[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.

[jesseryoung]

I briefly took a look at the page and checked out the comments and thought you were being a total buzzkill on a cool toy project until I went back and actually looked at the schematic.

This is project taking complete control over the motor that opens and closes the door and NOT using the simple "throw a relay on the door opener" trick that you usually see (ex: https://cdn.instructables.com/F9V/T9JH/I9YBZHM7/F9VT9JHI9YBZ...).

This project is unnecessarily dangerous for such a simple application.

[buescher]

I'll happily be a buzzkill and say don't do that either (outside of your basement garage door opener laboratory) but it's not nearly as egregious.

[rtkwe]

The 'throw a relay on the door opener' is doing exactly the same thing hitting the interior button to open the door. It sends the same signal to the motors and doesn't bypass any of the load limiting or safety sensors. Those are basically safe.

[buescher]

Those projects can be made safe, but they generally don't mitigate the hazards that compliance with this section will: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/1211.14 They are not the same thing as a human pressing the button.

[rtkwe]

Those are a bit overkill, I've not had any garage door that beeped for opening for remotes for example and that's a similar distance of triggered by someone not in the immediate area. They should be safe based just on the break sensors and current limiting.

[_ea1k]

You are absolutely correct. I have no idea when this site became this way, but a lot of the responses here are disappointing. I can easily close my garage door from well outside of sight range with the regular remote. I can set the wifi one to have even less range by requiring me to be on the same wifi network. There is very little downside to this for my use case.

The standards that require MyQ to make earsplitting noises for seconds before moving just cause headaches.

[buescher]

Those are the industry requirements written by people with understanding of the hazards of running a garage door opener out of line-of-sight of the door. Read them carefully. There are reasons for each of them. Think hard about it.

Remotes also operate differently than your wall button. Did you know that?

[KirinDave]

I prefer to use BLE microcontrollers rather than real networking because it basically makes a better and more secure remote control rather than opening folks up to this danger.

I think very few people plan to open their garage door from across the continent with these projects

[jiux]

>I think it's the worst garage door opener project I've seen on hackernews yet.

Would you feel encouraged or inspired if someone said this to you?

For example, instead of saying the quote above, you could have as easily said “I think this garage door opener project has a lot of opportunity for improvement”.

Mindset goes a long way, and it might just help make a friend or two along the way.

[buescher]

You are correct. I intended to discourage the poster. Any "opportunity for improvement" could be misinterpreted as "just fix this one thing".

[hjklmn]

Are you selling garage doors?

[laurensr]

I did a similar project at my home & I dare say it is safer, though technically much uglier. It consists of a Raspberry Pi with a PiFace Digital board (with relays). The relays don't drive the motor directly: it "pushes" (shorts/connects) the manual open/close button on the garage door's system board.

[ianlevesque]

Yeah that’s the right way to do this.

[markvdb]

I just added your remark as an issue to the submitter's repo:

https://github.com/evzaboun/garage-door/issues/1

[beervirus]

Yeah I thought this was going to be a page about controlling an existing garage door opener via a Raspberry Pi.

This is nuts.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

I will say this. Having seen garage door go down without a warning, I would think twice before attempting it in such a haphazard way. Nothing wrong with a little hacking, but this project seems to be asking for trouble.

[libria]

> 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.

This is unnecessary condescending snark that I hope we see less of on HN. Everyone should be open to criticism, but how does that encourage the inventor?

[buescher]

There is no invention here, and nothing to encourage. Electrically operated doors date from the 19th century, and we have over 100 years of understanding of their hazards.

[libria]

> nothing to encourage

Absolutely there is. You and I both agree we should encourage them to learn properly, experiment responsibly and proceed with safety in mind.

> There is no invention

I regret that you ever saw the word "inventor" and couldn't think past it. {Creator, engineer, maker, hacker, killer} Pick whatever word it takes for you to ignore the noun and focus on the idea and better way forward.

[_ea1k]

Indeed... the voting patterns in this thread are amazingly disappointing to me. This is hacker news not discourage and insult you for your mistakes news.

[_ea1k]

I think that you will find your opinions much easier to get across to a developer if delivered in terms that are much less aggressive. Anyone doing actual work will find your approach rude at best.

[theandrewbailey]

I started to think I was a luddite to keep a several decade old remote in my car for wireless garage door control.

[kahlonel]

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

[gambiting]

>>No sane person is actually going to use this.

What makes you so sure?? I see people using such "experimental" devices all the time. Unless you tell someone explicitly why it's a bad idea they won't know.