💬 Relay

gohan

@fhenryco If you are trying to keep your power use down then you could also consider using either a Latching Relay or even a MOSFET.

Agreed, if you want to save power you need to use a latching relay. Also another regulator would be fine to power the arduino.

fhenryco

@gohan can you explain the benefit (for a low power app) of a relay switching on electrical pulse rather something else ?
i mean, even the regular relay has both an open by default circuit output and close by default circuit ouput so it could remain on the desired state even when not powered up ...

gohan

I am referring that when relay is on it is drawing power to stay on, while a latching relay it only draws power during the switch on and only during the switch off.

fhenryco

@gohan not sure this is going to be an easy way: need find arduino code for latch relay, dont know if domoticz is supporting this device ?, ...

gohan

Domoticz will just see the same relay node, it is the code that need to be a little different as the relay is switched with a pulse and you need a pin to verify the relay status (if you get the ones that have a monitoring contact)

amemo06

Hi Everyone,
maybe the below will help people facing random incorrect behaviors.
In sample from december 2016 /mysensors/MySensors/examples/RelayActuator/RelayActuator.ino, there is something which could be seen as a bug.

In my case, I have used that sample to control a lot of relais. I noticed some rare but really annoying errors. From time to time a relay got switched incorrectly.
Annoying and strange as coding was pretty straightforward. All relais are coded to act in pulse mode.

          digitalWrite(message.sensor-1+RELAY_1, RELAY_OFF);
          wait(1000);
          digitalWrite(message.sensor-1+RELAY_1, RELAY_ON);

And this is the reason of the bug.

Explanation.
During that second of wait, a lot of things may occurs. Due to the 'message' declaration, it is possible that the 'message' is getting changed.
Typically a ping may come and as result the 'message' is not anymore the same.

For that reason I would suggest the code to be changed a little bit.

void receive(const MyMessage &message_orig)
{
  MyMessage message;
  message = message_orig;

This way, the function works with a local copy and you are sure nothing can change during the processing.

Anyway, thanks for the sample it was nevertheless very helpful

BulldogLowell

@amemo06

void receive(const MyMessage &message)

Because of the const keyword this is a const reference or said another way, a reference to a constant. The const keyword guarantees that the function may not change the object.

So, I wonder what your real issue is....

amemo06

@BulldogLowell No This is not the coding of the function which changes it. It is most likely the event which triggers it which may changes it.
I can show the coding with trace and trace result.

void receive(const MyMessage &message)
//void receive(const MyMessage &message_orig)
{
//  MyMessage message;
//  message = message_orig;
  Serial.println("receive_in:");
Serial.print("1st read:Sensor=");Serial.print(message.sensor);Serial.print(", getBool=");Serial.println(message.getBool());
  // We only expect one type of message from controller. But we better check anyway.
  if (message.type==V_STATUS) {
    // Change relay state
    if (message.getBool() == RELAY_ON){
      digitalWrite(message.sensor-1+RELAY_1, RELAY_OFF);
Serial.print("2nd read:Sensor=");Serial.print(message.sensor);Serial.print(", getBool=");Serial.println(message.getBool());
      wait(1000);
      digitalWrite(message.sensor-1+RELAY_1, RELAY_ON);
Serial.print("3rd read:Sensor=");Serial.print(message.sensor);Serial.print(", getBool=");Serial.println(message.getBool());      
    }
Serial.println("receive_out:");
}

Below is a normal trace

0;255;3;0;9;Eth: 0;0;3;0;18;PING
0;255;3;0;9;Eth: 0;1;1;0;2;1
receive_in:
1st read:Sensor=1, getBool=1
2nd read:Sensor=1, getBool=1
3rd read:Sensor=1, getBool=1
receive_out

So you see the ping which occured before the message I'm interested in
Now, because of the wait in the middle of the code, it may occurs the ping arrive in that period. Then the issue occurs.
See the trace with error.

0;255;3;0;9;Eth: 0;1;1;0;2;1
receive_in:
1st read:Sensor=1, getBool=1
2nd read:Sensor=1, getBool=1
0;255;3;0;9;Eth: 0;0;3;0;18;PING
3rd read:Sensor=0, getBool=0
receive_out

In the 3rd read, sensor value has changed and getBool returns also a different value.

Removing the wait or ensuring the function modules performs faster could reduce the risk. Still it will never be reliable.
Better is to have either a local copy of the message like I wrote in the original post. Or make immediately copies of the information from the message I'm interested in.

gohan

@amemo06 said in 💬 Relay:

wait(1000);

where did you find that? I wasn't able to find it

amemo06

@gohan This is not in the original coding. I needed something like a wait in order to make a relay pulse.
The wait increases the risk or the frequency of the trouble. Removing it does not solves the issue.
Processing of the function will always take time. And the message can still changes before reaching the end like it is show in the second trace.

BulldogLowell

@amemo06

You should treat the message like an ISR... get in and out so that you don't have another message colliding while you are in the function.

Get rid of that wait(). I couldn't find the source for that function but you could try to just use delay() to block while you hold the relay.

otherwise just set a flag to handle the relay event in loop() or use a Timer/callback like the MsTimer2 Library

example:

#include <MsTimer2.h>

const byte onButton = 5;

void setup()
{
  Serial.begin(9600);
  pinMode(13, OUTPUT);
  pinMode(onButton, INPUT_PULLUP);
}

void loop()
{
  if(onButtonPressed())
  {
   flashLedThirteen(5000);
  }
}

bool onButtonPressed(void)
{
  static unsigned long lastMillis = 0;
  static byte lastPress = HIGH;
  byte currentPress = digitalRead(onButton);
  if(currentPress != lastPress)
  {
    if(millis() - lastMillis < 200) return false;
    lastPress = currentPress;
    if(currentPress == LOW)
    {
      Serial.println(" button press detected!");
      lastMillis = millis();
      return true;
    }
  }
  return false;
}

void flashLedThirteen(int ledTime)
{
  digitalWrite(13, HIGH);
  Serial.println("LED ON");
  // sets a new timer callback function
  MsTimer2::set(ledTime, [] {  // the square brackets define the start of the anonymous callback function which is executed after 5000 milliseconds in this example
    digitalWrite(13, LOW);
    Serial.println("Timer expired...");
    Serial.println("LED OFF");
    MsTimer2::stop();
  }); // the curly brace defines the end of the anonymous callback function
  MsTimer2::start();
}

amemo06

@BulldogLowell said in 💬 Relay:

MsTimer2::

Thanks for the MSTimer, I was not aware of it.
And yes, definitively, having a wait() is probably the worst I could have written. Active wait cannot stay.
My intention, in the stuff I develop, was to remove it asap and probably by handling the wait time in the loop with flags.

Maybe I was not clear enough about my intention when I opened this thread. I have no issue with what I develop. I already had several ways to solves this. And now, I have a new one with MSTimer. Again thanks.

I only wanted to raise the fact void receive(const MyMessage &message) may lead to trouble as 'message' content may change during processing of that function.
And if, like many, you are not skilled enough to code/debug.., you will face erratic issues and real difficulty to understand what is going wrong.

BulldogLowell

@amemo06

I only wanted to raise the fact void receive(const MyMessage &message) may lead to trouble as 'message' content may change during processing of that function.

As I already explained... message cannot change during the function, because of constness.

The message handler is being called again from within itself (i.e. from wait()). You would then processing any new messages on that call. It looks as if the function may not be designed to perform recursively as you are trying to do in your code, so that would explain your unexpected/undefined results.

So yes, block during the relay's holding state or use another non-blocking method (i.e. flag or timer/callback) as you mentioned. Fully process each message before allowing the library to handle subsequent message calls.

;)

fhenryco

I was looking for a solution for a low consumption relay and i was adviced in this thread to use a latching relay.
However since i just need to switch on or off a 12V Vcc (from Li ion battery) to trigger a solenoid valve, i'm wondering whether i need a relay for that :
looking at the schematic from post #2 in https://forum.arduino.cc/index.php?topic=436555.0 may be i coud just have my solenoid valve directly in place of the relay in the schematic. In other words , i just need a transistor and not a real relay ... just because my application is a low voltage (12V to apply directly to the Vcc in the schematic) rather than 230V one: can someone confirm ? There is a diode in the schematic : what is it needed for ?

sundberg84

@fhenryco

Since an inductor (im many cases a relay coil) cannot change it's current instantly, the flyback diode provides a path for the current when the coil is switched off. Otherwise, a voltage spike will occur causing arcing on switch contacts or possibly destroying switching transistors.

https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/100134/why-is-there-a-diode-connected-in-parallel-to-a-relay-coil

rozpruwacz

treat yor solenoid as it was a relay, the difference is that relay switches flow of current, and solenoid valve switches flow of water. so You have to use the same schematic, but put your valve where the relay is. But if You want power it from a battery, choose a latching solenoid valve instead of regular solenoid valve - and that requeires different schematic.

fhenryco

@rozpruwacz
thanks, but do you mean that the schematic simply would not work for the regular valve or that it would work but not be low power cinsumption design anymore ?
I have a regular solenoid valve but in my application the valve is normally closed and it will be only exceptionnally opened and for a short time when the 12V is applied, so i guess that i can live with it ...
As for the transistor in the schematic, except it seems to be a NPN , i don't know if i need a particular one for it . probably i can just buy a 2N3904 , or is there a better choice?

rozpruwacz

the schematic you posted is not using latching relay/valve. it doesn't matter if it is relay or valve. both works the same and consume power when in ON state. If you plan to use it in a way that the valve will be ON for very short periods than it is not important if it is latching or not.

when choosing a transistor for such use, You have to look at its datasheet into "absolute maximum ratings" section and check if it will handle the voltages you will apply to it. 2N3904 looks like it will handle 12V without a problem.

fhenryco

@rozpruwacz
thanks , i will use 2N2222 because the valve needs between 200 and 400 mA.
I'v read the 2N3904 is OK for < 100 mA

fhenryco

It works very well with the transistor and schematic posted above. I think the valve is a latching valve because it only discharges the battery when there is a transition. The only remaining problem is that the 5V arduino alone is too much power consuming. So i'm wondering if the transistor could as well work with a 3.3V arduino, that is when the signal level on the transistor Base is 3.3V rather than 5 V ... then i also could remove the arduino led but i'll need to keep the arduino regulator because my 3.7V cell voltage is too much greater than 3.3V

💬 Relay

13

11.7k

11.2k

113.0k