At 9:50, I think your 10ms estimate is high by at least a factor of two. At 50Hz, there's a zero crossing every 10ms, so the small area of the sine that you're concerned with in your worst-case scenario is going to take a fraction of that time, perhaps 3 or 4ms (it will vary with every RCD tested, based on its actual trip current). So, your tester has a bit less error potential than you thought. Implementing a zero cross detector to trigger the ATtiny85 is pretty trivial, and would reduce even this small error. Nice work!
using a nano would also give you an onboard crystal, and its a much better size than the uno would be. easy to fit on a single board as well with the nano plugging straight into headers on the main pcb. awesome video mate, i see you have your 18650s out of your tool, hope the new ones work better.
Maybe you could use a triac on the ac wave to trigger a mosfet to trip the rcd? Would help resolve the other inaccuracy, which isnt as easy to calibrate out as your 2ms one.
The "ac" type elcb's (start of video) are now banned from use in some countries such as Australia. Plenty of info "out there" for reasons why. Suspect your "circuit Attiny so called error" is in the time taken to scan your code.
@@ishanfernando3064 Perhaps its to simplify terminology? With regards to testing an RCD, it doesn't matter which peak it's tested at. So rather than saying 90° & 270° positions. It's standardized to 180 degree to keep things simple. Just my thoughts
Pro Mini is even less expensive. You do need an external FTDI USB-TTL adapter or whatever to program it (or CP2102/CP2104, or CH430C - the cheapest CH340G modules sometimes work fine, sometimes they're off due to bad crystal, but the C-version and the rest of them are impossible to get wrong), but they're all fairly cheap too and shared between the projects. The advantage of Nano might be that you already have your USB input that you can connect to the power bank to power the device, so you don't need that pigtail power connector. On the other hand if you were building in an internal power bank circuitry into the device, that one will come with its own USB power input.
At 9:50, I think your 10ms estimate is high by at least a factor of two. At 50Hz, there's a zero crossing every 10ms, so the small area of the sine that you're concerned with in your worst-case scenario is going to take a fraction of that time, perhaps 3 or 4ms (it will vary with every RCD tested, based on its actual trip current). So, your tester has a bit less error potential than you thought. Implementing a zero cross detector to trigger the ATtiny85 is pretty trivial, and would reduce even this small error. Nice work!
using a nano would also give you an onboard crystal, and its a much better size than the uno would be. easy to fit on a single board as well with the nano plugging straight into headers on the main pcb.
awesome video mate, i see you have your 18650s out of your tool, hope the new ones work better.
Maybe you could use a triac on the ac wave to trigger a mosfet to trip the rcd? Would help resolve the other inaccuracy, which isnt as easy to calibrate out as your 2ms one.
👍👍👍
The "ac" type elcb's (start of video) are now banned from use in some countries such as Australia. Plenty of info "out there" for reasons why. Suspect your "circuit Attiny so called error" is in the time taken to scan your code.
Great job! Thank you very much. Can the Arduino Uno measure time as well as ATtiny?
Thank you...100% Best
Great video
So are those cheapos any good? RCDs I mean
180° or 90° ?
In the circle of RCD testers, this is known as the 180° position at the peak of the wave. Don't ask me why/who decided this as the standard.
@@Schematix interesting
@@ishanfernando3064 Perhaps its to simplify terminology? With regards to testing an RCD, it doesn't matter which peak it's tested at. So rather than saying 90° & 270° positions. It's standardized to 180 degree to keep things simple. Just my thoughts
300 bucks or 30🤔 I'll take the 30
Everytime ;)
I'd use the nano.
Better form factor and less expensive.
Pro Mini is even less expensive. You do need an external FTDI USB-TTL adapter or whatever to program it (or CP2102/CP2104, or CH430C - the cheapest CH340G modules sometimes work fine, sometimes they're off due to bad crystal, but the C-version and the rest of them are impossible to get wrong), but they're all fairly cheap too and shared between the projects.
The advantage of Nano might be that you already have your USB input that you can connect to the power bank to power the device, so you don't need that pigtail power connector. On the other hand if you were building in an internal power bank circuitry into the device, that one will come with its own USB power input.
Worse case surely is not 10mS as that is an entire half cycle at 50Hz.....
"One important safety feature I want to highlight is this fuse." STICKS IN A GLASS FUSE.
Dude, stay away from this stuff if you can't do it safely.