Legacy meets innovation: How Safesquare saves 30-year-old building automation

Martin Mentzel: Yeah, so to understand this, we need to go a little bit into the past. So, it has been brought into the market in the beginning of the nineties. This is pretty long ago of course, and it has been developed by a company and provided by the company Echelon.

Ruth Heyduck: Mm-hmm.

Martin Mentzel: Over the last years, Echelon has been merged into Renesas, for the components to be supplied. And Renesas now has decided to discontinue these components that are normally mandatory in device design. The so-called components are mainly called neuron chips or transceiver components, right?

There's a variety of components that have been discontinued. The problem is that there are no replacement components available in the market directly. To be replaced, for example, one by one. So, there are other solutions needed to solve the problems to continue with product production and supply for end customers, right?

Ruth Heyduck: Quite scary to be honest. Thinking about it now, because you mentioned this technology affects lifts, escalators, security infrastructure and buildings, and you mentioned I think one manufacturer of lifts who now needs 8,000 controllers.

Martin Mentzel: At least per year. Yes. There are other markets even. It's also about access control in buildings. It's about door control, driving drawers and opening doors and so forth. It's also in medical systems. It's implemented in hospitals, for example, not just for normal building automation, for example for gas management in the operation rooms.

For the personnel there, the lights that are used during such operations and so forth are very, very dedicated and specific markets even. The problem here is also a little bit more dramatic because the components or the devices are not sold as we know from, for example, laptops or mobile phones, which are replaced after three years and so forth. It's more an industrial view on these systems and devices, and the producers need approximately 20 to 30 years support for these systems to maintain the systems and so forth.

So, this is pretty dramatic. And therefore, solutions are needed to continue for a lot of manufacturers, right?

Ruth Heyduck: Thank goodness I have you on the show today.

Martin Mentzel: Yes, of course.

Ruth Heyduck: So Safesquare has built, I think, you call it a new backbone IP stack. Can you explain in simple terms what this means and how it helps?

Martin Mentzel: Yes. So, we have developed a hardware and software platform to really replace components inside of existing designs of such devices. Unfortunately, a redesign is necessary. There's no one-to-one replacement for the existing components that have been discontinued. However, all the applications that have been driven so far can be managed by the new design.

We are using STMicroelectronics CPUs and some other components to attach to the legacy bus system, for example. But we are only using normal components, so no extraordinary components are in the design. So, with our solution, a producer can produce the devices for next decades. So, this is no problem.

Ruth Heyduck: Okay. You mentioned that there is a little bit of redesign necessary to switch from the old system to your system. Can you walk me through that? What happens when someone calls and says, help? I'm running out of these controllers, they are failing. What do I do now?

Martin Mentzel: Clear. So currently, the design consists of a component, CPU, which is called Neuron Chip. It's an eight-bit technology. But this is due to the history, right, and we are now using modern chips with smaller footprints of course, but also with 32-bit technology, right?

There are impacts on the hardware of course, because the chips need to be designed into the existing designs that are there. It can also be an advantage because it has more GPIOs and interfaces, those new CPUs, in comparison with the neuron chips. And so, it can even avoid to use components that are currently in the design and also generate costs.

On the other hand, the software needs to be yes, redesigned. So, we are using a real-time operating system with 32-bit structure of course. It is necessary to redevelop the software. It's also a porting issue, of course, but it cannot be ported directly, because of the pretty high jump from eight bit to 32 bits.

But if somebody understands his own software, it should not be a big deal to implement this to this new design.

Ruth Heyduck: And when I think of building automation, especially with a use case you mentioned in hospital environments like an operating room, I suppose you cannot afford any downtime in these critical infrastructure systems. What do you, how do you handle that? Or does that not involve your services?

Martin Mentzel: Yes. So, the neuron chip is pretty robust. It continuously works if the development is done correctly. It has some issues when updating software. It is possible to update the software inside the devices over the network.

So, this is also not possible with any bus system, but with LON it is possible. It is also possible with our solution, but with the neuron chip, the problem is that there is a downtime when downloading the software into the device because of the flashing process inside.

And with our solution, we have no downtime during the transfer of new software, for example, into the device. And it can be done in a dedicated time, to do a reboot because a reboot is required, but this only takes a short time and the time can be managed, right? It's not that it cannot be managed like in the chip. If you do the download with this chip directly after the download it reboots and is in, during the downloading period and the reboot not available. And this is not the same with our solution. Right.

Ruth Heyduck: Mm-hmm. And what does it typically cost to redesign an entire system versus your solution?

Martin Mentzel: The redesign is with regards to the hardware, of course. With the hardware, it is just a general cost that everybody is interested in. What needs to be kept in mind is that also the testing for EMC and so forth needs to be redone because we are running the new CPU with a higher frequency.

So, it's really requested to do an EMC testing again with the new design, with the software implementation. This is of course, due to the scale of the software, of the size of the software, of the functionality of the software and so forth. So, if it's an easy application, pretty less to implement, then it could last maybe two or three days, then it should be done.

Ruth Heyduck: And do most people know that they will have a LON problem or do they only realise it until something breaks?

Martin Mentzel: Yeah, so there was of course a discontinuation notice by Renesas, and I think a lot of people working for manufacturers of LON devices know this already. As we recognise currently because we currently also get new requests on a day-by-day basis. It's under process, I would say.

And the problem is that the last time buy is by September 15th, so this is from now pretty close or even gone. And then probably also people will wake up then from a scary dream and come to us maybe and ask for a solution. Right. But yes, it's in process and we are already talking with a lot of these OEMs to solve the problems.

A road to drive, right. So, most of the OEMs are ordering for the last time buy, or have ordered for the last time buy, to have something on stock for a definite period. This is on their proposal, of course. How long, to then jump to a new design maybe afterwards.

Ruth Heyduck: So that you have a fail-safe. You have the discontinued controller in stock in case you don't find a new solution in time and the leeway to react in a timely manner and not in a panic mode. I guess. Okay. Tell me a little bit about Safesquare's story. What's your background and what led you to tackle this problem?

Martin Mentzel: So, we are working with the LON technology since 95. A few years after the things came out to the market from the original position. We are a service provider development, services provider, especially, and we have in the past developed a lot of LON devices for different manufacturers, including all the software part on the embedded side, but there's also in a lot of cases, the need of configuration software on a PC side to get this up and running in the field. This is also part of our job to develop those things.

And we had, to come to the Babi-LON solution. Approximately 10 years ago, we had a request from a big customer, buying a lot of neuron chips per year. They wanted to get a replacement for this. And this was the initial starting point to begin with the development.

We developed it. It was a little bit specific in the overall development for this OEM, but this was the starting point for Babi-LON. After that, we continued to work on this platform, and we improved it and extended it by specific functionality so that it is really comparable with the neuron chip with all the functionalities.

But in addition, has also some extended functionality that the neuron chip, due to the technology that has been chosen in the past, is superseding this. Okay. So that we have even advantages. Not only to continue with the same functionality for OEMs with their systems, but also to, for example, add IP communication directly into the design.

Even over the legacy media, like the two wires or the power line or the RF or what have you, right? So, this is also an issue to, for OEMs, maybe to choose for our platform because we lead the existing architecture of the systems and design and so forth, really without big changes to IoT.

Ruth Heyduck: Mm-hmm.

Martin Mentzel: Right.

Ruth Heyduck: So, what kind of started as a niche market? You could identify this as an opportunity, and you saw that there really was a business there. Is that how it worked?

Martin Mentzel: Yes. So, the one or the other might know that for a lot of years, approximately 15 years, LON is called a dead technology because it has not been continued by dedicated manufacturers of devices. This is true, but it's not a dead technology because it will even continue after the discontinuation of the chips.

We see this currently because it's a good technology to be implemented as a very robust, easy to install and easy to use system. Right. So, it really has big advantages, for example, against CAN technology, Modbus RTU technology, and others of these sort, based on those transceiver technologies, right?

And this is really a big advantage. Even new customers could jump in into this boat and can have the guarantee that this is not a single source solution. That this is really a long-term solution for their devices and system.

Ruth Heyduck: And when you can you explain this also with use cases, like we have already mentioned some, you said, anything building automation, but I think also transportation, hospital infrastructure. What else is there to explain?

Martin Mentzel: Yes. So, for example, when you talk about bus systems, you first have the limit of course number of devices to be put to one wire, to the two wires maybe. And also, the distances of communication. And we are talking with LON with regards to the two-wire technology, for example, about at least 400 metres to 500 metres, with free topology.

This, what does it mean? That means you can wire the cable as you want. You do not need to take regard to bus structure. You can make your trees; you can even build rings with this system. So, it's very easy for any technician out there to install it with the wiring. And you have a distance of approximately 500 metres.

In this case, if you use the same technology, for example, as a bus technology, you can reach out for two kilometres in the overall distance of this wiring. And this is the reason why it has been installed in a lot of buildings for the normal building automation, which means lighting, sunlight, driving, HVAC control and so forth.

So, because of the distance, because you have a lot of area, so for example, a few hundred square metres per level, then you can easily connect these devices with the two wires. And this is also different to other systems. Some other use cases beyond that are, as you mentioned, the lifts or even escalators.

They are connected also with the same technology. Why do manufacturers choose for this technology? They have a cabin. Everybody knows. And everybody used it already, and this is driving right? They have a central station mainly where the drives are and all the other mechanical things.

The cabin is moving and there is a cable necessary to the cabin and this cable needs to be rolled up and rolled down when the cabin is moving. This needs to be the right cabling. During all these scenarios, the communication needs to properly work. This, for example, can be qualified by the manufacturers with dedicated cables, and they have a good experience that this works.

Excellent. And for this reason, they would like to stay right? With the technology?

Ruth Heyduck: Hmm.

Martin Mentzel: Yes. So, in the hospital we have a similar use case from the technology point of view, like in the building automation, because also there, with the STA stations for the patients, it is also a big area to be managed by the cabling.

And so, it's a similar approach in this case.

Ruth Heyduck: Okay.

Martin Mentzel: Yes, for power line technology, which we also provide a solution for, this is used in trains. Probably nobody knows about that. So, in trains and in other vehicles that are available by dedicated manufacturers to control the brakes to control the doors.

And such things. So, it's a very good variety of applications that are covered by the technology. And, as I mentioned, all these applications, everybody can imagine, that there are really reasons for OEMs to stay with the technology. And I would think there are also good reasons for manufacturers that are in dedicated fields of business, to decide for this technology, even if they have not used it before.

Ruth Heyduck: Okay. And that fits perfect to my next question. Looking ahead, my question was if this solution is a bridge to something new or if you see the LON technology continuing for the next 30 years with your improvements?

Martin Mentzel: I see it more continuing. Of course, in all the, not in all areas, but in a lot of areas. The IoT approach leads to mostly ethernet connected systems. This is also true for building automation to take this application. So, in building automation, when something is really not only modernised normally, but even re-cabled with this modernisation.

Then, the new devices have more power consumption. This is the first thing. So, it's less efficient, due to power consumption for the devices themselves. And this is a big factor over the operating time because the operating time needs to be viewed as at least 20 years.

This can be avoided when using just the two wires. The only thing that the ethernet connectivity is needed for, is for directly IP communication. But we extended our platform to directly communicate with IP over the two wires.

So, if somebody has the two wires or wants to use two wires in a new building, for example, or during modernisation, it's really possible to have a control network over the two wires using the LON technology and in parallel, using IP. For connecting to some management systems. So, in the building automation, the protocol BACnet is mainly used to connect to the management system.

And for this reason, we also developed in our platform, BACnet stack that is certified and that directly leads to a communication inside of the devices to directly communicate over BACnet IP. We cannot go too much into technical details to explain all the stuff because it's a little bit more than one sentence, but we have achieved a good solution to directly connect to a so-called Building Management System over BACnet IP directly from the field, from the very end, lowest end to the BMS. It's even better in this case than using ethernet controllers that have subsystems.

So, there are a lot of ethernet controllers, of course. In the building automation, for example. But there is a problem, for example, to connect a room panel because if you have a socket in the wall, it's not possible to use a patch cable because it's even too huge, right? It's not manageable. So, you need the two wiring.

But if you use, for example, Modbus, this is just an extended IO. It's not a direct IO of the ethernet controller, and so you cannot manage everything on the sensor and actuating side in this case. And with the LON directly implemented in the sensor and actuator, and directly IP communication, it's really superseding the features that can be used with this technology then. Right? And so, I'm pretty optimistic that this also leads over time to a revival of LON technology, even in the building automation.

Ruth Heyduck: Yeah. Yeah. It seems the message is clear. LON is here to stay.

Martin Mentzel: Yes. It will not go away, unfortunately.

Ruth Heyduck: Yeah, and I think, by the time this episode airs, you might have already also, done a webinar on the topic. So, I will put the links in the show notes once it's out so that our listeners can do a greater deep dive into the topic and learn more about LON and the technology and the solutions you're providing.

Martin Mentzel: Yeah, this is really great. Then we will maybe meet again with somebody that has heard about this here.

Ruth Heyduck: That'd be terrific. I'm happy to have you again. The LON story really highlights the challenge. I think we will probably see more often that critical infrastructure that is built to last decades suddenly faces component shortages.

It has been really great to learn about your solutions and all the engineering work you have put into this. Thank you so much, Martin, for coming on the show today and sharing your expertise.

Martin Mentzel: Yeah. Thank you, Ruth.