I love the little OLED display, but there's no way that thing complies with 61009. These devices are supposed to be electromechanical and not reliant on a processor deciding when it should operate based on variable software settings. Even with the 'smart' AFDDs from the likes of Hager, the basic overcurrent and earth leakage functions remain dumb and autonomous of the thing's brain so that it can continue to provide those rated functions even if the onboard CPU is borked.
I'm fairly sure the Hager AFDD uses the processor for the RCD function - if you look at the instructions it mentions that RCD functionality isn't available while updating.
RCD functionality hasn't been entirely electromechanical in a long time, especially now we're trying to move away from type AC devices (another black mark... if we believe this thing behaves like a type AC device at all). But there's a big gap between a thoroughly tested firmware (Hager need not apply, mind you) and some generic IoT cack in a knock-off MCU.
Pretty interesting device! I agree -- seems like it could be improved by having a conventional breaker then adding the computer controlled switch downstream. I've seen WiFi power strips that can control 8 outlets individually, but I don't think they have current/ voltage monitoring.
My thoughts too. Breakers should always provide a guaranteed minimum level of safety; extra functionality can always be put after a breaker. This device is only optionally safe and safety level isn't easy to ensure. Useful as extra power control functionality in other devices though.
I'm with you ben, I think it has some really good uses cases, but i agree with mike that maybe it should be a different colour,, the RCD function should be a extra and not advertised as such, having said that this defiently should be used in conjuction with a conventional RCD /CBo in series
Seeing the instantaneous trip coil and bi-metalic strip this breaker should always trip per the C20 trip curve. I didn't see a means to disable that in the tear down. He also didn't test it for the C curve either. C curve fast trip is 5 to 10 times rated for a fast trip. That would be 100A minimum on this breaker. Anything less you have to look at the trip curve. If it doesn't follow the curve then it's just crappy QC, not related to the electronic controls part of it. But appears to always have the C20 functionality enabled. Now the RCD function, yes, that was able to be disabled.
I've got one here and agree completely. They're a terrible idea. Especially in the hands of the new era of crash certified part-p home automation "experts". It's absolutely guaranteed that someone will remotely turn off all programmed protection on these remotely to avoid having to go and look for an actual fault.
So did you see a way to disable the instantaneous trip coil or the bi-metalic strip in it? From the video I couldn't see anything to override either. So at minimum it should always trip as a C20 breaker. maybe I'll buy one to test. I have seen them in some customers houses, but never bought one to test with.
For the US market, Eaton make an EMCB (energy management circuit breaker) which is also WiFi controlled. However, it has two physical switches - one manual, and one remote controlled. Power only flows if BOTH are on. I have a few of them.
As an electrician here in the USA this is the worst idea I have ever seen. This should not be allowed anywhere, too much chance for tampering with someone's home, and if it is Wi-Fi it should only indicate the state, not be able to connect or disconnect.
WHOAH. I couldn't understand the complaints initially, expecting it was an RCD + MCB + WiFi Contactor. When you showed the motor actuated reset my head exploded.
Right. On the one hand I applaud the PCB design and servo integration but surely whoever designed that would have been smart enough to also think about the consequences.
Its a chilling thought that rather than investigate a potentially dangerous fault that causes repeat tripping, someone will install this so they can just reset it without getting up from the sofa. Fortunately, in most domestic installations, the wifi router will be downstream of the breaker so this won't happen.... Great video Mike, thanks.
@@FZs1Another very good point. lol Most houses will have just the one router, and it's possible somebody will install it on the same mains circuit as the breaker. So that could lock somebody out from accessing it remotely, which is both good and bad, depending what the settings were on the app last time it was accessed.
Wow... This is exactly why devices have warnings on them like "AUTOMATIC START" and "EQUIPMENT CONTROLLED REMOTELY", the only hint you get something is up with it is that OLED, but those circuit breaker characteristic markings would entirely have mislead me into thinking it's a normal RCBO with an OLED readout. It has so many risky failure modes but I would be particularly worried about the software glitching or getting hacked, Mr Robot plot line idea there, blow up the building by re-configuring their circuit breakers... Also interestingly it's marked as only a Type AC RCD, considering there's an entire WiFi connected computer inside which measures the current I don't see why they couldn't get Type A or even try to get Type B with a little more circuitry? Even more so for arc fault detection? Looks like it already has all the needed circuity for that functionality, just needs software for it.
I don't think the idea of a Wi-Fi controlled circuit breaker is itself a bad thing, but the implementation here is lacking in a number of ways that make it worse. For one, I would say that the Wi-Fi controlled part should be AFTER the mechanical switch, and should not control the mechanical switch at all. If it trips, or is physically switched off then the Wi-Fi portion sholud not be able to turn it back on. But if it was physically turned on, the Wi-Fi portion can still toggle the downstream circuit on/off, maybe through a SSR or similar.
@@bobert4522 This has so many surprising dangerous features I'm not sure I'd even trust a physical lockout, lest they have implemented a "trip-free" style remote reset on another similar looking model.
That doesn't address the fact that in operation, the overcurrent or RCD function could have been disabled or set totally inappropriately. Incredible that someone has gone to the trouble to design and manufacture such a sophisticated device, but with no real awareness of fundamental safety principles.
One thing the manufacture could do to make it a bit safer, is design it so it can detect when the breaker is manually turned off. If manually turned off, the app will not be able to turn the breaker back on and the breaker can only be turned back on manually.
Hahaha, the slightly wavering wheezy buzz of the motor driving the lever up and down in the final seconds of the video just made me think "Ex-ter-min-ate"!
Maybe, despite it being built to look exactly like a circuit breaker and to fit in a breaker box, it's meant to be used downstream of an actual circuit breaker. Could be very useful for certain things, for instance like having it on a timer for garden circuits or outside outlets.
there’s tons of devices like that on the market, they’re all over Amazon for $5. this one is specifically intended to be a remotely switchable circuit breaker and power monitor
@@reanimationxp Oh, I'm sure there are. But I doubt they have the advantage of being as confusing and as dangerous and so easily open to misuse. I'm not sure why this thing was created when all those other options for somthing downstream in the line exist. To my mind it's definitely meant to replace a circuit breaker.
A wifi breaker that's "report-only" might be a good idea. That way you can monitor things remotely and you could call up the neighbor and say "hey, I'm in Paris. Can you go flip my breaker back on so the aquarium pump will work and I won't have to find another Nemo? Thanks!"
Watching your demonstration of this product gave me an idea to improve its safety: They could manufacture the breaker switch to have 3 positions: ON OFF and TRIP (from top to bottom). When it trips due to overcurrent or earth leakage, the switch snaps from the ON position to TRIP. When it's controlled through software, the switch only travels between ON and OFF. The design would only allow the motor to mechanically drive the switch ON or OFF but never when it's in TRIP. This would be good for two reasons: - A breaker trip due to some electrical fault will always require a manual reset, not possible to do remotely. - If an electrician needs to work on the circuits, s/he can pull the switch to TRIP, disallowing any remote control. Anyone knows if such type of RCBO already exist in the market?
Starting this video, this seemed like a good idea to me. Being able to remotely cut power in the case of a fire or other safety or security issue seems like something useful. I didn't realise that it could also turn back ON, what???? There's absolutely no way that a circuit breaker should be able to turn back on without someone physically manipulate it, and I'd be surprised that this is even level to install in most jurisdictions. That's absurdly dangerous!
Connected in series with a normal breaker, this could be a useful device. Even in that use case, it needs clear labeling, so people know to turn off the parent breaker when they need to work on something. Ideally, this should not be in a breaker form factor at all, so as to discourage installing it in a breaker box or treating it like a standard breaker. If it could only be installed externally, more like a light switch or smart socket with safety features, it would solve most of the safety concerns, and used like that to protect specific parts of a circuit it could be quite useful.
I guess the good news / bad news is that within a couple of years the app will no longer work, or else you have to enroll in a subscription service to powet your lights.
I've seen breakers like these used basically as just switches/disconnectors for EV chargers, solar inverters and other gear like that, and for those applications it could be useful. But I agree, the form factor is an enormous risk. At least it should have "NOT A BREAKER" plastered in big bold letters on it.
How is it not a breaker? It has the magnetic trip coil for instantaneous and bi-metalic strip for over current that can't be overridden. So at minimum it should always be a C20 breaker. Yeah, the RCD can be disabled, but not the over current.
@@JohnEdwa He didn't test it correctly. A C curve breaker at 2.5 times rated current (50A for 20A breaker) the trip time is 40 to 55 seconds. He only let it go 10 seconds or so. Look up the C curve trip chart, that will explain it.
Maybe the 485 port is for daisy chaining them with link cables in the recess so they can negotiate their IDs for the app to identify them correctly? IDs like Mental01, Mental02 etc.
I would just use it only downstream of a "real" RCBO, it would prove useful in situations where you want to monitor the power and/or do priority-based overpower trip.
11:14 As with most tuya devices, you can open the screen where the bar graphs and power displays are in the app, the picture of pen and paper up the top right is for renaming the device as you wish
well, the good news is that uses a Tuya Beken module for the wireless control (the one marked WB3S), so running your own firmware on this wouldn't be too hard thanks to OpenBKT.
Very interesting video Mike!!! I think the main thing that would put me off here is the fact all of that functionallity is controlled by an MCU, with seemingly no "common sense" hardware to override in relation to safety. eg. at the point you managed to draw 50A through it - that shouldnt be possible. I would fear what kind of bugs exist in the firmware for that device, and what happens when the MCU locks up / dies / does something you dont expect... And - lets face it, what kind of reliability could we expect on the MCU and power circuit for that MCU and OLED screen - I bet after a few years that MCU or the PSU capacitors will go pear shaped... I think just the idea of having that control PCB inside an RCD scares the hell out of me lol
@@georgesnow Or not use wifi at all. Don't think it's ever been enabled on my router. There is a UPS on the main network rack though, which the router is powered from.
Yeap and that can be a good thing. If the normal.load is less than the default rating you can turn it down a bit so it's safer. Just make sure to fit a good breaker upstream of this and label appropriately.
I'm with others.. Label it 32/50A whatever and 100mA RCD trip.. And make it so the electronics can ONLY turn it off/trip. Then it seems like a good idea.
If it ever started tripping, you'd be second guessing whether there's an actual circuit fault, a breaker fault or a WiFi/app fault, I'd personally rather invest in 'Smart Switches' if I needed remote off-on functionality. Remote circuit reset just seems wrong, if you think you need it then you've probably got a design flaw in your circuit, expecting tripping ins't good.
I looked these up. I don't see these being intended for main panels. These are din mounted breakers that need a wire for the hot instead of tapping into a bar behind the breaker. The main purpose of these would be for building enclosures downstream from the main panel for things like controls or remote monitoring of devices. Good example would be lighting control system, but there are many other useful applications for things like this. Controls, EMS, monitoring, timers, etc.. I would not hesitate to build something like this into an external enclosure that needs to be monitored for power consumption because it would save the need for additional equipment like CT's and a separate energy monitor. Between the Zigbee and WiFi connectivity options, it gives a lot of flexibility in how to integrate it into an application as well and saves the need to run ethernet cables or installing cellular modems to connect to those enclosures. Overall, I like the idea behind this device, there are a LOT of uses for it.. just not in a main panel.
This isn't a typical UK single circuit RCBO unit which has a single live at the bottom for a bus bar, but it does have the same connections as an RCD in UK consumer units which protect multiple different circuits so could easily replace one of those.
Yeah, pretty much. The difficulty is that some UK-type residential panels *are* just DIN rail enclosures, and are wired this way. A very specifically British problem for their very specifically insane way of doing things. It's no wonder they're so terrified of electricity that their plugs are absolute fortresses - the way they wire their buildings is just madness.
Even with the same construction they could just remove the external part of the lever and cap the holes and it will be like a timer or any other mechanism you won't rely on to cut the power before working on the circuit.
Should be noted that there are, in fact, products combining the functionality of overcurrent and residual current protection and remote control on the market (eg Schneider Reflex iC60 & you clip on an additional RC/GFI). And they explicitly address all the safety issues, eg you have a lockable lever for lockout, they mention all the failure modes in the manual… but of course they are €500, without wifi (being professional gear, they are controlled via individual wires with control voltages)… on the other hand, nothing prohibits anyone adding the safety features to a wifi product, does it?
Motorised over current trip by the whirring sound. That has to be the worst possible way to do it. Why wouldn't they do it with a plunger/coil or coil/magnet approach? Much more reliable. It won't trip without both phase and neutral present too, I'm guessing.
Has an actual current trip and thermal protection, though I guess to trip on thermal you need 60A of current flow for 30 seconds, standard trip time for thermal breakers when cold, and for instantaneous trip you need 100A for a half second to do the magnetic trip. Thicker wire through that toroid, like 10mm cable 5 turns, would probably have gotten a trip out of it with no power applied to the breaker.
@@SeanBZA Yes, I saw that later on, but it definitely appears to be far in excess of the 20A rating so the motor doing the trip for the supposed rating is rubbish in my opinion.
@@retrozmachine1189 The trip mech is standard for all breakers, so it does meet type approval. The biggest issue is the RCD that can be programmed off, which is a big issue for a breaker that shows as a ground fault protection device at first glance. Should have had an automatic 100mA trip built in, not removeable with software, and running direct to the trip coil itself to trip on a major ground fault.
@@SeanBZA It says C20 but that only appears possible with the action of the motor, not the thermal strip. That should make it fail approval in my opinion. Magentic trip may well be appropriate for C20 rating.
Wait. So if there's a lightning strike and the cpu gets scrambled and locks up, or there's a software bug, it completely loses all overcurrent and circuit protection?! So one day your water kettle shorts out and this thing just lets it dump power until something catches fire?
@@Scott-i9v2s Wrong. This video is also stupid. It just contains a ordinary circuit breaker construction, probably the only thing not working when updating is the RCD function, but famous brands also have that problem with AFDD all in one breakers.
Designed to be remotely turned on, because the designer saw the first Jurassic Park movie, and didn't want to suffer the fate of Samuel L. Jackson's character. Standards and safety, be damned !
completely agree with you. as you say there are uses. i saw these a while back when doing an energy saving project at work. i wanted to isolate a whole ring final circuit due to out of hours wasted consumption. i ended up using a normal smart switch and a contactor. this device is basically that with the extra functions of energy monitoring and adjustable trip characteristics. so yeah, its really really cool actually, but it needs to be fitted in addition to normal protection. also, not look like a breaker. not claim to be anything like that. obviously, also, be manufactured to an actual standard haha
Someone was actually SMART and built something like this. I use this type of breaker for things that are usually OFF and I want to remote turn on (or timer / schedule based ) something like a water pre heater , a light that should be on only between certain hours , a pump that needs to run every morning for 10-15 min or something like that. So this circuit breaker is indeed VERY SMART IF used in a smart way. I find your video pretty subjective but the device works as intended and can be used as intended.
Dude is mad because he thought it was designed to control an outlet. This was designed to control an appliance like you said. I use it to control the washer/dryer in my vacation rental home so I can control who can use the machine. This guy didn’t see its full potential. He thought it is just to replace a normal breaker with a fancier wifi function 😂.
Wow. Conflicted. The Home automation dork in me loves this but the electrician in me hates it. This is supposed to be a basic safety device, not a power switch.
There are Wi-Fi power taps that goes in between wall sockets and fire hazards, that's still a bit stupid but significantly less so than Wi-Fi enabled circuit breakers
a useful thing - if installed behind a real, electro-mechanical circuit breaker. for me the utility comes from being able to measure power consumption of devices when I can't physically fit a smart relay closer to the device (e.g., behind kitchen cabinetry, where there is not enough space for a 16A smart relay behind a, say, an electric stove and the socket, or for garden where most - and I think all name brand - smart relays are not rated for outdoor usage).
We have used quite a few of these for car chargers at the old office I worked at. When we used them we put them behind another rcbo in another din box, so we got best of both worlds. Reliability of a known breaker and the smart features of these. Been in use for 3 years now?. (Older version) Never been issue with them. 🤷🤷 Totally agree they are non compliant. I mean tuya or the OEM who made them don't make fuse boxes for them for a start.. that alone should set of alarm bells for any sparky. But yeah we have a big label on them please use rcbo for isolation. We did have fun when our spark turned up though he though he was putting these into the main fuse board. We all had a good giggle and then showed him the other din box to house them in.
Here in Germany we have the 5 safety rules. One of them is "secure for turning back on" in case of a circuit breakers this means stick a wire through the hole in the lever like it's intended to! An this one hase that feature clearly visible, and the mechanism works the right way. But shutting off or altering the values (in the wrong direction) of the safety features i clear no go!
well I use them for data logging , but now having seconds thoughts with the software overrides without a manual lockout , plus out septic pump trips all the time when it rains
@@OmgSaySomething Traction control most cars let you control with a manufacturer installed button in compliance with safety regulations. ABS they don't intend for you to disable, hence there being no "ABS Off" button on the dash like you do for traction control. No, unplugging wheel speed sensors doesn't count, as that would be like installing a jumper wire from the bus bar to the breaker output lug and acting like thats intended to disable features you don't want.
@@2009dudeman Okay, ABS was not a good example (albeit one can pull its fuse) but the other "driving aides" can be turned on and off. In this case, there are functions of this thing that the owner can decide to use or not. It is not wrong. It being motor driven, is fundamentally wrong; if it's a common breaker that can be armed or tripped remotely would be better. Of course, then one couldn't set its tripping parameters.. As someone wrote this thing could be absolutely useful as a secondary safety device in series with a primary one.
@@mechadeka One can trurn off some of its functions. Like, they want the over and under voltage function but not the ground fault protection, what is wrong with that? As someone wrote this thing could be absolutely useful as a secondary safety device in series with a primary one.
You do have to be careful with automation. The other day we had a power cut, South London area, it is very rare, apparently a cable fault. Anyway, the power came back on, I went into the bedroom, and I could hear this clicking sound, about once per second. I tracked it down to a new TP-link Kasa smart plug. Luckily there nothing plugged in, but it was bust. Tried resetting it, no joy, I plug it in and it keeps clicking on and off, if I press the override power on/off button a bunch of times I can get it to stop, but when I plugged and plugged in the whole thing starts again. Imagine if I had a dehumidifier or computer or some motor on there. It has made me think twice.
Those Kasa smart plugs are complete garbage. I had to deal with them back in I think 2018? They would always be crashing, losing WiFi and then get stuck quickly switching on and off forever, lucky they were only ever used for lights. Customer support knew it was an issue and sent free replacements with a different hardware revision, they worked better but still died after a few months with the same on-off fault, if I remember correctly they have a capacitive dropper PSU which degrades very quickly because they run so hot, after a few months baking it just browns itself out every time it tries to turn on the WiFi radio or close the relay.
Quite neat. I can understand the concern about the ratings on the device. Now, here’s a tip for the manufacturer; use an E-Ink display and have the prevailing ratings shown on the screen rather than printing like a standard breaker. Otherwise, there are definitely uses for auto-re losing breakers that have been around for a long time. As the “switch” part of the design is fairly standard and it can be “locked off” there is little trouble in my mind. Warning labels on the cabinet should also be applied “Part of this installation is fed via an automatic circuit breaker, position CBX.XX, ensure that the power source is isolated or that this device is locked off before working on XXXXX”
I wonder what its breaking capacity is? What would happen in the event of a 5000A fault? It doesn't look like there's a lot of room left in there for arc quenching...
Are these even legal over there? The tripping characteristics are super dangerous. I don't think this follows a 'C curve' MCB at all. 50 amps and a few seconds to trip looks very wrong to me
So to be a reasonable device you would actually want to anywhere around you it would need to: a) drop the motor function b) make the residual current and max current functions be good old hardware c) reimplement all the other functions as software triggering a test button press on the breaker completely different device. But would at least not be dangerous while still retaining most.
Wait, what? Are you saying that if you disable the current limit in the app, it will pass 50 Amps or more, without tripping OFF at all? :o So many things wrong with this. I get that there is a market nowadays for "smart" control of mains devices, but there are too many things wrong with this design.
7:50 - That's SO bad. lol So it really is controlled by firmware in the breaker? Presumably the app doesn't need to be running in the background for the OVP and current limits to work, at least? The fact that you can *disable* the current limit in the app, and the RCBO won't trip with 50 Amps or more through it, means it's no longer a circuit breaker at all. :o To me, that's the single most dangerous part about this. It should be combined with a "physical" 20A breaker (or whatever the rating is) internally, that can *never* be overridden.
It is a C20, thus C-characteristic (not sure if that's the same term in English, in Dutch we call it C-karakteristiek) Meaning that in the range of 8x (+/-20%) the nominal current it should react within 2 - 3 seconds At lower (less than 4x) multiples of the nominal current it doesn't matter whether you have B/C/D characteristic. At roughly 2x nominal you can draw such currents opto 70 sec until it pops. (regardless whether it is A/B/C char..) Well this is assuming the device is really operating according to specs. N.B. Power trips with B-characteristic should trip immediately when drawing > 4x (+/- 20%) of nominal rated current. I wonder what kind of WiFi microcontroller is installed. Judging by the form factor it could be an ESP12-F like device which makes it even more dangerous as people will start experimenting with overriding the already few protection measures present.
@@TD-er Yep, it looked like an ESP style module. I know some others can look very similar, but it was very close to an ESP8266 shape. And yep, the C20 would have some tolerance as well, and a certain time to trip. But the scary thing is, this isn't really a "breaker" at all, as it has no mechanical breaker for that trip current, and can be overridden. Such a dangerous idea. lol
Oh, also the fact that it's relying on the motor driver, motor, and gears, to "trip". I would trust an older mechanical breaker (with RCD) any day over a yet another badly-designed IoT device.
I can see value in some of the features in it, however, you wouldn't want them integrated into what should be a life safety device. The voltage and current monitoring is cool, but easily could be done with a module external to the consumer unit that has proper mains isolation as well as being ancillary to an actual RCBO. However, I don't see why would want a remotely-switchable breaker. Switches suit the purpose just fine. Should note I'm specifically talking about the average homeowners or DIY dads here, and not electricians or contractors. And they should know better than to use one on their own accord. It's truly horrifying to think about the situations people that know no better would put these into.
It's only dangerous if it's installed by itself, I would put it after a real dumb thermal circuit breaker in series. So anytime I need to do maintenance I would switch off the dumb one.
Thats pretty clever. Amazing they can fit all that functionality in there. It has most of the same functions that a pretty advanced MCCB or even a high voltage circuit breaker has. It definitely needs some clear signage in the panel saying it is remote controlled, and a local/remote switch to disable it.
Wait so it trips after a fixed time no matter the level of overcurrent? That's far from desireable in most normal use cases.... And is it even up to the C20 class then? I'm pretty sure those are supposed to follow a specific trip curve.
I actually love this, like not for normal breaker use but for use in lab. When i'm repairing some complex mains electronics (switching PSU, etc) i usually use breaker with value bit bigger then expected compulsion before connecting it to mains so i wont blow up my upstream breaker...
I use a varying number of incandescent light bulbs in series with the device under test for that. That way if there's a short in the device, all that happens is the light bulbs glow brightly, but I don't have to worry about a breaker tripping. This also limits the current to the device, so if there is a short it doesn't typically go bang as there isn't enough current available for that, so it means fewer catastrophic failures while testing fixes.
I work on enclosures that get installed for remote applications downstream from the panels. This is actually a very useful device for remote monitoring or controls. I like this device as well. It's din mounted, so it's not something your are going to find in a main breaker panel that has it's own proprietary mount and line tap.
@@Salamekleikum You can replace the light bulbs with higher power resistors (available very cheap from China). Put them in a box with a dial on the front that switches in various combinations of resistors of differing values and there's your configurable current limit and they're much more reliable than incandescent bulbs.
Lessons if you are gonna make one: (making this as I go) 1) add a lockout switch - should disconnect the motor, PHYSICALLY. 2) physical indicators for anything disabled 3) fuse
The main issues are needs to be labelled correctly & the internal thermal overload needs to be lowered otherwise a useful device but i would put downstream of conventional protection supplied from a recognised source!
This should have big yellow warning label that states it is remotely controlled. At least any industrial switching equipment that has remote control has warning labels, and also can be locked to de-energized state.
Just fit it after a proper rcbo that how we use them in an external din box. I did discuss with our spark about stacking them in a double din setup but we decided because it's not checked by the fuse box maker it wouldn't be compliant so we ran them out of the fuse box to avoid the issue. Then labeled accordingly.
I can only think of this as a prank device, or a 'nothing to see here' network backdoor device. Looks innocente enough, and can provide lots of "interesting functionality".
these are somewhat good... if you want to use them for something like lighting i assume... not on their own i mean, i'd still put a normal breaker before those
Yeap we just put another fuse box above and run from a good rcbo into these. 🤷 I have one in my garage to control the power circuits. I walk out the garage and the beacon detector knows to power down everything.
Absolutely, and control it via RS485 or similar, not some dodgy WiFi chip that can be easily hacked into and controlled by someone sitting in their car out in the street.
I like the way the cheap Chinese Wifi stuff stays powered even after the device has tripped. So between the wifi module's super cheap PSU and the grid is ... what? the 60A breaker for the entire panel/house? Well I can't see a problem with that, nope.
Same thing with wifi consumer units like the Leviton Smart Load Centre sold in Canada and the US. The ability to turn branch circuit breakers on/off is a panel function protected by a main breaker or external disconnect.
Yep, should be banned. Outright. Wifi to turn off, maybe, with wifi circuit on downstream side (still a major security issue). Wifi to turn on a primary safety device no, no, no.
Seems fine for a control cabinet with a dedicated circuit breaker/isolation device the functions could be useful to set trip currents lower than the actual protection current to prevent burnt out motors and other faults from damaging things below the typical circuit breaker trip level. By having isolation device none of the smart functions could accidentally activate. Those are also all just DIN rail devices and you can in theory install DIN rail devices into a consumer unit that you really should not be installing. It is their marketing as an RCBO when it is really a supplemental control device not a safety critical protection device that is the terrible part.
Everything seems solid and really nice, except one thing... the on feature. As an Automation Engineer, I work a lot with Fuses, Machines and Coding. If a Fuse is taken out, either by us to repair something or because we have something wrong, I don't want that ANYONE can turn it on again remotely. Also the Timer is horrible! Imagine it turn off and you look at it and now you have to find the problem. Or it is already turned off and you think it is save, until it automatically turn it on again... My solution: Get rid of the Auto- & Remote on feature. Done! Product is 100 times more safe. Second: If you need to turn things on or off, get a remote Relays. This thing is designed to turn on and off. So when you want to be save, Trigger the Fuse and you're save (to a certain point, of course).
![[MV] A leap of faith...ความเชื่อใจครั้งสุดท้าย (From "Petrichor the series")](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U1piZH2CNXA/mqdefault.jpg)
I love the little OLED display, but there's no way that thing complies with 61009. These devices are supposed to be electromechanical and not reliant on a processor deciding when it should operate based on variable software settings. Even with the 'smart' AFDDs from the likes of Hager, the basic overcurrent and earth leakage functions remain dumb and autonomous of the thing's brain so that it can continue to provide those rated functions even if the onboard CPU is borked.
Exactly my thoughts! The MCU side should be able to set limits and things that cannot override its standard limits and features.
First thing I thought when I saw this title was to make a "does it have Bluetooth and is it made by Hager" joke. Beaten to it by the man himself.
I'm fairly sure the Hager AFDD uses the processor for the RCD function - if you look at the instructions it mentions that RCD functionality isn't available while updating.
RCD functionality hasn't been entirely electromechanical in a long time, especially now we're trying to move away from type AC devices (another black mark... if we believe this thing behaves like a type AC device at all).
But there's a big gap between a thoroughly tested firmware (Hager need not apply, mind you) and some generic IoT cack in a knock-off MCU.
@@Monkeh616 Yes -that's the key - thoroughly tested, assured - in all aspects.
Pretty interesting device! I agree -- seems like it could be improved by having a conventional breaker then adding the computer controlled switch downstream. I've seen WiFi power strips that can control 8 outlets individually, but I don't think they have current/ voltage monitoring.
My thoughts too. Breakers should always provide a guaranteed minimum level of safety; extra functionality can always be put after a breaker. This device is only optionally safe and safety level isn't easy to ensure. Useful as extra power control functionality in other devices though.
I'm with you ben, I think it has some really good uses cases, but i agree with mike that maybe it should be a different colour,, the RCD function should be a extra and not advertised as such, having said that this defiently should be used in conjuction with a conventional RCD /CBo in series
Seeing the instantaneous trip coil and bi-metalic strip this breaker should always trip per the C20 trip curve. I didn't see a means to disable that in the tear down. He also didn't test it for the C curve either. C curve fast trip is 5 to 10 times rated for a fast trip. That would be 100A minimum on this breaker. Anything less you have to look at the trip curve. If it doesn't follow the curve then it's just crappy QC, not related to the electronic controls part of it. But appears to always have the C20 functionality enabled.
Now the RCD function, yes, that was able to be disabled.
I've got one here and agree completely. They're a terrible idea. Especially in the hands of the new era of crash certified part-p home automation "experts".
It's absolutely guaranteed that someone will remotely turn off all programmed protection on these remotely to avoid having to go and look for an actual fault.
The risk of someone finding this on the hideously insecure Internet of Crap and randomly changing settings is also concerning.
ALSO (rant mode activated) if the power supply fails (as it will) then it becomes a plain MCB of unknown rating.
@@bigclivedotcom this is the only argument I see as an actual problem with these that isn’t just “we need to keep dumb ppl alive”
So did you see a way to disable the instantaneous trip coil or the bi-metalic strip in it? From the video I couldn't see anything to override either. So at minimum it should always trip as a C20 breaker. maybe I'll buy one to test. I have seen them in some customers houses, but never bought one to test with.
You're just jealous at someone who has an NICEIC certificate because yours isn't valid anymore.
It’s like a piece of conceptual art. “What if safety devices were not only unsafe, but an active safety risk?”
I do like the idea of filling a board with these and having them switch on & off randomly, or play a tune
For the US market, Eaton make an EMCB (energy management circuit breaker) which is also WiFi controlled. However, it has two physical switches - one manual, and one remote controlled. Power only flows if BOTH are on. I have a few of them.
As an electrician here in the USA this is the worst idea I have ever seen. This should not be allowed anywhere, too much chance for tampering with someone's home, and if it is Wi-Fi it should only indicate the state, not be able to connect or disconnect.
WHOAH. I couldn't understand the complaints initially, expecting it was an RCD + MCB + WiFi Contactor. When you showed the motor actuated reset my head exploded.
The electroboom cut was perfect
My jaw absolutely dropped when I saw the switch physically move itself to the On position remotely.
Right. On the one hand I applaud the PCB design and servo integration but surely whoever designed that would have been smart enough to also think about the consequences.
I dont know why but the view of a breaker coming up by itself is extremely cursed to me
Seeing a circuit breaker turning itself back on is really scary
I'm thinking about working on tramway overhead wiring and scaring myself. 😱
Its a chilling thought that rather than investigate a potentially dangerous fault that causes repeat tripping, someone will install this so they can just reset it without getting up from the sofa. Fortunately, in most domestic installations, the wifi router will be downstream of the breaker so this won't happen.... Great video Mike, thanks.
...assuming the WiFi router is on the same circuit as the one that tripped...
@@FZs1Another very good point. lol
Most houses will have just the one router, and it's possible somebody will install it on the same mains circuit as the breaker.
So that could lock somebody out from accessing it remotely, which is both good and bad, depending what the settings were on the app last time it was accessed.
Wow... This is exactly why devices have warnings on them like "AUTOMATIC START" and "EQUIPMENT CONTROLLED REMOTELY", the only hint you get something is up with it is that OLED, but those circuit breaker characteristic markings would entirely have mislead me into thinking it's a normal RCBO with an OLED readout.
It has so many risky failure modes but I would be particularly worried about the software glitching or getting hacked, Mr Robot plot line idea there, blow up the building by re-configuring their circuit breakers...
Also interestingly it's marked as only a Type AC RCD, considering there's an entire WiFi connected computer inside which measures the current I don't see why they couldn't get Type A or even try to get Type B with a little more circuitry? Even more so for arc fault detection? Looks like it already has all the needed circuity for that functionality, just needs software for it.
I don't think the idea of a Wi-Fi controlled circuit breaker is itself a bad thing, but the implementation here is lacking in a number of ways that make it worse. For one, I would say that the Wi-Fi controlled part should be AFTER the mechanical switch, and should not control the mechanical switch at all. If it trips, or is physically switched off then the Wi-Fi portion sholud not be able to turn it back on. But if it was physically turned on, the Wi-Fi portion can still toggle the downstream circuit on/off, maybe through a SSR or similar.
It should have two switches yeah, one that reads breaker or lockout and one that says control
Holy balls, this is even a worse idea than the wifi smart crockpot...
*crackpot? ;)
impressive wifi range, zapped Mehdi as far away as Canada.
You know what this needs? A SERVICE BUTTON. You press it, and it locks the thing out from being turned on or off remotely.
Still not safe, not a physical lockout. Can’t trust software or even electrical switching of the motor.
You know what this product needs? To not exist
The only thing this needs is a trash can around it.
@@bobert4522 This has so many surprising dangerous features I'm not sure I'd even trust a physical lockout, lest they have implemented a "trip-free" style remote reset on another similar looking model.
That doesn't address the fact that in operation, the overcurrent or RCD function could have been disabled or set totally inappropriately. Incredible that someone has gone to the trouble to design and manufacture such a sophisticated device, but with no real awareness of fundamental safety principles.
I just want a breaker that will tell me over Wifi when it pops, that way I'll know the wifi is down.
And a breaker that turns off when it loses its WiFi connection, just to make the endless loop of dysfunctionality complete.
One thing the manufacture could do to make it a bit safer, is design it so it can detect when the breaker is manually turned off. If manually turned off, the app will not be able to turn the breaker back on and the breaker can only be turned back on manually.
Thing is, the manufacturer doesn't care if it's safe or not.
Hahaha, the slightly wavering wheezy buzz of the motor driving the lever up and down in the final seconds of the video just made me think "Ex-ter-min-ate"!
Maybe, despite it being built to look exactly like a circuit breaker and to fit in a breaker box, it's meant to be used downstream of an actual circuit breaker. Could be very useful for certain things, for instance like having it on a timer for garden circuits or outside outlets.
there’s tons of devices like that on the market, they’re all over Amazon for $5. this one is specifically intended to be a remotely switchable circuit breaker and power monitor
@@reanimationxp Oh, I'm sure there are. But I doubt they have the advantage of being as confusing and as dangerous and so easily open to misuse. I'm not sure why this thing was created when all those other options for somthing downstream in the line exist. To my mind it's definitely meant to replace a circuit breaker.
A wifi breaker that's "report-only" might be a good idea. That way you can monitor things remotely and you could call up the neighbor and say "hey, I'm in Paris. Can you go flip my breaker back on so the aquarium pump will work and I won't have to find another Nemo? Thanks!"
Good to see you back Mike, and a shout-out to Artisan Electrics - nice one mate!
Actually, tripping curve for C type breaker at 2.5x nominal current allows for trip times up to around 30-40s.
Watching your demonstration of this product gave me an idea to improve its safety:
They could manufacture the breaker switch to have 3 positions: ON OFF and TRIP (from top to bottom).
When it trips due to overcurrent or earth leakage, the switch snaps from the ON position to TRIP.
When it's controlled through software, the switch only travels between ON and OFF.
The design would only allow the motor to mechanically drive the switch ON or OFF but never when it's in TRIP.
This would be good for two reasons:
- A breaker trip due to some electrical fault will always require a manual reset, not possible to do remotely.
- If an electrician needs to work on the circuits, s/he can pull the switch to TRIP, disallowing any remote control.
Anyone knows if such type of RCBO already exist in the market?
Any RCBO combined with any rail-mounted wifi switch.
Starting this video, this seemed like a good idea to me. Being able to remotely cut power in the case of a fire or other safety or security issue seems like something useful.
I didn't realise that it could also turn back ON, what???? There's absolutely no way that a circuit breaker should be able to turn back on without someone physically manipulate it, and I'd be surprised that this is even level to install in most jurisdictions. That's absurdly dangerous!
The unit has a ton of features. But safety is not one of them.
It's like a parody of IoT that somehow made it to production.
Connected in series with a normal breaker, this could be a useful device. Even in that use case, it needs clear labeling, so people know to turn off the parent breaker when they need to work on something. Ideally, this should not be in a breaker form factor at all, so as to discourage installing it in a breaker box or treating it like a standard breaker. If it could only be installed externally, more like a light switch or smart socket with safety features, it would solve most of the safety concerns, and used like that to protect specific parts of a circuit it could be quite useful.
I guess the good news / bad news is that within a couple of years the app will no longer work, or else you have to enroll in a subscription service to powet your lights.
A circuit breaker which can be configured to NOT break the circuit 😮.
I've seen breakers like these used basically as just switches/disconnectors for EV chargers, solar inverters and other gear like that, and for those applications it could be useful. But I agree, the form factor is an enormous risk. At least it should have "NOT A BREAKER" plastered in big bold letters on it.
How is it not a breaker? It has the magnetic trip coil for instantaneous and bi-metalic strip for over current that can't be overridden. So at minimum it should always be a C20 breaker. Yeah, the RCD can be disabled, but not the over current.
@@inothome because it has the ability to turn itself back on!
@@inothome The overcurrent can also be disabled, showcased at @ 7:45.
@@JohnEdwa He didn't test it correctly. A C curve breaker at 2.5 times rated current (50A for 20A breaker) the trip time is 40 to 55 seconds. He only let it go 10 seconds or so. Look up the C curve trip chart, that will explain it.
Maybe the 485 port is for daisy chaining them with link cables in the recess so they can negotiate their IDs for the app to identify them correctly? IDs like Mental01, Mental02 etc.
I would just use it only downstream of a "real" RCBO, it would prove useful in situations where you want to monitor the power and/or do priority-based overpower trip.
11:14 As with most tuya devices, you can open the screen where the bar graphs and power displays are in the app, the picture of pen and paper up the top right is for renaming the device as you wish
well, the good news is that uses a Tuya Beken module for the wireless control (the one marked WB3S), so running your own firmware on this wouldn't be too hard thanks to OpenBKT.
Very interesting video Mike!!! I think the main thing that would put me off here is the fact all of that functionallity is controlled by an MCU, with seemingly no "common sense" hardware to override in relation to safety. eg. at the point you managed to draw 50A through it - that shouldnt be possible. I would fear what kind of bugs exist in the firmware for that device, and what happens when the MCU locks up / dies / does something you dont expect... And - lets face it, what kind of reliability could we expect on the MCU and power circuit for that MCU and OLED screen - I bet after a few years that MCU or the PSU capacitors will go pear shaped... I think just the idea of having that control PCB inside an RCD scares the hell out of me lol
Interesting! So - if your router power goes off, you won't have WiFi to turn it back on!
People that invested in smart homes would have a ups on their wifi router
@@georgesnow Or not use wifi at all. Don't think it's ever been enabled on my router. There is a UPS on the main network rack though, which the router is powered from.
Does it store enough energy to trip with no power being supplied? A dead short could reduce the effective supply voltage to near zero.
Turning off, kind of cool, I guess. Turning it back on remotely...oh dear god, that's just the worst idea possible.
The starting point for this design was a 21 year old with a copy of Android Studio and a flat with a faulty mains installation.
Back in the day : Fuse blows, fit thicker fuse wire. Today : These's an app for that!
Yeap and that can be a good thing.
If the normal.load is less than the default rating you can turn it down a bit so it's safer.
Just make sure to fit a good breaker upstream of this and label appropriately.
I'm with others.. Label it 32/50A whatever and 100mA RCD trip.. And make it so the electronics can ONLY turn it off/trip.
Then it seems like a good idea.
That and rewrite a bunch of lockout-tagout regulations... EDIT: Nevermind: reading comprehension fail.
that's one ridiculously over-engineered circuit breaker. and dangerous.
If it ever started tripping, you'd be second guessing whether there's an actual circuit fault, a breaker fault or a WiFi/app fault, I'd personally rather invest in 'Smart Switches' if I needed remote off-on functionality. Remote circuit reset just seems wrong, if you think you need it then you've probably got a design flaw in your circuit, expecting tripping ins't good.
I looked these up. I don't see these being intended for main panels. These are din mounted breakers that need a wire for the hot instead of tapping into a bar behind the breaker.
The main purpose of these would be for building enclosures downstream from the main panel for things like controls or remote monitoring of devices. Good example would be lighting control system, but there are many other useful applications for things like this. Controls, EMS, monitoring, timers, etc.. I would not hesitate to build something like this into an external enclosure that needs to be monitored for power consumption because it would save the need for additional equipment like CT's and a separate energy monitor. Between the Zigbee and WiFi connectivity options, it gives a lot of flexibility in how to integrate it into an application as well and saves the need to run ethernet cables or installing cellular modems to connect to those enclosures. Overall, I like the idea behind this device, there are a LOT of uses for it.. just not in a main panel.
This isn't a typical UK single circuit RCBO unit which has a single live at the bottom for a bus bar, but it does have the same connections as an RCD in UK consumer units which protect multiple different circuits so could easily replace one of those.
Yeah, pretty much. The difficulty is that some UK-type residential panels *are* just DIN rail enclosures, and are wired this way. A very specifically British problem for their very specifically insane way of doing things. It's no wonder they're so terrified of electricity that their plugs are absolute fortresses - the way they wire their buildings is just madness.
Even with the same construction they could just remove the external part of the lever and cap the holes and it will be like a timer or any other mechanism you won't rely on to cut the power before working on the circuit.
Critical security functions implemented in low-quality software? Yay!
Could be useful but only in addition to the real thing upstream.
good points mentioned , I did not think about a lockout ,geez over 50Amps and still not flipping also they have voice activated version as well
Should be noted that there are, in fact, products combining the functionality of overcurrent and residual current protection and remote control on the market (eg Schneider Reflex iC60 & you clip on an additional RC/GFI). And they explicitly address all the safety issues, eg you have a lockable lever for lockout, they mention all the failure modes in the manual… but of course they are €500, without wifi (being professional gear, they are controlled via individual wires with control voltages)… on the other hand, nothing prohibits anyone adding the safety features to a wifi product, does it?
Motorised over current trip by the whirring sound. That has to be the worst possible way to do it. Why wouldn't they do it with a plunger/coil or coil/magnet approach? Much more reliable. It won't trip without both phase and neutral present too, I'm guessing.
Has an actual current trip and thermal protection, though I guess to trip on thermal you need 60A of current flow for 30 seconds, standard trip time for thermal breakers when cold, and for instantaneous trip you need 100A for a half second to do the magnetic trip. Thicker wire through that toroid, like 10mm cable 5 turns, would probably have gotten a trip out of it with no power applied to the breaker.
@@SeanBZA Yes, I saw that later on, but it definitely appears to be far in excess of the 20A rating so the motor doing the trip for the supposed rating is rubbish in my opinion.
@@retrozmachine1189 The trip mech is standard for all breakers, so it does meet type approval. The biggest issue is the RCD that can be programmed off, which is a big issue for a breaker that shows as a ground fault protection device at first glance. Should have had an automatic 100mA trip built in, not removeable with software, and running direct to the trip coil itself to trip on a major ground fault.
@@SeanBZA It says C20 but that only appears possible with the action of the motor, not the thermal strip. That should make it fail approval in my opinion. Magentic trip may well be appropriate for C20 rating.
@@SeanBZA The approval claimed is for the RCD functionality. I also don't believe the C20 rating
Wait. So if there's a lightning strike and the cpu gets scrambled and locks up, or there's a software bug, it completely loses all overcurrent and circuit protection?! So one day your water kettle shorts out and this thing just lets it dump power until something catches fire?
Ah I just kept watching. It has the thermal and coil protection at least. That's something I guess!
@@witeshade But it will not trip if at the wrong time it is being updated...
@@Scott-i9v2s Wrong. This video is also stupid. It just contains a ordinary circuit breaker construction, probably the only thing not working when updating is the RCD function, but famous brands also have that problem with AFDD all in one breakers.
Designed to be remotely turned on, because the designer saw the first Jurassic Park movie, and didn't want to suffer the fate of Samuel L. Jackson's character. Standards and safety, be damned !
Remote controlled relay or contactor...ok, but resettable circuit breaker nope nope nope.
completely agree with you. as you say there are uses. i saw these a while back when doing an energy saving project at work. i wanted to isolate a whole ring final circuit due to out of hours wasted consumption. i ended up using a normal smart switch and a contactor. this device is basically that with the extra functions of energy monitoring and adjustable trip characteristics. so yeah, its really really cool actually, but it needs to be fitted in addition to normal protection. also, not look like a breaker. not claim to be anything like that. obviously, also, be manufactured to an actual standard haha
Someone was actually SMART and built something like this. I use this type of breaker for things that are usually OFF and I want to remote turn on (or timer / schedule based ) something like a water pre heater , a light that should be on only between certain hours , a pump that needs to run every morning for 10-15 min or something like that. So this circuit breaker is indeed VERY SMART IF used in a smart way. I find your video pretty subjective but the device works as intended and can be used as intended.
Dude is mad because he thought it was designed to control an outlet. This was designed to control an appliance like you said. I use it to control the washer/dryer in my vacation rental home so I can control who can use the machine. This guy didn’t see its full potential. He thought it is just to replace a normal breaker with a fancier wifi function 😂.
Wow. Conflicted. The Home automation dork in me loves this but the electrician in me hates it. This is supposed to be a basic safety device, not a power switch.
There are Wi-Fi power taps that goes in between wall sockets and fire hazards, that's still a bit stupid but significantly less so than Wi-Fi enabled circuit breakers
I wonder how well that wifi antenna works in the new compliance entirely metal consumer units?
Good point - not well I suspect
@@mikeselectricstuff I suppose that's why it needs the RS485 upsell option
a useful thing - if installed behind a real, electro-mechanical circuit breaker. for me the utility comes from being able to measure power consumption of devices when I can't physically fit a smart relay closer to the device (e.g., behind kitchen cabinetry, where there is not enough space for a 16A smart relay behind a, say, an electric stove and the socket, or for garden where most - and I think all name brand - smart relays are not rated for outdoor usage).
We have used quite a few of these for car chargers at the old office I worked at.
When we used them we put them behind another rcbo in another din box, so we got best of both worlds.
Reliability of a known breaker and the smart features of these.
Been in use for 3 years now?. (Older version)
Never been issue with them. 🤷🤷
Totally agree they are non compliant.
I mean tuya or the OEM who made them don't make fuse boxes for them for a start.. that alone should set of alarm bells for any sparky.
But yeah we have a big label on them please use rcbo for isolation.
We did have fun when our spark turned up though he though he was putting these into the main fuse board.
We all had a good giggle and then showed him the other din box to house them in.
Here in Germany we have the 5 safety rules. One of them is "secure for turning back on" in case of a circuit breakers this means stick a wire through the hole in the lever like it's intended to! An this one hase that feature clearly visible, and the mechanism works the right way.
But shutting off or altering the values (in the wrong direction) of the safety features i clear no go!
No one stopped and asked "What's the purpose of this circuit breaker?"
well I use them for data logging , but now having seconds thoughts with the software overrides without a manual lockout , plus out septic pump trips all the time when it rains
@@christopherstaples6758 I can see some uses too. My point was at the design phase, they forgot its primary purpose.
As long as the wifi router is downstream of this breaker and not on a UPS...you might be safe.
I enjoy Mike's "lovely" when the breaker turns itself back ON you after the voltage returns back to normal. Lovely indeed, one might even say Lively.
I'm always amazed by the miniaturisation in these DIN rail devices!
holy moly, who would ever think a safety device *where you can turn off the safety* would be something sane!?
It gives the owner an -option- to turn off features they don't want. Nothing wrong with that. You can turn off ABS on your car too.
@@OmgSaySomething Traction control most cars let you control with a manufacturer installed button in compliance with safety regulations. ABS they don't intend for you to disable, hence there being no "ABS Off" button on the dash like you do for traction control. No, unplugging wheel speed sensors doesn't count, as that would be like installing a jumper wire from the bus bar to the breaker output lug and acting like thats intended to disable features you don't want.
@@OmgSaySomething Having a working circuit breaker isn't a "feature".
@@2009dudeman Okay, ABS was not a good example (albeit one can pull its fuse) but the other "driving aides" can be turned on and off. In this case, there are functions of this thing that the owner can decide to use or not. It is not wrong. It being motor driven, is fundamentally wrong; if it's a common breaker that can be armed or tripped remotely would be better. Of course, then one couldn't set its tripping parameters.. As someone wrote this thing could be absolutely useful as a secondary safety device in series with a primary one.
@@mechadeka One can trurn off some of its functions. Like, they want the over and under voltage function but not the ground fault protection, what is wrong with that? As someone wrote this thing could be absolutely useful as a secondary safety device in series with a primary one.
You do have to be careful with automation. The other day we had a power cut, South London area, it is very rare, apparently a cable fault. Anyway, the power came back on, I went into the bedroom, and I could hear this clicking sound, about once per second. I tracked it down to a new TP-link Kasa smart plug. Luckily there nothing plugged in, but it was bust. Tried resetting it, no joy, I plug it in and it keeps clicking on and off, if I press the override power on/off button a bunch of times I can get it to stop, but when I plugged and plugged in the whole thing starts again. Imagine if I had a dehumidifier or computer or some motor on there. It has made me think twice.
Those Kasa smart plugs are complete garbage. I had to deal with them back in I think 2018? They would always be crashing, losing WiFi and then get stuck quickly switching on and off forever, lucky they were only ever used for lights. Customer support knew it was an issue and sent free replacements with a different hardware revision, they worked better but still died after a few months with the same on-off fault, if I remember correctly they have a capacitive dropper PSU which degrades very quickly because they run so hot, after a few months baking it just browns itself out every time it tries to turn on the WiFi radio or close the relay.
Being able to REMOTELY turn off the basic function of a circuit breaker makes life super-easy for John Arsonist... 😞
The march of technology means that now you don't have to worry about ransomware encrypting your family photos, but ransomware burning your house down.
@@Buugipopuu Yeah... [sigh...]😞
but if it turns off the power to the router, how will it wifi?
Soo here's the intrinsinc safety feature - it locks itself off:))
Stop thinking logically. Think of the convenience of turning stuff off from the couch or while you're on the John!
Quite neat. I can understand the concern about the ratings on the device. Now, here’s a tip for the manufacturer; use an E-Ink display and have the prevailing ratings shown on the screen rather than printing like a standard breaker. Otherwise, there are definitely uses for auto-re losing breakers that have been around for a long time. As the “switch” part of the design is fairly standard and it can be “locked off” there is little trouble in my mind. Warning labels on the cabinet should also be applied “Part of this installation is fed via an automatic circuit breaker, position CBX.XX, ensure that the power source is isolated or that this device is locked off before working on XXXXX”
I wonder what its breaking capacity is? What would happen in the event of a 5000A fault? It doesn't look like there's a lot of room left in there for arc quenching...
The breaker side looks fairly normal, so likely smilar to a standalone RCBO
Are these even legal over there?
The tripping characteristics are super dangerous. I don't think this follows a 'C curve' MCB at all. 50 amps and a few seconds to trip looks very wrong to me
So to be a reasonable device you would actually want to anywhere around you it would need to:
a) drop the motor function
b) make the residual current and max current functions be good old hardware
c) reimplement all the other functions as software triggering a test button press on the breaker
completely different device. But would at least not be dangerous while still retaining most.
Wait, what?
Are you saying that if you disable the current limit in the app, it will pass 50 Amps or more, without tripping OFF at all? :o
So many things wrong with this.
I get that there is a market nowadays for "smart" control of mains devices, but there are too many things wrong with this design.
7:50 - That's SO bad. lol
So it really is controlled by firmware in the breaker?
Presumably the app doesn't need to be running in the background for the OVP and current limits to work, at least?
The fact that you can *disable* the current limit in the app, and the RCBO won't trip with 50 Amps or more through it, means it's no longer a circuit breaker at all. :o
To me, that's the single most dangerous part about this.
It should be combined with a "physical" 20A breaker (or whatever the rating is) internally, that can *never* be overridden.
It is a C20, thus C-characteristic (not sure if that's the same term in English, in Dutch we call it C-karakteristiek)
Meaning that in the range of 8x (+/-20%) the nominal current it should react within 2 - 3 seconds
At lower (less than 4x) multiples of the nominal current it doesn't matter whether you have B/C/D characteristic.
At roughly 2x nominal you can draw such currents opto 70 sec until it pops. (regardless whether it is A/B/C char..)
Well this is assuming the device is really operating according to specs.
N.B. Power trips with B-characteristic should trip immediately when drawing > 4x (+/- 20%) of nominal rated current.
I wonder what kind of WiFi microcontroller is installed. Judging by the form factor it could be an ESP12-F like device which makes it even more dangerous as people will start experimenting with overriding the already few protection measures present.
Yep. He showed it not tripping at 55A+ 😬
@@TD-er Yep, it looked like an ESP style module.
I know some others can look very similar, but it was very close to an ESP8266 shape.
And yep, the C20 would have some tolerance as well, and a certain time to trip.
But the scary thing is, this isn't really a "breaker" at all, as it has no mechanical breaker for that trip current, and can be overridden. Such a dangerous idea. lol
Oh, also the fact that it's relying on the motor driver, motor, and gears, to "trip".
I would trust an older mechanical breaker (with RCD) any day over a yet another badly-designed IoT device.
I can see value in some of the features in it, however, you wouldn't want them integrated into what should be a life safety device.
The voltage and current monitoring is cool, but easily could be done with a module external to the consumer unit that has proper mains isolation as well as being ancillary to an actual RCBO.
However, I don't see why would want a remotely-switchable breaker. Switches suit the purpose just fine. Should note I'm specifically talking about the average homeowners or DIY dads here, and not electricians or contractors. And they should know better than to use one on their own accord.
It's truly horrifying to think about the situations people that know no better would put these into.
It's only dangerous if it's installed by itself, I would put it after a real dumb thermal circuit breaker in series. So anytime I need to do maintenance I would switch off the dumb one.
Thats pretty clever. Amazing they can fit all that functionality in there. It has most of the same functions that a pretty advanced MCCB or even a high voltage circuit breaker has.
It definitely needs some clear signage in the panel saying it is remote controlled, and a local/remote switch to disable it.
Wait so it trips after a fixed time no matter the level of overcurrent? That's far from desireable in most normal use cases.... And is it even up to the C20 class then? I'm pretty sure those are supposed to follow a specific trip curve.
When you turn off the power to the circuit your WiFi router is connected to… 😂🤣 Doh!
I actually love this, like not for normal breaker use but for use in lab. When i'm repairing some complex mains electronics (switching PSU, etc) i usually use breaker with value bit bigger then expected compulsion before connecting it to mains so i wont blow up my upstream breaker...
I use a varying number of incandescent light bulbs in series with the device under test for that. That way if there's a short in the device, all that happens is the light bulbs glow brightly, but I don't have to worry about a breaker tripping. This also limits the current to the device, so if there is a short it doesn't typically go bang as there isn't enough current available for that, so it means fewer catastrophic failures while testing fixes.
@@Berkeloid0 I'm aware of this method, but i would like something compact, robust, with low failure rate and configurable current...
I work on enclosures that get installed for remote applications downstream from the panels. This is actually a very useful device for remote monitoring or controls. I like this device as well. It's din mounted, so it's not something your are going to find in a main breaker panel that has it's own proprietary mount and line tap.
@@Salamekleikum You can replace the light bulbs with higher power resistors (available very cheap from China). Put them in a box with a dial on the front that switches in various combinations of resistors of differing values and there's your configurable current limit and they're much more reliable than incandescent bulbs.
It would be nice to have the monitoring functions from this in a breaker from a trusted manufacturer, but with RS-485 or CAN instead of WiFi.
There was mention of RS485, but it was an addon module
Lessons if you are gonna make one: (making this as I go)
1) add a lockout switch - should disconnect the motor, PHYSICALLY.
2) physical indicators for anything disabled
3) fuse
The main issues are needs to be labelled correctly & the internal thermal overload needs to be lowered otherwise a useful device but i would put downstream of conventional protection supplied from a recognised source!
not only a shock hazard but a hacker could shut off your power
HAH the use of mehdi here was perfect.
I love that once the WonHungLo capacitor dries up and gets into a loosing battle with the grid, this "circuit breaker" turns into a pass-thru device 🤣
Don't worry... it's got a CE mark on it, all is well. It'll fail safely. 🤣
Wow that’s strange. At first I assumed it would be for turning wifi on and off
This should have big yellow warning label that states it is remotely controlled. At least any industrial switching equipment that has remote control has warning labels, and also can be locked to de-energized state.
I'd love one that JUST measures energy usage, but does not have the _capability_ to control the power.
Just fit it after a proper rcbo that how we use them in an external din box.
I did discuss with our spark about stacking them in a double din setup but we decided because it's not checked by the fuse box maker it wouldn't be compliant so we ran them out of the fuse box to avoid the issue.
Then labeled accordingly.
Shelly has those kinds of devices.
I can only think of this as a prank device, or a 'nothing to see here' network backdoor device. Looks innocente enough, and can provide lots of "interesting functionality".
these are somewhat good... if you want to use them for something like lighting i assume... not on their own i mean, i'd still put a normal breaker before those
That's called a switch.
It is a very cool device if you use it with a proper RCBO upstream. All the measuring and controll features can be very useful
Seriously, if people want this sort of control send the circuit through a separate control line-voltage contactor.
Yeap we just put another fuse box above and run from a good rcbo into these.
🤷
I have one in my garage to control the power circuits.
I walk out the garage and the beacon detector knows to power down everything.
Absolutely, and control it via RS485 or similar, not some dodgy WiFi chip that can be easily hacked into and controlled by someone sitting in their car out in the street.
This would be a fantastic product! If it didn't - very convincingly - pretend to be a circuit breaker.
I like the way the cheap Chinese Wifi stuff stays powered even after the device has tripped. So between the wifi module's super cheap PSU and the grid is ... what? the 60A breaker for the entire panel/house? Well I can't see a problem with that, nope.
Same thing with wifi consumer units like the Leviton Smart Load Centre sold in Canada and the US. The ability to turn branch circuit breakers on/off is a panel function protected by a main breaker or external disconnect.
Yep, should be banned. Outright. Wifi to turn off, maybe, with wifi circuit on downstream side (still a major security issue). Wifi to turn on a primary safety device no, no, no.
This thing shouldn't have a place in any electrical distribution box. The rcbo/rccb etc. are made simple for a purpose.
the appearance of Mehdi getting zapped just sells it.. lol
Seems fine for a control cabinet with a dedicated circuit breaker/isolation device the functions could be useful to set trip currents lower than the actual protection current to prevent burnt out motors and other faults from damaging things below the typical circuit breaker trip level. By having isolation device none of the smart functions could accidentally activate.
Those are also all just DIN rail devices and you can in theory install DIN rail devices into a consumer unit that you really should not be installing. It is their marketing as an RCBO when it is really a supplemental control device not a safety critical protection device that is the terrible part.
"Hello, Support? My RCD is not working..."
"Have you tried turning it off and on again?"
Everything seems solid and really nice, except one thing... the on feature.
As an Automation Engineer, I work a lot with Fuses, Machines and Coding. If a Fuse is taken out, either by us to repair something or because we have something wrong, I don't want that ANYONE can turn it on again remotely.
Also the Timer is horrible! Imagine it turn off and you look at it and now you have to find the problem. Or it is already turned off and you think it is save, until it automatically turn it on again...
My solution: Get rid of the Auto- & Remote on feature. Done! Product is 100 times more safe.
Second: If you need to turn things on or off, get a remote Relays. This thing is designed to turn on and off. So when you want to be save, Trigger the Fuse and you're save (to a certain point, of course).