Quite simple, shelly recognises that the input changes and will switch the output accordingly. At the same time, this state change is published via MQTT or shelly cloud if configured or even via the shelly binding. To make clear, shelly cloud can be completely disabled.
Shelly devices also work perfectly with two physical switches attached, like you might find to control staircase light. Just need to configure the input the right way. I did post the cabling scheme and correct config last year, just search for it.
2 Likes
Thanks for taking the time to explain your stream of consciousness…
In the grand scheme of things…I can see where you are going…but hey…this is a home automation forum…not a socioeconomic one. Those of us who engage here are the users of these devices and if we need to vent…why not here?
I’m all for the social good…but hey…what’s wrong with someone knocking a product for not working they way they intended…their comments are not going to pull the food off of anyone’s table.
I’m all for good conversation…just thought the comment was out of left field and implied that we as a group were insensitive or treated ourselves above others… no harm…no foul.
Squid 
1 Like
Yeah, that’s why I should have left it out. It was less about this forum (where people are pretty great) and more about general Internet behaviour that frustrates me. Again, I appreciate you pointing out that it was unnecessary.
I have no issues with this at all (I’ve come to despise Belkin based on personal experience with their products and support). However, I dislike when people criticize things solely because those things are not designed for them. Cloud control falls squarely in this category.
That’s a whole new message board 
…people love to hide behind their online anonymity!
1 Like
Wow @rpwong I’m really not trying to “attach negative connotations to all cloud-enabled devices”. I have some of those devices. I’m a software architect and I build (and love) distributed cloud applications. I have a personal API running in Azure, and its interconnected with my openHAB setup. I’m all about the cloud.
I’m also neither denigrating nor idolizing people with enough “disposable income” to buy “luxury goods”. I’m somewhere on that curve. I own nice things, and I watch what I spend, all at the same time. I’ll spend whatever it costs to buy the right gear if it fits my needs and I like how it works.
What I’m saying, is that I’m frustrated with the notion that it’s anathema to build a wifi device that’s not inexorably connected to a cloud service. The manufacturers that do that are not evil. They’re playing to that affluent and/or unsophisticated market that wants it to “just work”. They’re profiting from it, and good for them.
As @KidSquid said, I’m trying to “[v]oice [my] dissatisfaction of the product in the hopes that constructive criticism might help shape the enhancement of the product.” I think it’s a general “miss” in the market to be building wifi products that only have utility when connected to the cloud. Firmware, once written, is infinitely repeatable when manufacturing the hardware. Go to the effort once, satisfy an additional (if smaller) market, and give yourself a better story that can actually bolster your credibility with the “luxury” buyer. Oh, and at the same time, it’s building a much wider adoption that can only benefit all players.
This isn’t about the soul of the manufacturers, or about the virtue of either wealth or poverty, or any of that. This all started with a simple observation (and one that wasn’t really at the heart of the original post) which is: Wifi is a great technology for HA. Almost everyone has a wifi network, and it’s become pretty reliable. I think a lot of the pain in the HA world would be alleviated by having devices that could be addressed simply from a browser. There’s an unfortunate perception from manufacturers and users that wifi is for cloud and z-wave is for local, and never the twain shall meet. Shedding that false presumption could lead to manugacturers making products with the leverage to satisfy both markets.
I’d like to see that happen. That’s all I’m saying. No social judgement attached.
[And anecdotally, I just spent an hour temporarily relocating my openHAB box so I could get the z-wave stick right next to my new thermostat so it would join the network. Had it been wifi…]
To be fair, that is what the diabetes metaphor seemed to be doing in my interpretation. But I don’t mean anything I say to be a criticism of you or your opinions, as I think you’ve been very open-minded and considerate. Rather, this is something that I’ve observed in general and in this community.
This is completely fair. Again I’ll point to TP-Link, whose WiFi devices can be used without cloud access…
I’m not going to get into the poverty/wealth stuff, as I already acknowledged my earlier comment as being poorly stated and unnecessary to this discussion. I appreciate you responding to it though. If you were offended, I apologize. I don’t want to stifle discussion, particularly in a thread that you started.
I don’t share your belief that manufacturers would benefit significantly from trying to satisfy our niche market, but I appreciate your reasons for thinking it would.
Not at all, and no apology needed. This is a case where cross interpretations run the risk of creating boring flame spats.
Where I was going with that (and speaking from personal experience) is that one can become diabetic by indulging in things that give immediate pleasure, with the consequence “institutionalizing” a long-term impediment. The (perhaps clumsy) inference was that people buying these one-off “just works” solutions may like them now, but eventually when they have 20 different apps to use them and can’t make them work together, they’ll be stuck with their “institutional” investment. (And don’t get me started on the “sunk cost” fallacy).
We just come at this from different perspectives. It’s all good, mate. 
1 Like
Is it a particularly old Zwave thermostat or is it your only zwave device? I’ve been told be experts that only really old battery powered devices generally need to be close to the controller for inclusion. All other devices should be includible through the mesh network. If you had to move the controller closer to include it, you likely will have to have it closer for general operation but it also means this is your only Zwave device perhaps.
The typical solution for improving a zwave network is to add more zwave devices. With zwave and zigbee, the more devices the better the network. You usually don’t need that many though, maybe two or three with at least one with a good connection to the controller.
It’s good for some aspects of home automation. In general, a good zwave or zigbee mesh will have a much better range and coverage over all and both are much better choices for battery powered devices as WiFi is relatively much more power hungry.
The new standard that Google/Apple/et. al. are working on is actually just this. It’s bringing IP addressing to Zigbee and Bluetooth and WiFi so addressing devices can be unified.
I disagree there is such a perception. Z-wave by itself is only capable of local control. You need a bridge to access it remotely (Vera, Wink, openHAB, etc.). With WiFi devices, they have the opportunity to avoid the hub and have the device communicate remotely directly. That’s the distinction as I see it.
Phillips Hue is remotely accessible, assuming you are using their Hub to communicate with their Zigbee bulbs. For the purposes of this discussion Zwave and Zigbee are synonymous.
It’s a brand spanking new Honeywell TH6320ZW2003 T6 Pro Series Z-Wave Stat Thermostat & Comfort Control, which I bought thanks to the great advice I got right here. I do have a few Z-Wave Plus wall switches between here and there, but apparently not enough. The thermostat does have the elusive “C” wire hooked up and delivering 24v. I moved the controller to within about 50 feet … no soap. I had to get it to within 5 feet to get it to include. I’ve moved it back to a spot about 100 feet away, and its communicating fine. Hopefully as I continue adding Z-Wave Plus devices that problem will get better overall.
Didn’t know that; sounds promising!
I should stop arguing the point with someone so much more experienced than I. Yes “with WiFi devices, they have the opportunity to avoid the hub and have the device communicate remotely directly”, but “opportunity” is the key word there; there’s absolutely nothing stopping a device manufacturer from building e.g. a wifi wall switch that can operate in the same “local control” fashion as a Z-wave/zigbee device. One technology can only work one way; one could work both. It disturbs me that manufacturers fail to rise to my level of keen observation and see what is plainly obvious for themselves. (dripping sarcasm very much intended).
Thanks for your time, and helping me sharpen my understanding along the way.
How did you do the inclusion. I assume through the binding?
https://www.connectedhomeip.com/
I think we are all watching it with great interest.
I’ll be curious to hear what you think of the T6.
For more on this: Apple, Google, and Amazon are teaming up to develop an open-source smart home standard - The Verge
I don’t know if this helps but I bought a house that has a CT100 by Radio Thermostat Company of America. I have it working with the HABpanel widget for the CT100 and the Aeotec dongle. It does require batteries but other then that I think it fits the request. Lately the “Fan state” icon doesn’t seem to show up anymore. I have a lot of other priorities now and I can live with the current functionality. I hope this was useful.
Thanks, @PeteC.
I bought a Honeywell TH6320ZW2003 T6 Pro Series Z-Wave Stat Thermostat & Comfort Control. So far it’s looking like a good choice. It’s better looking than the CT100 (IMO), it runs on 24v line voltage with battery backup, and has pretty good z-wave functionality. I had a bit of a rough spot getting it joined, but other than that, so far so good. I’m ordering another one for the downstairs unit.
Yes, using the Paper UI. I know that the CW is to use HabPanel, but I had better luck with Paper in this case.
Why is HabPanel generally preferred? Just wondering.
So far so good. I like it enough that I’m buying another
1 Like
- I believe Chris originally had a big hand in developing HABPanel.
- The Device attributes there are in standard hexadecimal instead of decimal.
- It also gives more insight into the device discovery status.
- The Z-Wave network map?
That is my guess.
Sorry, meant to say Habmin as being preferred for administration (inclusion, etc) over Paper.
My points 1, 2, & 3 apply to that, Point 2 is good troubleshooting information.
And THIS is why I’m all Zwave, Zigbee and Shelly here at home. No “clouds” for this kid.