Adding External PIR

[Rekusu]

To address a few points.
1. Yes, I'm more than capable of running a cable from the light position to the PIR. It's not so far but does have a bend 90 degree bend.

2. PIR. I know that the one I want is a ceiling and wall PIR. Want it purely from an aesthetic point of view. Really hate the 'pointy' garage ones.

3. Would it be a silly idea to put one PIR on each light without addiing extra cables? Or is that not possible?

 

[Taylortwocities]

1. Yes, I'm more than capable of running a cable from the light position to the PIR.

Excellent!

2. PIR. I know that the one I want is a ceiling and wall PIR. Want it purely from an aesthetic point of view. Really hate the 'pointy' garage ones.

But IT WILL NOT WORK!!!
Think about it, The detector pattern for ceiling units is around the unit, so that someone approaching it is detected. If you put it on the wall, the detect pattern will be in line with the wall. The only time it will detect is if you stand right next to the wall.

To address a few points.

3. Would it be a silly idea to put one PIR on each light without addiing extra cables? Or is that not possible?

Not a silly idea, at all, and would save you doing and major rewiring. But you still wont be able to use a CEILING PIR.
May it would be easier to change the lights for fittings that each have an integrated PIR??

 

[bernardgreen]

I know that the one I want is a ceiling and wall PIR. Want it purely from an aesthetic point of view. Really hate the 'pointy' garage ones.?

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/STIS180B.html

http://www.steinel.de/en/Motion-Det.../Infrared-motion-detector-IS-180-2-Black.html

 

[DetlefSchmitz]

To address a few points.

3. Would it be a silly idea to put one PIR on each light without addiing extra cables? Or is that not possible?

Not a silly idea, at all, and would save you doing and major rewiring.

There may be a problem if the design is such that the lights don't turn on in daylight. One lamp coming on may prevent the other from coming on.

 

[JohnW2]

There may be a problem if the design is such that the lights don't turn on in daylight. One lamp coming on may prevent the other from coming on.

That'a very true (particularly given the apparent close proximity of the two lights). However, I suspect that there are two lights for only essentially aesthetic reasons - they are described as being "on either side of the door", and are therefore presumably very close. In functional terms, I therefore doubt there would be a problem if only one of them came on - there would still probably be reasonable illumination.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

If the lights are close together (and facing the same way), what would be the point of having a PIR on each?

 

[JohnW2]

If the lights are close together (and facing the same way), what would be the point of having a PIR on each?

'Belt and braces' (if one PIR didn't detect motion, the other might) or the hope that both would come on, in response to detected motion (not inhibited by the other's light)?

The underlying issue is, of course, the desire/need to avoid having to have 3-core connections between the lights. As I've just written, apart from redundancy, there's presumably no need to have two lights at all - so I imagine it's an aesthetic thing.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

The underlying issue is, of course, the desire/need to avoid having to have 3-core connections between the lights.

OP has stated he can run cable from switch to PIR position.
If this is done there is no need for any other changes.

As I've just written, apart from redundancy, there's presumably no need to have two lights at all - so I imagine it's an aesthetic thing.

But it's already there; symmetry is good.

 

[JohnW2]

OP has stated he can run cable from switch to PIR position. If this is done there is no need for any other changes.

The OP has indeed said that. However, I'm a little confused because he also said:

The PIR would only be about 3 cms below one of the lights.

I find it difficult to understand how it can be that he can run a cable to a PIR but not (should it be required) to a light 3cm away?

As I've just written, apart from redundancy, there's presumably no need to have two lights at all - so I imagine it's an aesthetic thing.

But it's already there; symmetry is good.

That's what I was saying - although functionally unnecessary, we're talking about aesthetics - which is fair enough.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I'm a little confused because he also said:

The PIR would only be about 3 cms below one of the lights.

I find it difficult to understand how it can be that he can run a cable to a PIR but not (should it be required) to a light 3cm away?

I think he said also that he could run the cable to a light.

It's just between the lights that is difficult. I presume he means directly.
Although it depends what you mean by between the lights; i.e. via switch.


This does seem a lot more complicated than it is.

 

[JohnW2]

I think he said also that he could run the cable to a light. ... It's just between the lights that is difficult. I presume he means directly. Although it depends what you mean by between the lights; i.e. via switch.

Oh, I see. As you imply, connecting the lights via the switch is, functionally, the same as connecting them 'directly' with a cable. If that is the case then, as you have been saying, the whole exercise should be very straightforward - as you say:

This does seem a lot more complicated than it is.

Kind Regards, John