<https://youtu.be/nVXBglDe6Pc?t=40>

the "mandate" he's talking about for them is pretty narrow in the types of
property that require them.

On 24/04/2022 18:49, Andy Burns wrote:
> <https://youtu.be/nVXBglDe6Pc?t=40>
>
> the "mandate" he's talking about for them is pretty narrow in the types
> of property that require them.

Interesting.

ARW wrote:

> On 24/04/2022 18:49, Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> <https://youtu.be/nVXBglDe6Pc?t=40>
>>
>> the "mandate" he's talking about for them is pretty narrow in the types of
>> property that require them.
>
> Interesting.

Fuses
>MCBs
>>RCDs
>>>RCBOs
>>>>SPDs
>>>>>AFDDs

what next for 19th ed? David Savery is imagining a computerised consumer unit ...

On 24/04/2022 18:49, Andy Burns wrote:
> <https://youtu.be/nVXBglDe6Pc?t=40>
>
> the "mandate" he's talking about for them is pretty narrow in the types
> of property that require them.

thanks: a nice illustration of how much is left to speculation when
changes are made without an impact assessment - i.e. a something setting
out just what the change is meant to achieve, with what costs and
benefits, and what other options were considered but rejected.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Robin wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> <https://youtu.be/nVXBglDe6Pc?t=40>
>>
>> the "mandate" he's talking about for them is pretty narrow in the types of
>> property that require them.
>
> thanks: a nice illustration of how much is left to speculation when changes are
> made without an impact assessment - i.e. a something setting out just what the
> change is meant to achieve, with what costs and benefits, and what other options
> were considered but rejected.

If you've time to watch a longer video, or just leave in running for audio-only
in the background (it does have added swearing) then here's a chap pointing out
the new changes including the wording from the HSE (that probably ought to have
been in previous versions) reminding electricians that all which is old isn't
dangerous, and doesn't necessarily need replacing to comply with latest regs ...
some of the youtube sparkies can't seem to cope with installations that are
older than they are, so "replace it" seems to be their mantra.

<https://youtu.be/6rqGY9md6tY>

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> what next for 19th ed? David Savery is imagining a computerised consumer unit ...

AFDDs *are* computerised. There's a microcontroller in there trying to
detect the signature of an arc.

Now I wonder about firmware updates...

Theo

Theo wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> what next for 19th ed? David Savery is imagining a computerised consumer unit ...
>
> AFDDs *are* computerised. There's a microcontroller in there trying to
> detect the signature of an arc.

He knows, he's fitted 9 of them to his own CU to see how they perform, I think
he's envisaging the CU having one processor for all devices ...

On 25/04/2022 18:59, Andy Burns wrote:
> some of the youtube sparkies can't seem to cope with installations that
> are older than they are, so "replace it" seems to be their mantra.

There is *something * to be said for upgrading to what you are familiar
with...

--
"First, find out who are the people you can not criticise. They are your
oppressors."
- George Orwell

On 25/04/2022 19:37, Andy Burns wrote:
> Theo wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> what next for 19th ed?  David Savery is imagining a computerised
>>> consumer unit ...
>>
>> AFDDs *are* computerised.  There's a microcontroller in there trying to
>> detect the signature of an arc.
>
> He knows, he's fitted 9 of them to his own CU to see how they perform, I
> think he's envisaging the CU having one processor for all devices ...

That would be a major reverse from the path of "whole house" 1 RCD >
"split" CU with 2 RCDs > RCBOs. I'd expect the Committee, aided by
industry experts, would mandate at least triple redundancy - i.e. 3
independent systems.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 25/04/2022 19:35, Theo wrote:
> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> what next for 19th ed? David Savery is imagining a computerised consumer unit ...
>
> AFDDs *are* computerised. There's a microcontroller in there trying to
> detect the signature of an arc.
>
> Now I wonder about firmware updates...

and CU hosted malware :-)

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

On 25/04/2022 20:53, Robin wrote:
> On 25/04/2022 19:37, Andy Burns wrote:
>> Theo wrote:
>>
>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>
>>>> what next for 19th ed?  David Savery is imagining a computerised
>>>> consumer unit ...
>>>
>>> AFDDs *are* computerised.  There's a microcontroller in there trying to
>>> detect the signature of an arc.
>>
>> He knows, he's fitted 9 of them to his own CU to see how they perform,
>> I think he's envisaging the CU having one processor for all devices ...
>
> That would be a major reverse from the path of "whole house" 1 RCD >
> "split" CU with 2 RCDs > RCBOs.  I'd expect the Committee, aided by
> industry experts, would mandate at least triple redundancy - i.e. 3
> independent systems.

The suggestion is that you would use AFDDs that replicate and replace
RCBOs in most cases. So one per (high risk) circuit.

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
> On 25/04/2022 19:37, Andy Burns wrote:
> > Theo wrote:
> >
> > He knows, he's fitted 9 of them to his own CU to see how they perform, I
> > think he's envisaging the CU having one processor for all devices ...
>
> That would be a major reverse from the path of "whole house" 1 RCD >
> "split" CU with 2 RCDs > RCBOs. I'd expect the Committee, aided by
> industry experts, would mandate at least triple redundancy - i.e. 3
> independent systems.

Given the current costs of AFDDs, sharing some of the hardware over multiple
circuits might make some kind of sense. Possibly having the AFDD
functionality shared but individual RCBOs. You can't really run multiple
circuits through a single AFDD, but maybe a device that can 'see' multiple
circuits and push the trip button on each of them if an arc is detected.

I could imagine some kind of 'smart busbar' that hosts multiple plug-in
RCBOs.

A central unit would likely be nicer than trying to parse the fault LED
flash code on an individual module - could have a nice display or something.

Theo

On 25/04/2022 21:19, John Rumm wrote:
> On 25/04/2022 20:53, Robin wrote:
>> On 25/04/2022 19:37, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> Theo wrote:
>>>
>>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> what next for 19th ed?  David Savery is imagining a computerised
>>>>> consumer unit ...
>>>>
>>>> AFDDs *are* computerised.  There's a microcontroller in there trying to
>>>> detect the signature of an arc.
>>>
>>> He knows, he's fitted 9 of them to his own CU to see how they
>>> perform, I think he's envisaging the CU having one processor for all
>>> devices ...
>>
>> That would be a major reverse from the path of "whole house" 1 RCD >
>> "split" CU with 2 RCDs > RCBOs.  I'd expect the Committee, aided by
>> industry experts, would mandate at least triple redundancy - i.e. 3
>> independent systems.
>
> The suggestion is that you would use AFDDs that replicate and replace
> RCBOs in most cases. So one per (high risk) circuit.
>
My comment was aimed not at how AFDDs work now but at the idea of "the
CU having one processor for all devices ..."

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 25/04/2022 21:08, John Rumm wrote:
> On 25/04/2022 19:35, Theo wrote:
>> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>> what next for 19th ed?  David Savery is imagining a computerised
>>> consumer unit ...
>>
>> AFDDs *are* computerised.  There's a microcontroller in there trying to
>> detect the signature of an arc.
>>
>> Now I wonder about firmware updates...
>
> and CU hosted malware :-)
>
>
Won't happen.

There's no reason to put enough brains in a gadget like that to host
malware - it would make it more expensive.

Your intelligent heating controls, OTOH...

Andy

Vir Campestris wrote:

> John Rumm wrote:
>
>> Theo wrote:
>>
>>> AFDDs *are* computerised.  There's a microcontroller in there trying to
>>> detect the signature of an arc.
>>>
>>> Now I wonder about firmware updates...
>>
>> and CU hosted malware :-)
>
> Won't happen.
> There's no reason to put enough brains in a gadget like that to host malware -

we're not talking about a simple microcontroller like a PIC inside an AFDD, they
have ARM CPUs in them. OK, they have no connection to anything (yet)

> it would make it more expensive.
> Your intelligent heating controls, OTOH...

On 29/04/2022 21:58, Vir Campestris wrote:
> On 25/04/2022 21:08, John Rumm wrote:
>> On 25/04/2022 19:35, Theo wrote:
>>> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>>>> what next for 19th ed?  David Savery is imagining a computerised
>>>> consumer unit ...
>>>
>>> AFDDs *are* computerised.  There's a microcontroller in there trying to
>>> detect the signature of an arc.
>>>
>>> Now I wonder about firmware updates...
>>
>> and CU hosted malware :-)
>>
>>
> Won't happen.

I was not seriously suggesting that it will.
>
> There's no reason to put enough brains in a gadget like that to host
> malware - it would make it more expensive.

I expect the amount of brains required for the real time signal
processing that they need to do will easily cope with additional tasks.

However the limitation would be lack of external comms at the moment.

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

On Friday, 29 April 2022 at 22:25:36 UTC+1, Andy Burns wrote:
> Vir Campestris wrote:
>
> > John Rumm wrote:
> >
> >> Theo wrote:
> >>
> >>> AFDDs *are* computerised. There's a microcontroller in there trying to
> >>> detect the signature of an arc.
> >>>
> >>> Now I wonder about firmware updates...
> >>
> >> and CU hosted malware :-)
> >
> > Won't happen.
> > There's no reason to put enough brains in a gadget like that to host malware -

there seemed to be no reason for any electronics in fusesboxes
then electronic timers got cheaper than mechanical
then RCDs came along
now AFDDs
next it might be circuit controllers that recognise every load & spot anything abnormal going on. And that'll need lots of software updates.

> we're not talking about a simple microcontroller like a PIC inside an AFDD, they
> have ARM CPUs in them. OK, they have no connection to anything (yet)
> > it would make it more expensive.
> > Your intelligent heating controls, OTOH...

Give me a bimetal stat any day.

On 29/04/2022 22:25, Andy Burns wrote:
> we're not talking about a simple microcontroller like a PIC inside an
> AFDD, they have ARM CPUs in them.  OK, they have no connection to
> anything (yet)

Consider me shocked!

Oh.

Let me rephrase that.... surprised?

I'd be interested to read something on the theory, and why they need a
CPU with any grunt in it at all. After all they're just signal
processing a 50Hz waveform. It's not exactly RF... My google fu has
failed me, and I can't see anything that says _how_ they do it.

Andy

Vir Campestris wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> we're not talking about a simple microcontroller like a PIC inside an AFDD,
>> they have ARM CPUs in them.
>
> Consider me shocked!
> Oh.
> Let me rephrase that.... surprised?
>
> I'd be interested to read something on the theory, and why they need a CPU with
> any grunt in it at all.

Dunno but here's a destructive teardown, get ready with the pause button at 28s
I think I can make it out as STM32F or similar?

> After all they're just signal processing a 50Hz
> waveform. It's not exactly RF... My google fu has failed me, and I can't see
> anything that says _how_ they do it.

Not got any real info, but must be looking for more complex waveforms, as many
of the sparkies on youtube failed to get AFDDs to trigger with a "primitive"
spark rig.

BS EN 62606 if you have access, I notice that BSI are clamping down on access to
PDFs and requiring DRM plug-ins now ...

On 03/05/2022 21:37, Vir Campestris wrote:
> On 29/04/2022 22:25, Andy Burns wrote:
>> we're not talking about a simple microcontroller like a PIC inside an
>> AFDD, they have ARM CPUs in them.  OK, they have no connection to
>> anything (yet)
>
> Consider me shocked!
>
> Oh.
>
> Let me rephrase that.... surprised?
>
> I'd be interested to read something on the theory, and why they need a
> CPU with any grunt in it at all. After all they're just signal
> processing a 50Hz waveform. It's not exactly RF... My google fu has
> failed me, and I can't see anything that says _how_ they do it.

Probably because the "how" is proprietary and where the money is to be
made for the early vendors (before they have been copied and
commoditised at least!)

(Also the waveforms they will interested in will be up into RF - not
just 50Hz)

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

John Rumm wrote:

> Vir Campestris wrote:
>
>> I'd be interested to read something on the theory, and why they need a CPU
>> with any grunt in it at all. After all they're just signal processing a 50Hz
>> waveform. It's not exactly RF... My google fu has failed me, and I can't see
>> anything that says _how_ they do it.
>
> Probably because the "how" is proprietary and where the money is to be made for
> the early vendors (before they have been copied and commoditised at least!)
>
> (Also the waveforms they will interested in will be up into RF - not just 50Hz)

From previous curiosity I happened to have the relevant BS doc saved, here is
an example current/voltage waveform they gave, but no clues how closely it needs
to fit that envelope to cause a "trip"

<http://andyburns.uk/misc/afdd-example-waveform.png>

On 03/05/2022 21:37, Vir Campestris wrote:
> On 29/04/2022 22:25, Andy Burns wrote:
>> we're not talking about a simple microcontroller like a PIC inside an
>> AFDD, they have ARM CPUs in them.  OK, they have no connection to
>> anything (yet)
>
> Consider me shocked!
>
> Oh.
>
> Let me rephrase that.... surprised?
>
> I'd be interested to read something on the theory, and why they need a
> CPU with any grunt in it at all. After all they're just signal
> processing a 50Hz waveform. It's not exactly RF... My google fu has
> failed me, and I can't see anything that says _how_ they do it.
>
> Andy

Well the sparks ARE RF.

--
Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the
gospel of envy.

Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

On 03/05/2022 23:16, Andy Burns wrote:
> John Rumm wrote:
>
>> Vir Campestris wrote:
>>
>>> I'd be interested to read something on the theory, and why they need
>>> a CPU with any grunt in it at all. After all they're just signal
>>> processing a 50Hz waveform. It's not exactly RF... My google fu has
>>> failed me, and I can't see anything that says _how_ they do it.
>>
>> Probably because the "how" is proprietary and where the money is to be
>> made for the early vendors (before they have been copied and
>> commoditised at least!)
>>
>> (Also the waveforms they will interested in will be up into RF - not
>> just 50Hz)
>
> From previous curiosity I happened to have the relevant BS doc saved,
> here is an example current/voltage waveform they gave, but no clues how
> closely it needs to fit that envelope to cause a "trip"
>
> <http://andyburns.uk/misc/afdd-example-waveform.png>

You probably want to do a fast Fourier transform, and those are very
compute intensive

--
Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the
gospel of envy.

Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

On 03/05/2022 22:57, Andy Burns wrote:
> Vir Campestris wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> we're not talking about a simple microcontroller like a PIC inside an
>>> AFDD, they have ARM CPUs in them.
>>
>> Consider me shocked!
>> Oh.
>> Let me rephrase that.... surprised?
>>
>> I'd be interested to read something on the theory, and why they need a
>> CPU with any grunt in it at all.
>
> Dunno but here's a destructive teardown, get ready with the pause button
> at 28s I think I can make it out as STM32F or similar?
>
>> After all they're just signal processing a 50Hz waveform. It's not
>> exactly RF... My google fu has failed me, and I can't see anything
>> that says _how_ they do it.
>
> Not got any real info, but must be looking for more complex waveforms,
> as many of the sparkies on youtube failed to get AFDDs to trigger with a
> "primitive" spark rig.
>
> BS EN 62606 if you have access, I notice that BSI are clamping down on
> access to PDFs and requiring DRM plug-ins now ...

only if you have access that allows downloads... (most library subs only
officially give "view only" access)

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

On 03/05/2022 22:57, Andy Burns wrote:
> Vir Campestris wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> we're not talking about a simple microcontroller like a PIC inside an
>>> AFDD, they have ARM CPUs in them.
>>
>> Consider me shocked!
>> Oh.
>> Let me rephrase that.... surprised?
>>
>> I'd be interested to read something on the theory, and why they need a
>> CPU with any grunt in it at all.
>
> Dunno but here's a destructive teardown, get ready with the pause button
> at 28s I think I can make it out as STM32F or similar?

Yup that would figure...

"The STM32 family of 32-bit microcontrollers based on the Arm® Cortex®-M
processor is designed to offer new degrees of freedom to MCU users. It
offers products combining very high performance, real-time capabilities,
digital signal processing, low-power / low-voltage operation, and
connectivity, while maintaining full integration and ease of development."

They also have lots of built in capabilities for use in safety critical
applications like dual watchdog, backup clock, supply monitoring etc.

>> After all they're just signal processing a 50Hz waveform. It's not
>> exactly RF... My google fu has failed me, and I can't see anything
>> that says _how_ they do it.
>
> Not got any real info, but must be looking for more complex waveforms,
> as many of the sparkies on youtube failed to get AFDDs to trigger with a
> "primitive" spark rig.
>
> BS EN 62606 if you have access, I notice that BSI are clamping down on
> access to PDFs and requiring DRM plug-ins now ...

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/