4 ms·
Actually, my argument was "the meter should be designed to be robust enough to prevent this particular issue". As the other commenter stated, that does not in
by mynameisvlad 3y ago
Actually, my argument was "the meter should be designed to be robust enough to prevent this particular issue".
As the other commenter stated, that does not in any way imply "robust against all possible issues coming upstream" and it would be ridiculous to expect that.
- jameshart 3y agoWith physical hardware being operated outside its design limits, ‘robust’ can mean ‘has safety mechanisms to prevent it happening’, but it can also just mean ‘fails in a way that is serviceable without causing collateral damage’. Or ‘fails catastrophically but at least without causing loss of life’. Which scenarios you engineer the system to tolerate with what level of survivability and serviceability is going to be a matter of engineering to budget, right?
- mynameisvlad 3y agoTurning something, anything on and off a few times seems well within the design limit for such a device. If a standing desk and shredder can handle that, then a smart meter should very much also be able to. None of this was your original point, anyway. You instead chose to focus on a completely different and irrelevant failure case. There is a world of difference between "voltage regulation issues might cause major problems" (your point) and "turning the thing on and off too quickly causes the whole thing to self-destruct" (the actual point).