Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #489451 > unrolled thread

AC switch fault current philosophy

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design

Contents

  AC switch fault current philosophy Piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com> - 2017-12-28 12:29 +0000
    Re: AC switch fault current philosophy Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-12-28 04:47 -0800
      Re: AC switch fault current philosophy Piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com> - 2017-12-28 16:53 +0000
      Re: AC switch fault current philosophy George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-12-28 13:16 -0800
        Re: AC switch fault current philosophy Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-12-28 16:51 -0800
    Re: AC switch fault current philosophy "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-12-28 09:03 -0600
      Re: AC switch fault current philosophy Piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com> - 2017-12-28 17:00 +0000
        Re: AC switch fault current philosophy Piotr Wyderski <peter.pan@neverland.mil> - 2017-12-28 20:21 +0100
        Re: AC switch fault current philosophy Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-12-28 11:57 -0800
          Re: AC switch fault current philosophy Piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com> - 2017-12-29 12:45 +0000
            Re: AC switch fault current philosophy Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-12-29 05:13 -0800
            Re: AC switch fault current philosophy Piotr Wyderski <peter.pan@neverland.mil> - 2017-12-31 10:57 +0100
    Re: AC switch fault current philosophy Don Kuenz <g@crcomp.net> - 2017-12-28 18:45 +0000
      Re: AC switch fault current philosophy "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-12-28 14:16 -0600
        Re: AC switch fault current philosophy Don Kuenz <g@crcomp.net> - 2018-01-03 17:57 +0000
          Re: AC switch fault current philosophy "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2018-01-03 14:29 -0600
            Re: AC switch fault current philosophy Don Kuenz <g@crcomp.net> - 2018-01-03 20:54 +0000
              Re: AC switch fault current philosophy "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2018-01-03 15:05 -0600
                Re: AC switch fault current philosophy Don Kuenz <g@crcomp.net> - 2018-01-03 22:07 +0000
      Re: AC switch fault current philosophy pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-12-28 12:27 -0800
        Re: AC switch fault current philosophy tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-12-28 13:16 -0800
          Re: AC switch fault current philosophy pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-12-28 14:42 -0800
            Re: AC switch fault current philosophy tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-12-28 15:25 -0800
              Re: AC switch fault current philosophy pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-12-28 19:04 -0800
                Re: AC switch fault current philosophy tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-12-29 06:20 -0800
                Re: AC switch fault current philosophy George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-12-29 15:48 -0800
                  Re: AC switch fault current philosophy krw@notreal.com - 2017-12-29 18:59 -0500
                  Re: AC switch fault current philosophy Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-12-29 17:03 -0800
                    Re: AC switch fault current philosophy Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-12-30 07:49 -0800
                  Re: AC switch fault current philosophy tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-12-29 19:47 -0800
                  Re: AC switch fault current philosophy upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-12-30 11:42 +0200
                    Re: AC switch fault current philosophy Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-12-30 02:01 -0800
                      Re: AC switch fault current philosophy upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-12-30 22:12 +0200
                        Re: AC switch fault current philosophy tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-12-30 15:20 -0800
                          Re: AC switch fault current philosophy upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-12-31 14:12 +0200
                        Re: AC switch fault current philosophy Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-12-30 16:33 -0800
                    Re: AC switch fault current philosophy Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-12-31 18:30 -0800
                  Re: AC switch fault current philosophy ehsjr <ehsjr@verizon.net> - 2017-12-30 19:00 -0500
                    Re: AC switch fault current philosophy Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-12-30 21:13 -0800
                      Re: AC switch fault current philosophy upsidedown@downunder.com - 2017-12-31 14:36 +0200
                        Re: AC switch fault current philosophy Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-12-31 04:47 -0800
                        Re: AC switch fault current philosophy tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-12-31 06:00 -0800
                        Re: AC switch fault current philosophy tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-12-31 17:39 -0800
                          Re: AC switch fault current philosophy Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2018-01-01 04:19 +0000
                            Re: AC switch fault current philosophy tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-12-31 21:38 -0800
                      Re: AC switch fault current philosophy tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-12-31 05:54 -0800
                      Re: AC switch fault current philosophy ehsjr <ehsjr@verizon.net> - 2018-01-01 22:25 -0500
                      Re: AC switch fault current philosophy George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2018-01-02 06:27 -0800
                        Re: AC switch fault current philosophy Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2018-01-02 10:10 -0500
                Re: AC switch fault current philosophy Piotr Wyderski <peter.pan@neverland.mil> - 2017-12-31 11:29 +0100
              Re: AC switch fault current philosophy ehsjr <ehsjr@verizon.net> - 2017-12-30 19:44 -0500
                Re: AC switch fault current philosophy Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-12-30 16:52 -0800
                  Re: AC switch fault current philosophy ehsjr <ehsjr@verizon.net> - 2017-12-30 23:14 -0500
                    Re: AC switch fault current philosophy Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2017-12-30 20:33 -0800
                      Re: AC switch fault current philosophy ehsjr <ehsjr@verizon.net> - 2018-01-01 18:11 -0500
                        Re: AC switch fault current philosophy Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> - 2018-01-01 17:26 -0800
                          Re: AC switch fault current philosophy tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2018-01-01 18:51 -0800
                          Re: AC switch fault current philosophy ehsjr <ehsjr@verizon.net> - 2018-01-02 23:51 -0500
                Re: AC switch fault current philosophy tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-12-31 05:51 -0800
        Re: AC switch fault current philosophy Don Kuenz <g@crcomp.net> - 2017-12-29 14:19 +0000
        Re: AC switch fault current philosophy glen walpert <nospam@null.void> - 2017-12-29 16:03 +0000
        Re: AC switch fault current philosophy "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <paul@hovnanian.com> - 2017-12-29 20:01 -0800
          Re: AC switch fault current philosophy Michael A Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-12-29 23:49 -0500
    Re: AC switch fault current philosophy Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-12-28 12:48 -0700
    Re: AC switch fault current philosophy George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-12-28 13:28 -0800

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#489451 — AC switch fault current philosophy

When designing a semiconductor based switch for AC mains power which is 
the better philosophy to handling a load side short circuit:

1. Use devices rugged enough to pass the fault current and allow the 
upstream breaker or fuse to operate as usual if the switch had been 
mechanical;

2. Switch off fast enough to break the current before damage occurs and 
retry a second or two later?

piglet

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#489453

piglet squeeled :

-----------------

>
>
> When designing a semiconductor based switch for AC mains power which is 
> the better philosophy to handling a load side short circuit:
> 
> 1. Use devices rugged enough to pass the fault current and allow the 
> upstream breaker or fuse to operate as usual if the switch had been 
> mechanical;
> 
> 2. Switch off fast enough to break the current before damage occurs and 
> retry a second or two later?
> 
>

** The proven way is to do both. 

1.  Use a very rugged AC switch device, like a 40A triac or 60A SCR pair with the largest half cycle surge rating - like 500 to 1000A.

2. Install a fast acting magnetic breaker able to break the turn off arc in one or two milliseconds. 

If there are other good ways, designers of pro-lighting dimmer don't know about them. 

BTW:

Stop posting fuckwit questions about stuff you are clueless about. 


.....  Phil


 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#489465

On 28/12/2017 12:47, Phil Allison wrote:
> piglet squeeled :
>
> -----------------
>
>>
>>
>> When designing a semiconductor based switch for AC mains power which is
>> the better philosophy to handling a load side short circuit:
>>
>> 1. Use devices rugged enough to pass the fault current and allow the
>> upstream breaker or fuse to operate as usual if the switch had been
>> mechanical;
>>
>> 2. Switch off fast enough to break the current before damage occurs and
>> retry a second or two later?
>>
>>
>
> ** The proven way is to do both.
>
> 1.  Use a very rugged AC switch device, like a 40A triac or 60A SCR pair with the largest half cycle surge rating - like 500 to 1000A.
>
> 2. Install a fast acting magnetic breaker able to break the turn off arc in one or two milliseconds.
>
> If there are other good ways, designers of pro-lighting dimmer don't know about them.
>
> BTW:
>
> Stop posting fuckwit questions about stuff you are clueless about.
>
>
> .....  Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
>

Thanks Phil. Happy New Year

piglet

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#489484

On Thursday, December 28, 2017 at 7:47:37 AM UTC-5, Phil Allison wrote:
> piglet squeeled :
> 
> -----------------
> 
> >
> >
> > When designing a semiconductor based switch for AC mains power which is 
> > the better philosophy to handling a load side short circuit:
> > 
> > 1. Use devices rugged enough to pass the fault current and allow the 
> > upstream breaker or fuse to operate as usual if the switch had been 
> > mechanical;
> > 
> > 2. Switch off fast enough to break the current before damage occurs and 
> > retry a second or two later?
> > 
> >
> 
> ** The proven way is to do both. 
> 
> 1.  Use a very rugged AC switch device, like a 40A triac or 60A SCR pair with the largest half cycle surge rating - like 500 to 1000A.
> 
> 2. Install a fast acting magnetic breaker able to break the turn off arc in one or two milliseconds. 
> 
> If there are other good ways, designers of pro-lighting dimmer don't know about them. 
> 
> BTW:
> 
> Stop posting fuckwit questions about stuff you are clueless about. 
Phil, WTF?  I was thrilled to see a question from piglet.  
I don't see any reason for you to start off so rude... 
get a grip.

George H. 
> 
> 
> .....  Phil

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#489509

George Herold wrote:

-------------------------
> 
> > >
> > >
> > > When designing a semiconductor based switch for AC mains power which is 
> > > the better philosophy to handling a load side short circuit:
> > > 
> > > 1. Use devices rugged enough to pass the fault current and allow the 
> > > upstream breaker or fuse to operate as usual if the switch had been 
> > > mechanical;
> > > 
> > > 2. Switch off fast enough to break the current before damage occurs and 
> > > retry a second or two later?
> > > 
> > >
> > 
> > ** The proven way is to do both. 
> > 
> > 1.  Use a very rugged AC switch device, like a 40A triac or 60A SCR pair with the largest half cycle surge rating - like 500 to 1000A.
> > 
> > 2. Install a fast acting magnetic breaker able to break the turn off arc in one or two milliseconds. 
> > 
> > If there are other good ways, designers of pro-lighting dimmer don't know about them. 
> > 
> > BTW:
> > 
> > Stop posting fuckwit questions about stuff you are clueless about. 
>>
>
> Phil, WTF?  I was thrilled to see a question from piglet. 
>


** You need help.

 
> I don't see any reason for you to start off so rude... 


** Clearly, I started off quite formally.
 
Then I gave him a smack for posting yet another TROLL. 

Trolls are questions that HAVE no answer because the problem is undefined. 




....  Phil

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#489458

If you're talking thyristors (SCR/TRIAC), you have no choice but to do 1. 
Fault current ramps up well within a cycle, so there's no chance to turn it 
off later.  Make sure you use a fuse with a smaller I^2t rating than the 
thyristor.

For industrial applications, there are "semiconductor fuses": super fast, 
they clear in less than a cycle.  For smaller (consumer scale) loads, a 
regular fast-blow may have low enough I^2t, or alternately, you can afford 
to use a somewhat larger thyristor.

Otherwise, with transistors, #1 is impossible.  No transistor can burn a 
mains fuse without itself blowing far, far sooner.  Current must be switched 
off, diverted to a snubber network (usually an RCD clamp, TVS or MOV), and 
then either it stays off, or it turns back on and off, controlling current 
(with an inductor added, to set a maximum dI/dt).

In a switching-current-limit mode of operation, fault time is limited by the 
energy capacity of the clamping device.  If you can "stir" the energy back 
into the source (easier with a DC circuit -- i.e., a regular buck 
converter), you can run a limit condition basically forever (or at least, 
until something else overheats).  If not, then the dissipating device will 
eventually overheat, and you'll need to monitor that and stop at some point.

Tim

-- 
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC
Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design
Website: https://www.seventransistorlabs.com/

"Piglet" <erichpwagner@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:p22o2k$svd$1@dont-email.me...
> When designing a semiconductor based switch for AC mains power which is 
> the better philosophy to handling a load side short circuit:
>
> 1. Use devices rugged enough to pass the fault current and allow the 
> upstream breaker or fuse to operate as usual if the switch had been 
> mechanical;
>
> 2. Switch off fast enough to break the current before damage occurs and 
> retry a second or two later?
>
> piglet
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#489466

On 28/12/2017 15:03, Tim Williams wrote:
> If you're talking thyristors (SCR/TRIAC), you have no choice but to do
> 1. Fault current ramps up well within a cycle, so there's no chance to
> turn it off later.  Make sure you use a fuse with a smaller I^2t rating
> than the thyristor.
>
> For industrial applications, there are "semiconductor fuses": super
> fast, they clear in less than a cycle.  For smaller (consumer scale)
> loads, a regular fast-blow may have low enough I^2t, or alternately, you
> can afford to use a somewhat larger thyristor.
>
> Otherwise, with transistors, #1 is impossible.  No transistor can burn a
> mains fuse without itself blowing far, far sooner.  Current must be
> switched off, diverted to a snubber network (usually an RCD clamp, TVS
> or MOV), and then either it stays off, or it turns back on and off,
> controlling current (with an inductor added, to set a maximum dI/dt).
>
> In a switching-current-limit mode of operation, fault time is limited by
> the energy capacity of the clamping device.  If you can "stir" the
> energy back into the source (easier with a DC circuit -- i.e., a regular
> buck converter), you can run a limit condition basically forever (or at
> least, until something else overheats).  If not, then the dissipating
> device will eventually overheat, and you'll need to monitor that and
> stop at some point.
>
> Tim
>

Thanks Tim. My preferred option was always a big enough SCR but I asked 
in case that option is considered too old fashioned now that MOSFETs are 
becoming available that with only a small amount of inductance and 
snubbing can switch off fast enough to survive.

SCR I2t is still much much cheaper than equivalent MOSFET SOA :)

piglet

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#489474

Piglet wrote:

> SCR I2t is still much much cheaper than equivalent MOSFET SOA :)

Is it? I mean, can you buy the latter at all? Even IGBTs have
short-circuit ratings measured in microseconds, with the values
of 10us and 5us occuring most often.

	Best regards, Piotr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#489478

Den torsdag den 28. december 2017 kl. 18.00.29 UTC+1 skrev piglet:
> On 28/12/2017 15:03, Tim Williams wrote:
> > If you're talking thyristors (SCR/TRIAC), you have no choice but to do
> > 1. Fault current ramps up well within a cycle, so there's no chance to
> > turn it off later.  Make sure you use a fuse with a smaller I^2t rating
> > than the thyristor.
> >
> > For industrial applications, there are "semiconductor fuses": super
> > fast, they clear in less than a cycle.  For smaller (consumer scale)
> > loads, a regular fast-blow may have low enough I^2t, or alternately, you
> > can afford to use a somewhat larger thyristor.
> >
> > Otherwise, with transistors, #1 is impossible.  No transistor can burn a
> > mains fuse without itself blowing far, far sooner.  Current must be
> > switched off, diverted to a snubber network (usually an RCD clamp, TVS
> > or MOV), and then either it stays off, or it turns back on and off,
> > controlling current (with an inductor added, to set a maximum dI/dt).
> >
> > In a switching-current-limit mode of operation, fault time is limited by
> > the energy capacity of the clamping device.  If you can "stir" the
> > energy back into the source (easier with a DC circuit -- i.e., a regular
> > buck converter), you can run a limit condition basically forever (or at
> > least, until something else overheats).  If not, then the dissipating
> > device will eventually overheat, and you'll need to monitor that and
> > stop at some point.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> 
> Thanks Tim. My preferred option was always a big enough SCR but I asked 
> in case that option is considered too old fashioned now that MOSFETs are 
> becoming available that with only a small amount of inductance and 
> snubbing can switch off fast enough to survive.
> 
> SCR I2t is still much much cheaper than equivalent MOSFET SOA :)
> 

but you can turn of a fet in microseconds

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#489558

On 28/12/2017 19:57, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
> Den torsdag den 28. december 2017 kl. 18.00.29 UTC+1 skrev piglet:
>
> but you can turn of a fet in microseconds
>

Exactly. Fast turn off makes possible something not possible before.

So which is better, a few milli-seconds of hundreds of amperes and which 
causes a clearly identifiable indication of fault requiring manual 
intervention to reset - or - a few tens of micro-seconds of tens of 
amperes and a circuit that automatically resumes when the fault is cleared?

Also faults can range from a transient tungsten filament fragment 
falling across supports to the non-transient nail through a cable.

For example if this were a domestic light switch which mode would be 
preferable? Should I stick with the tried and tested method or is there 
any point in exploring the newer mode?

Don't mean to be a troll but I do appreciate your help settling this 
question.

piglet

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#489560

Piglet wrote...
>
> Exactly. Fast turn off makes possible something not possible before.

 Let's be clear here: High-current AC-line-voltage switches
 are better made with IGBTs than MOSFETs, because the IGBT's
 Vce(sat) is considerably-less than the FET's Id*Rds(on).


-- 
 Thanks,
    - Win

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#489842

Piglet wrote:

> Exactly. Fast turn off makes possible something not possible before.

On the other hand, fast turn-off is necessary in the case of MOSFETs.
The SOAs invariably end at the 10us limit for short-circuit currents
and you don't have much time for any form of sophisticated analysis.
Most often a window comparator, so the device is necessarily on a,
erm, short fuse. This can be a drawback, because the value of I
doesn't matter that much, its I^2*R what causes damage.

> So which is better, a few milli-seconds of hundreds of amperes and which 
> causes a clearly identifiable indication of fault requiring manual 
> intervention to reset - or - a few tens of micro-seconds of tens of 
> amperes and a circuit that automatically resumes when the fault is cleared?

IMHO the best of both: a fast, auto-restarting MOSFET fuse.

	Best regards, Piotr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#489472

Piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com> wrote:
> When designing a semiconductor based switch for AC mains power which is
> the better philosophy to handling a load side short circuit:
>
> 1. Use devices rugged enough to pass the fault current and allow the
> upstream breaker or fuse to operate as usual if the switch had been
> mechanical;
>
> 2. Switch off fast enough to break the current before damage occurs and
> retry a second or two later?
>

You might limit the current and trip the mains breaker to cope with the
short. That way you simultaneously protect the shorted device and send
users a dramatic message that something's wrong.

Thank you,

--
Don Kuenz, KB7RPU

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#489479

"Don Kuenz" <g@crcomp.net> wrote in message news:20171228b@crcomp.net...
> You might limit the current and trip the mains breaker to cope with the
> short. That way you simultaneously protect the shorted device and send
> users a dramatic message that something's wrong.

How does that work?

If you have a shunt coil to trip the breaker separately (like a lot of 
UL1077 breakers do, or the guts of a GFCI receptacle), you can open the 
circuit without drawing fault current.  Though that still won't act fast 
enough to save a transistor (not without a switching mechanism like I 
described, anyway).

Tim

-- 
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC
Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design
Website: https://www.seventransistorlabs.com/ 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#490167

Tim Williams <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> wrote:
> "Don Kuenz" <g@crcomp.net> wrote in message news:20171228b@crcomp.net...
>> You might limit the current and trip the mains breaker to cope with the
>> short. That way you simultaneously protect the shorted device and send
>> users a dramatic message that something's wrong.
>
> How does that work?
>
> If you have a shunt coil to trip the breaker separately (like a lot of
> UL1077 breakers do, or the guts of a GFCI receptacle), you can open the
> circuit without drawing fault current.  Though that still won't act fast
> enough to save a transistor (not without a switching mechanism like I
> described, anyway).

Is it possible to separate the current limit functionality from the
mains breaker trip? Limit the current first and always, sense an over
current state, and then leisurely use a low voltage to trip the mains
breaker a few cycles later?

Thank you,

--
Don Kuenz, KB7RPU

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#490179

"Don Kuenz" <g@crcomp.net> wrote in message news:20180103a@crcomp.net...
> Is it possible to separate the current limit functionality from the
> mains breaker trip? Limit the current first and always, sense an over
> current state, and then leisurely use a low voltage to trip the mains
> breaker a few cycles later?

I mean, a shunt breaker does that, but you mean a regular mains breaker? 
How would you connect the "low voltage"?

Tim

-- 
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC
Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design
Website: https://www.seventransistorlabs.com/ 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#490181

Tim Williams <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> wrote:
> "Don Kuenz" <g@crcomp.net> wrote in message news:20180103a@crcomp.net...
>> Is it possible to separate the current limit functionality from the
>> mains breaker trip? Limit the current first and always, sense an over
>> current state, and then leisurely use a low voltage to trip the mains
>> breaker a few cycles later?
>
> I mean, a shunt breaker does that, but you mean a regular mains breaker?
> How would you connect the "low voltage"?

RS-232's the old school way and it's probably the most reliable. WiFi's
probably cheaper.

    Remote Setup, Control, and Monitoring in One Panel

    The most advanced self-contained controllable breaker panel
    on the market today. The RPC combines all the features you've
    come to expect from LynTec panels with new web enabled control
    and monitoring capabilities. Based on the G3 PowerlinkTM
    hardware platform by Square D, the RPC uses the latest remotely
    operated breakers and can control up to 168 circuit breakers
    with a single controller. In addition, the RPC's expanded
    interface options (DMX, sACN, HTTP, Telnet, RS-232 or BacNET
    (optional)) allow users to monitor and control the system from
    any remote location.

    (excerpt)

https://lyntec.com/remote-control-breaker-panel/

Thank you,

--
Don Kuenz, KB7RPU

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#490184

"Don Kuenz" <g@crcomp.net> wrote in message news:20180103b@crcomp.net...
> RS-232's the old school way and it's probably the most reliable. WiFi's
> probably cheaper.
>
>    Remote Setup, Control, and Monitoring in One Panel
<snip>

Ah, sure -- that'll do, just remember operation might not be guaranteed 
(Wifi anyone? :) ), so the self contained breaker action is still needed.  A 
keep-alive loop might be acceptable to rely on, whether in very basic 
hardware like a 4-20mA loop, or in software like a serial watchdog.

It'd be a natural for integration into a panel like that.  Though as fuses 
and breakers have done just fine over the last century, it seems unlikely 
you could justify the cost, except in extraordinary situations (like 
aerospace SSPCs).

Tim

-- 
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC
Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design
Website: https://www.seventransistorlabs.com/ 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#490189

Tim Williams <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> wrote:
> "Don Kuenz" <g@crcomp.net> wrote in message news:20180103b@crcomp.net...
>> RS-232's the old school way and it's probably the most reliable. WiFi's
>> probably cheaper.
>>
>>    Remote Setup, Control, and Monitoring in One Panel
> <snip>
>
> Ah, sure -- that'll do, just remember operation might not be guaranteed
> (Wifi anyone? :) ), so the self contained breaker action is still needed.  A
> keep-alive loop might be acceptable to rely on, whether in very basic
> hardware like a 4-20mA loop, or in software like a serial watchdog.
>
> It'd be a natural for integration into a panel like that.  Though as fuses
> and breakers have done just fine over the last century, it seems unlikely
> you could justify the cost, except in extraordinary situations (like
> aerospace SSPCs).

One of my clients uses such a system in his home. When he's away from
home he VPN connects to his home panel and uses a web browser to keep an
eye on things. He can control any light in the house (and probably
outlets too.)
    Granted, it's a more expensive. But it's also relatively common,
if the quantity of companies that service such home panels is any
indication. It looks like Eaton offers a guy that retro-fits into an
existing panel.

    Remote Controlled Circuit Breakers

    Eaton's Remote Controlled Circuit Breakers offer energy
    savings, convenience, and flexibility, all within the
    smallest breaker size in the industry. Schedule times for
    lighting or building systems to turn on and off. Easy to
    upgrade existing panelboards using remote-controllable
    breakers. Select from plug-on or bolt-on mountings in
    120/240V or 270/480V. For complex systems, see our
    complete line of Pow-R-Command Lighting and Load Control.

http://www.eaton.com/Eaton/ProductsServices/Electrical/ProductsandServices/CircuitProtection/IndustrialMiniatureCircuitBreakers/RemoteControlledCircuitBreakers/index.htm

Thank you,

--
Don Kuenz, KB7RPU

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#489480

>You might limit the current and trip the mains breaker to cope with the 
>short. That way you simultaneously protect the shorted device and send 
>users a dramatic message that something's wrong.

You mean the breaker at the _panel_? How do you know if it's magnetic or thermal? 

And then somebody plugs it into daisy-chained extension cords and your 'safety device' burns down the building. Brilliant all round. :(

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design

csiph-web