This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

All Singing All Dancing E.V. Charger.

Is this a good one?

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Youtube+Artisan+electrician+EV+charger+install+Zappi+home&docid=608055082115925091&mid=AC8C58AA73CB9E199546AC8C58AA73CB9E199546&view=detail&FORM=VIRE


Z.
  • Looks like MyEnergi (and others) are using software/microelectronics based devices for the RCD functions. Is this approach explicitly permitted in the Wiring Regs, or merely "not forbidden" or what? Maybe a "fly by wire" RCD is permitted in the charger provided it is backed up by an electromechanical device on the supply side?


    Still new to the Wiring Regs, so if anyone could point to the relevant paragraph numbers it would be much appreciated!
  • Geoff:

    Looks like MyEnergi (and others) are using software/microelectronics based devices for the RCD functions. Is this approach explicitly permitted in the Wiring Regs, or merely "not forbidden" or what? Maybe a "fly by wire" RCD is permitted in the charger provided it is backed up by an electromechanical device on the supply side?


    Still new to the Wiring Regs, so if anyone could point to the relevant paragraph numbers it would be much appreciated!


    When push comes to shove, isn't a "real" RCD "software/microelectronics based"?


  • Myenergi documentation on the Zappi claims the RCD function complies with BSEN 61008. I must check with them but I believe I read that it self-checks, how I am not sure. We always install a 30mA RCD on the upstream board irrespective of the flouting of selectivity requirements so any self-testing of the Zappi RCD has no affect!
  • Out of interest are Zappi claiming compliance with BS EN 61008 for their electronic units in the Declaration of Conformity? I will be very surprised if an electronic device will meet all the requirements of BS EN 61008.


    If not you will need a separate BS EN 61008 Type A device upstream to comply with BS 7671 61008.
  • John Peckham:

    Out of interest are Zappi claiming compliance with BS EN 61008 for their electronic units in the Declaration of Conformity? I will be very surprised if an electronic device will meet all the requirements of BS EN 61008.


    If not you will need a separate BS EN 61008 Type A device upstream to comply with BS 7671 61008. 


    So it would appear not John. The declaration of conformity doesn’t mention 61008. How would it be permitted to claim compliance with a standard in the technical literature of a product when it is not? It matters not to me as there is always an upstream RCD installed but the Zappi is sold with the advantage of not needing a separate RCD. 

    what particular elements of 61008 do you think might be lacking?


  • Hi Simon,

    By electromechanical, I meant a device that uses a kind of double solenoid arrangement to detect if the L and N currents are equal and open a switch contact if they are not. Jump to around 7 minutes in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOUSDDLKICk - there is no software/microelectronic system visible. Are you referring to a different class of product? I'd be very interested to see an example of an RCD rated for use in the UK that depends on a software/microelectronic system for its core safety function.
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Any type B RCD will use electronics to condition, amplify and threshold the signal from the Hall sensor or Flux gate. They may or may not also use software, I suspect flux gate designs are more likely to be software based given they also have to generate excitation for the sensor. Safety-critical electronics and software is entirely possible, it's just expensive due to the level of verification and test needed, especially software where the number of possible states is vast.


    Many "ordinary" RCDs and RCBOs (AC/A) also contain at least some electronics, because it's cheaper to add some gain to drive a big, crude tripping mechanism than it is to manufacture a sensitive, finely-balanced mechanism as needed for an all-electromagnetic design. This is quite possibly a more reliable approach as well, as the whole mechanism can be more robust and less affected by minor corrosion, etc.
  • I am thinking that the fault current rating and contact separation required in BS EN 61008 might be difficult to achieve in an all electronic device. Also 61008 requires the provision of a user test button for periodic testing. Do these devices have this test facility?
  • Do we need that, or just an equivalent degree of safety ?

    An aux coil opening a contractor with the same or better isolation  specs fired by some core electronics that detected the same problems as a B type, or indeed anything else failing a  "built in test" sequence as well  for that matter would presumably be just as safe, maybe safer ?

    If not then once again the  regs are not flexible enough..

    M.
  • Mike


    Yes we do need all that as Regulation 722.531.2.101 requires an RCD to BS EN 61008-1 or BS EN 61009-1 or BS 60947-2.