Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Raspberry Pi garage door opener

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 118 posts

Re: Show HN: Raspberry Pi garage door opener

#51

Post by sgt »

bonzini wrote: post #29
dirktheman wrote: post #17

It's a cool project, but for these kind of things I'd rather use a Shelly1. Runs locally, can easily be flashed with Tasmota firmware and it connects to my Home Assistant instance. This thing has never failed me and it's only $15, way cheaper than a Pi (keep the RBPi as your Home Assistant server!)

Or an ESP8266, using MQTT to "press" buttons on a standard garage door remote control through a relay module. I uploaded mine here: https://imgur.com/a/l2wt40w (green and blue are ground and 5V, gray and white are the pulses to the relays).

This is great. Question - why did you use the relays and not just the GPIO pins on the ESP to short circuit the contact on the remote for a brief moment?

Re: Show HN: Raspberry Pi garage door opener

#52

Post by jstanley »

sgt wrote: post #51
bonzini wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or an ESP8266, using MQTT to "press" buttons on a standard garage door remote control through a relay module. I uploaded mine here: https://imgur.com/a/l2wt40w (green and blue are ground and 5V, gray and white are the pulses to the relays).

This is great. Question - why did you use the relays and not just the GPIO pins on the ESP to short circuit the contact on the remote for a brief moment?

You can't use GPIO pins to short 2 contacts together.

The best you can do is apply voltage to the contacts (which might be workable, depending on how the remote is designed).

To short the contacts you need either a relay or a transistor.

Re: Show HN: Raspberry Pi garage door opener

#53

Post by buescher »

I'm not going to point out the big things wrong with this project, because someone might think "oh, if I just fix those things I'm good". I will say I think it's the worst garage door opener project I've seen on hackernews yet. Nothing wrong with messing around with motors in the workshop but the author of this one should keep his project away from other human beings. Probably pets too.

Here's the CPSC page on garage door openers: https://www.cpsc.gov/Regulations-Laws--Standards/Voluntary-S...

The pdf "Update of Automatic Garage Door and Garage Door Openers Entrapment Incidents. October 7, 2003" is a good introduction to the real, not internet-smart-guy-hypothetical, hazards of automatic door operation. It includes a summary of every entrapment incident found by the CPSC from 1982-2003.

The UL standard for openers UL325 is incorporated more or less verbatim into the mandatory standard 16 CFR Part 1211: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/part-1211/subpart-A Have fun. This is the standard that an opener that retails for $99 on sale in the US has been engineered to meet. European and other international standards differ in particulars but are quite similar.

No, you will not accidentally meet real-world safety standards with your project by dint of your sterling virtue, high intelligence, wisdom in the ways of the world, and impeccable engineering skills. Nor will you do so by adding a couple more features. Safety is the result of deliberate processes.

Re: Show HN: Raspberry Pi garage door opener

#54

Post by buran77 »

aequitas wrote: post #45
dirktheman wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My WiFi-connected IOT devices run on a separate network, with outgoing connections disabled, but that's more out of a privacy concern. I'm a big fan of IOT and home automation, with one exception: door locks. I wouldn't trust any electronic device with my door lock. There's just so much more that can go wrong, both from a technical and a security standpoint. Also, electronic door locks aren't THAT more convenient tha…

With locks it's kinda reverse that a homebrew solution might actually be more secure than a commercial one (consumer grade at least). Mostly due to security by obscurity. The average thief won't take the time to reverse engineer your lock solution but just pick the next best break-in option which would be smashing a window or breaking the lock/frame. (Unless of course you have really dedicated enemies that want to sp…

An electronic lock doesn't have to be impenetrable, just take more than 5 minutes to break into. This is about as long as a determined thief might spend picking/breaking your regular lock before they're in or they move on to the next target. If you add a bit of obscurity in the mix you could be just as safe. A smartlock that looks like a regular lock, or has all the "smart components" on the inside of the door (like smart bolt-on key turners) would not stand out.

Re: Show HN: Raspberry Pi garage door opener

#55

Post by diffeomorphism »

theamk wrote: post #3
zaabis wrote: post #2

Garage door opener using raspberry pi and web technologies. Features: - Web interface with multiple user accounts. - React/Material UI front end. - NodeJS backend with registration/login flows.

.. all data stored on SD card and lost during one of power outages / if someone bumps the cable / if it gets too hot in the summer

You can use a usb stick instead. Are these particularly "hot summer" sensitive?

Re: Show HN: Raspberry Pi garage door opener

#56

Post by sgt »

jstanley wrote: post #52
sgt wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is great. Question - why did you use the relays and not just the GPIO pins on the ESP to short circuit the contact on the remote for a brief moment?

You can't use GPIO pins to short 2 contacts together. The best you can do is apply voltage to the contacts (which might be workable, depending on how the remote is designed). To short the contacts you need either a relay or a transistor.

Ah yes, of course. Perhaps a transistor could work as well for low voltage?

Re: Show HN: Raspberry Pi garage door opener

#57

Post by jstanley »

sgt wrote: post #56
jstanley wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't use GPIO pins to short 2 contacts together. The best you can do is apply voltage to the contacts (which might be workable, depending on how the remote is designed). To short the contacts you need either a relay or a transistor.

Ah yes, of course. Perhaps a transistor could work as well for low voltage?

Yep, should work fine since you only need current flow in one direction!

Re: Show HN: Raspberry Pi garage door opener

#58

Post by tssva »

dirktheman wrote: post #17

It's a cool project, but for these kind of things I'd rather use a Shelly1. Runs locally, can easily be flashed with Tasmota firmware and it connects to my Home Assistant instance. This thing has never failed me and it's only $15, way cheaper than a Pi (keep the RBPi as your Home Assistant server!)

A RPi Zero W is only $10 where I live and sometimes is on sale for less.

Re: Show HN: Raspberry Pi garage door opener

#59

Post by rootusrootus »

gruturo wrote: post #42

Cool project. I built a couple myself (albeit not with a Pi, but with some Wemos D1) and can share a few lessons learned. First of all, safeties. I was lucky to add my work to existing motorized garage doors - which already came with enough sensors, but since you are providing everything including the motor, these should be in from the very start, or in any accident you'd be held liable. Actually you may even be held…

As someone who owns a normal Liftmaster garage door opener that malfunctioned last week and destroyed the door because it didn't adequately sense that the door was blocked, I have to say I don't think I'd want to homebrew my own opener. Especially not with kids in the house.

Re: Show HN: Raspberry Pi garage door opener

#60

Post by kahlonel »

buescher wrote: post #53

I'm not going to point out the big things wrong with this project, because someone might think "oh, if I just fix those things I'm good". I will say I think it's the worst garage door opener project I've seen on hackernews yet. Nothing wrong with messing around with motors in the workshop but the author of this one should keep his project away from other human beings. Probably pets too. Here's the CPSC page on garage…

Calm down, please. It's "experimental". No sane person is actually going to use this.
Post reply on HN