits via Wi-Fi and Bluetooth as well, even if you disable these functions.
If you want to use wireless technology, I would recommend Loxone Air (which, as mentioned, is wireless) because depending on the manufacturer, the system can also communicate directly with the heating system.
Radiation would only be harmful to health if it were ionizing radiation. Electromagnetic radiation becomes ionizing only at wavelengths below approximately 250 nm (nanometers), which corresponds to the petahertz frequency range. Everything else is uncertainty caused by esoteric beliefs and clever salespeople trying to sell unnecessary nonsense. In the military field, there have been cases of cancer among radar technicians, but these were not caused by the electromagnetic radar radiation itself; rather, they were due to X-rays that were produced as a byproduct by the transmitters at that time.
Similar topics