Punched paper tape

I decided to make a scalable LED panel, so a grid of LEDs, all full RGB (WS2812).

I can manage this at 2x2mm, using 1x1mm LEDs, but no space for decoupling caps or vias, or well, a lot, so can be stacked one way but not the other...

The alternative LEDs I am using, instead of 1x1mm LEDs, are 1.5mmx1.6mm. These are way better, lower profile, and do not get knocked off the PCB.

So spacing at 2.5mm grid is just about possible.

But in honour of my ASR33 teletype, the latest LED strip designs are like this...

This is 2.54mm spaced, 30x9 full RGB LED block. So can be stacked to make longer strips.

This is the exact size of punched paper tape, all 0.1" spaced stuff.

The 0201 caps are in-between, which is neat.

So, this may be on Tindie soon, if they work...

Oven pre-heat

One of the things my wife does is "pre-heat" the oven. It is a gas oven. I have issues with this.

My first issues is that the gas/air and radiant heat in the oven surely takes literally seconds to be "at temperature". Yes, the metal tray/rods the food goes on will take more time, but they are small, and actually way less mass than the "baking tray" on which items will be placed and which are not pre-heated.

The only way I could really test this would be temperature probes and tests, but I really do not see the logic of pre-heat on a gas oven of more than like 60 seconds.

My second issue, which applies more so if the first is wrong, is why not put the damn food in the oven during the "pre-heat". Not doing does clearly waste energy. Yes, the time calculation for cooking may need to allow for a short period of lower heat at the start, but overall it will be less than pre-heating an oven whilst the food is simply sitting at room temperature just waiting.

Noises off

Yes, I make videos, and one of the things I always screw up is avoiding extraneous noises - I forget to put my phone on silent, etc.

But doing this video, the final "Monzo ka-ching" was perfectly timed, LOL.

My ultimate e-paper board...

I have stock of some very nice Waveshare 7.5" E-paper panels with bonded glass and black border. They are very cool. I made a driver board to fit on the back, and it works well. It is on Tindie.

I then made a new board with NFC reader through the glass which is very cool. I use for access control on the front door. But I think it can work as a card and so work as a WiFi NDEF NFC even - need to work on code for that.

But I am working on the next version, and am interested in comments.

One of the main uses of these is household displays for things, including environmental monitoring. So the NFC based panel controller board has...

• ESP32-S3-MINI-1-N4-R2 (Dual CPU, 4M flash, 2M SPI RAM).
• E-paper panel controller and power, obviously.
• Micro SD card slot.
  
• Power from USB-C (two positions) or WAGO DC 5V-17V.
• Designed to work with button-fix clip on the back to mount easily on a wall.
• 24 WS2812 RGB LEDs around the edge, plus one for status by SD slot, and one general status.
• 2 pin WAGO contact input (e.g. for doorbell push).
• PN532 NFC compatible with DESFire, and can work as a card to NDEF WiFi details, etc.
• Separate WAGO power and control for PN532, and connected internally to allow local working.

But the new bits are...

• SCD41 CO₂ and humidity (and temperature).
• SHT40 temperature.
• GZP6816D atmospheric pressure.
• T3902 MEMS microphone for sound.
• DS18B20 connection for external temperature sensors (WAGO).
• Updated WS2812 LEDs that don't get easily knocked off the board.
• Switched power control for PN532.
• Switched power control for E-Paper.
• Switched power output 3.3V (WAGO)

This adds some cost, but I think makes for a pretty awesome controller.

What do you think? (Update - I have ordered some)

More on VAT an Duty on imports

I explained PVA (Postponed VAT Accounting) - it is moderately simple, we need (a) a courier that is not brain dead (so don't use UPS), and (b) EORI or VAT stated on parcel - which a lot of senders allow for anyway but could just be squeezed in to address.

Courier declares the import to HMRC. HMRC do a monthly statement to allow for on VAT return. VAT all cancels out.

But duty is different!

We get duty much more rarely - some product types from some countries, and very much non obvious it will apply when you order. It depends on where supplier ships from, or possibly origin of goods (not sure which), and how they declare the goods.

It is usually small, meaning it can easily be way less than courier admin fee even! Very annoying.

Duty Deferment Account

The answer is a duty deferment account. Unlike VAT which cancels out on the VAT return, DDA is a separate account with HMRC where they charge you the duty due. There seems to be a pre-pay option but not clear how that works, and a direct debit option, and a need to guarantee the duty due. So a tad more messy. We have done all that.

But surely that is it - link to your EORI/VAT number on the parcel and have duty paid by monthly DD without any annoying courier admin fees.

No, not actually!

No, it is not so simple (WTF not?).

I have a DDA account number which has to be quoted, which is not the VAT or EORI number.

I have to complete a form and send to HMRC telling them the exact details of the import agent(s), i.e. couriers, I wish to use and authorising them to use the DDA account number.

I also have to tell the agent (e.g. DHL) to use the account and confirm they have the authority (copy of the form).

Why make is so bloody difficult! Arrrg!

Oh, icing on the cake, the form does not appear to actually be on gov.uk web sites anywhere!

I'll see how this all goes... Now to argue over a £5 admin fee with DHL.

Update:

Even though DHL, and web pages on gov.uk, all refer to this mystery form, apparently it is now an on-line thing - so simpler, but not as easy.

The end of 17070 and serious consequences

I just read a very concerning article on BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgknm8xrgpo

TL;DR BT crossed wires and so a criminal investigation led to wrong address causing a lot of issues for innocent parties.

Police

The decision is the police did nothing wrong.

I would argue police acting solely on IP address information is negligent of the police. So I disagree with the finding. There are a lot of reasons an IP may not identify a person - not least of which is "bill payer" is not "user", and also deliberately or accidentally open WiFI, and tor proxy, and hacked routers, and so on and so on. And, of course, crossed lines happen, so IP is never definitive. They should have more evidence before taking such drastic action, in my opinion. It is almost akin to reading the "return address" on an envelope and assuming it is genuine and raiding someone as a result.

The simplest test they could have done, if going as far as visiting the property, is checking the IP address on their Internet access matches the evidence.

Update: just to be clear, we (AAISP) have a policy in response to any request from police (or anyone else) under the Investigatory Powers Act, which we would expect to almost always just be a request to identify bill payer/address, to respond (as required) but to always include a very clear statement that you absolutely cannot rely on an IP or calling number as indicating the bill payer, or even someone at the address, instigated the traffic/calls. We would aim to try to educate police in the reply. We could perhaps even get some for numbers/IPs that are not ours, and would reply accordingly. To say we have had no requests would be implausible, but ironically the legal issues means we cannot say if we have had requests or not, which is, itself, somewhat crazy.

Crossed lines

But let's consider how crossed lines happen - it is simple, and literally crossed lines where one pair of wires is on wrong port on the DP.

So why was a crossed line not identified?

17070

BT engineer calling 17070

It used to be pretty easy to tell a line is crossed, pick up the phone and call 17070 and it reads your number. Also calls cost, and a wrong itemised bill arriving is a clue that your line is not being used by you.

However with broadband and fixed costs, and so on, it is very easy for two lines to have working broadband on the same ISP, that works based on circuit and needs no login (or router auto configures based on circuit when first connected). And with dynamic or CGNAT you cannot tell you have the wrong IP even.

So customers cannot tell, but this is actually a bigger issue for BT.

The telephone side is gone, and now it is broadband only.

We had a case at the pub with two lines and one was jumped wrong, and BT had no means to tell which line was which now there is no dial tone on the line. As an ISP on site (rare) I was able to confirm which physical line went off when unplugged. But BT need to be able to identify a line - how are they not screaming at management about this now?

So what instead?

So what BT need is a way to identify lines now. And actually it is not as hard as it sounds.

The way broadband works is using PPPoE over DSL. The same is true for FTTP now (PPPoE Ethernet on ONT).

PPPoE has a handy identifier which is sent before any sort of login. Without knowing the ISP or login details a hand held test device for DSL or FTTP working could show the ID it sees.

These IDs are not very exciting at present - my DSL here has acc-aln2.ag

But it could not be hard to make that a circuit ID, or a complete port ID of some sort that the BT engineer can identify. I mean it would be ideal if the full circuit ID in BT, but even just cab27-port43 it would help the BT engineer a lot and avoid crossed lines and a range of other errors.

BT could even expect other ISPs that use BT wiring to have a similar scheme, why not?

It seems to me this should be a standard for such services, and BT engineers test kit should be able to show it. This are only going to get worse as more and more phone lines are phased out.

So I wonder if BT will consider this?

Oh, Amazon, you are crazy

They have lost a shipment from us, it seems, although getting a straight answer is not easy. They got it, but no more. What is annoying is I am 99% sure it showed the items as "found" and then changed to "0 found" - I may be wrong.

They state the shipment is eligible for investigation from 12th Oct, but no link to do that and opening tickets they kept saying it is not yet eligible yet. Latest was again insisting I check what the shipping page says and wait for that date. It still says 12th Oct. So I, er, checked the shipping page, waited (it is 13th already) for 12th to pass, and well, got back to them. What the fuck?

So finally a chat and they are talking of a claim - well I want to know if they have lost them first, but they would not answer and closed chat.

They then said for a claim they need loads of stuff including our purchase order from manufacturer, picking list, invoice, manufacture stamp or signature, all sorts.

They seem unable to cope with the fact that we are the manufacturer! So we have no shipping details of this product to us, or purchase order, or any such stuff.

They want a "picking list" for sending to Amazon. Well, I did not make one. But it seems they are happy for me to now make one! Well only if it is dated before we shipped, so I had to make one. Then it needs to be signed, FFS, so print, sign, and scan! Why! How is this a sane process?

I pointed out if I do not meet their criteria for a claim, I bet I meet the criteria of a county court.

Now, in next chat they are saying they will investigate. But only if they have documents for a claim.

At one point they say they need "Shipment or purchase order ID", after some to and fro, they want an Amazon shipping reference number. I was confused, how is that related to a "purchase order ID"? He sent me a screen shot. It is an Amazon reference, it seems.

So, err, I replied, "OK the Shipment or purchase order ID is 3IC25SUG"... Done... I mean, wow!

I had to make the "packing slip" at least three times to add more on to it. Apparently simply stating things on the chat does not count!

And then they want proof of delivery, so screen shot of the Amazon shipping page showing the tracking and receipt of the item getting to Amazon, from Royal Mail and Amazon point of view.

Bear in mind, all of this is in the context of a ticket about a specific shipment - such that he could get that screenshot to send me. So he has all of this information visible to him. I am sorry but this is really FUCKING STUPID, in so many ways.

However, lesson learned, next shipment I'll take pictures before sealing boxes. Maybe even a video with taping up and applying RM postage label.

Update: They agree lost, and agree to compensate, but some made up value that is not even the cost of the bare circuit boards!

Update: And I now feel this is even more special to be honest...

I sent a copy of the invoice for the circuit boards. Their response (though they did not actually email, just changed status on ticketing) is they cannot verify that this is for the item. The invoice lists the PCB file AUDIO_1. Well, it would. No reason for it to relate to the product listing name. They really do not cope with the concept of us being manufacturer.

The work around, suggested by Amazon agent, is change the listing to have AUDIO_1 in the title so it matches. Which means they are basically trusting me to say it is AUDIO_1, which is what I said in the first place when sending the invoice. But they may trust me if I change the name on the product title on their system! How is that remotely sane!!!

Update: They say they have accepted my evidence, which shows how much for the PCB, yay. They have revised the amount they are reimbursing to an amount that is around £3 LESS than the cost of the PCB. They keep referring to their "policy", one that clearly states that they will reimburse what it costs (not some random amount that is less). They won't explain their maths.

Update: They now show all the missing items as "located", yay, but oddly not in stock for sale or even "inbound".

Update: Apparently stating "Units located" is "not incorrect"!!!