Search
1000 results for “commons_protocol”
-
Yesterday I led a half-day workshop for a group of high school students. The content was purely practical: a lot of labs and hands-on exercises and challenges about computer networks, #networktrafficanalysis and #cybersecurity.
Girls made their own Ethernet cables to connect to our lab network. Then they analyzed common network protocols and their privacy issues and how the browser settings can affect the amount of sensitive information in the network traffic.
Pro tip: together with HTTPS-Only Mode in all windows, also enable DNS over HTTPS using Increased Protection or Max Protection.
Pro tip 2: even with those hardened settings, it is often possible to see which websites the user visits, because of TLS SNI or TLS CertificatesAfter that, the girls had the opportunity to try CTF-like activity in the lab network full of old #MikroTik and #Ubiquiti devices and virtual machines with various services exposed.
A little bit off-topic: This was the first workshop I completely led using my old #ThinkPad with #FreeBSD
#MayTheSourceBeWithYou
#PCAPorItDidntHappen#education #womeninstem #womenintech #SecurityGirl #AjTyvIT #wireshark #CTF #handsonlearning #learningbydoing
-
Yesterday I led a half-day workshop for a group of high school students. The content was purely practical: a lot of labs and hands-on exercises and challenges about computer networks, #networktrafficanalysis and #cybersecurity.
Girls made their own Ethernet cables to connect to our lab network. Then they analyzed common network protocols and their privacy issues and how the browser settings can affect the amount of sensitive information in the network traffic.
Pro tip: together with HTTPS-Only Mode in all windows, also enable DNS over HTTPS using Increased Protection or Max Protection.
Pro tip 2: even with those hardened settings, it is often possible to see which websites the user visits, because of TLS SNI or TLS CertificatesAfter that, the girls had the opportunity to try CTF-like activity in the lab network full of old #MikroTik and #Ubiquiti devices and virtual machines with various services exposed.
A little bit off-topic: This was the first workshop I completely led using my old #ThinkPad with #FreeBSD
#MayTheSourceBeWithYou
#PCAPorItDidntHappen#education #womeninstem #womenintech #SecurityGirl #AjTyvIT #wireshark #CTF #handsonlearning #learningbydoing
-
February saw another momentous step in the ambitious John Cage Organ Art Project at Halberstadt when the playing chord changed for the first time in two years. The resultant chord will now continue to play for another two years before the next change.
The project is a performance of John Cage’s ORGAN2/ASLSP, generally known by the title “As slow as possible“. Written in 1987, performances generally last between a few hours up to a day. The longest completed performance lasted 24 hours. The Halberstadt performance started in 2001 and is planned to finish in 2640, taking a staggering 639 years. The duration was chosen as this was the age of the church when the performance started. The website includes a virtual walk-through of the church, extracts of the sounds, full rationale for the project and details of all the note-changes.
Having performed a Lo-Fi version of John Cage’s 4’33” I was wondering what to do for a follow up so when I saw the recent note change, the idea started to form for a microcontroller take on ORGAN2/ASLSP – could I get a microcontroller to run as slow as possible and still play the music?
Spoilers: I’ve used a Raspberry Pi Pico, running at 20MHz, which admittedly isn’t all that slow! But it will do for today as a proof of concept to show that there might be some merit in my thinking. It is all really just an excuse to think about how I might go about it in the future. All that thinking so far has been written up in this post and some ideas for future directions provided at the end.
So here is my Lo-Fi Performance of a short extract of the opening of John Cage’s ORGAN2/ASLSP which I’ve called PICO2/AFPOC.
Warning! I strongly recommend using old or second hand equipment for your experiments. I am not responsible for any damage to expensive instruments!
If you are new to microcontrollers, see the Getting Started pages.
Introduction and Initial Thoughts
There was obviously no point in attempting something new on the longevity front, and as for the performances that last several hours, well I could just power up a microcontroller and have it playing until any resulting video was simply too long to upload.
No, I needed a different take, so I decided to interpret “as slow as possible” in a different way. What if the timings for the notes could come from a microcontroller running as slow as possible, yet still able to produce sound?
In these days of GHz and multi-MHz processor frequencies, the idea of turning a microprocessor down to slower, yet still usable speeds really appealed.
So that is the direction I’ve decided to go.
Underclocking a MCU
The practice of winding up the clock on a processor of any sort is called overclocking and is a well used technique. I used it myself with my PicoDexed to run the Pi Pico at 250MHz to support more polyphony.
Sometimes it requires additional cooling, as the processor is now working harder than initially designed for. As a consequence it will draw additional power too.
Underclocking is less used (I believe) but not unusual in microcontrollers, as generally speaking winding down the processor system clock can allow it to consume less power. If the processing power isn’t needed for your application this can give significant improvements in power consumption. Useful if you want to run it off a battery for example.
So, how (s)low can we go? Well as with all things, it depends.
One thing to look out for in a microcontroller for underclocking is “fully static operation”. These magic words might be listed in the specification and essentially means that the MCU has what is known as a static core. This means that the processor will retain all its state between successive clock “ticks”. If perfectly static, one should be able, in principle, to manually trigger each tick and have the MCU work through all operations – fetching instructions, reading/writing to memory or IO, calculations, etc – on each clock tick quite happily.
Again, in principle, it could even be paused in this low-power “static” state until the clock is started up again. Note – that is “low power” not “no power” – the state requires a trickle of power to be maintained, but it is a lot less than a running processor.
The reality is a little more complex. I was initially quite intrigued to note that the ATtiny85 (a microcontroller I’ve played with, but not really blogged about here) claims fully static operation, and can be used with an external clock. However that comes with a caveat:
“When applying an external clock, it is required to avoid sudden changes in the applied clock frequency to ensure stable operation of the MCU. A variation in frequency of more than 2% from one clock cycle to the next can lead to unpredictable behavior.“
A typical modern microcontroller is a complex beast, especially when it comes to timers and clocks. There are typically many options: external or internal (e.g. PLL) clocks; pre-scalar settings to “scale down” the clocks used; different clocks for different subsystems – e.g. IO, comms, counter/timers, USB, etc.
Another issue is that sometimes the MCU has to be configured in a specific mode, sometimes with a specific frequency of clock, via “FUSES”. These are hardware-related configuration settings sometimes configurable with the IDE, but often requiring a specific programming option via the toolchain.
But as the usual way to set these fuses is through the debug interface, which itself is usually some kind of serial protocol (SWD or similar, possibly even over USB). Serial protocols will be running at a known frequency (baud), so their operation is highly dependent on the system clock speed. Changing the operating frequency of the device is a sure way to mess up your debug communications and leave you with an inaccessible device!
But generally speaking, keeping to a “sensible” clock frequency, with commonly available crystals, and perhaps a useful multiple of common serial protocol or USB baud rates is usually quite doable.
But is that “as slow as possible”?
The Music and Audio
Whilst I could underclock a processor and then have it somehow trigger sound generation elsewhere, what I really want is for it to still be able to generate the audio itself. So a little analysis of what kind of audio will be required is probably worth a brief diversion at this point.
There are a number of snapshots of part of the score for ORGAN2/ASLSP online, so we can be a feel for the kind of thing quite easily.
In the interests of practical application, I’m not going to attempt an entire performance, but instead thought I’d look at what would be required to get the same point as the Halberstadt performance.
The full piece is in eight parts. Helpfully both wikipedia and the aslsp project have lists of the changes so far, so I popped them into a spreadsheet and came up with the following as my “score” for this short extract of the first section of the piece. The full piece itself has eight sections in total.
The dates are the dates the note changes happened in Halberstadt. The last two columns are the number of days from the start of the project and the number of days between steps. I’m going to use the last column as the basis of the timings for each step.
Taking the full range of notes in this extract means I need to be able to play up to eight notes at a time from the following set:
The middle column is the frequency in Hz of the note, and the last column is the equivalent MIDI note number.
We can see from this that I need the microcontroller to be able to generate sounds at frequencies between ~160Hz through to just over 830Hz. Taking the simplest audio output on a microcontroller to be a basic oscillating square wave (i.e. just turning a pin on and off at a known frequency), then in principle audio might still be achievable even down to a basic processor clock frequency in the small number of kHz…?
Clocks, Pre-scalars, Crystals and Timers
There is no simple way to get a microcontroller down to these speeds that I’ve found so far. It will almost certainly need a custom external crystal oscillator. I’ll need to do some more reading and experimentation if I wanted to drive a microcontroller down to low speeds with external circuitry and that is probably going to take a bit of figuring out and might be beyond my basic electronics knowledge anyway. So that might be a follow-on project at some point in the future.
For now, I already know that the Raspberry Pi Pico has a software API call that can set the processor clock. It is what I used for my PicoDexed. It is called set_sys_clock_khz() which sounds promising. If this works, it means the system can boot at normal speed and then from software switch over to a slower speed at run-time.
The clock subsystem for the RP2040 is pretty complicated however. There are several clocks that need setting up properly. This is fully described in the RP2040 datasheet (sections 2.15, 2.16, 2.17 and 2.18) and in the appropriate SDK documentation. The main options are:
- External crystal (XOSC) typically in the range 1-15 MHz.
- Internal ring oscillator (ROSC) typically in the range 1.8-12MHz.
- Two on-chip phase-locked loops (PLL) which can scale up from the external oscillator to higher frequencies. One is used for the system clock and one for USB and the ADCs.
Interestingly there is also an option to synchronise the clocks via specific GPIO inputs too.
The Raspberry Pi Pico uses an external 12MHz crystal to drive the RP2040 and the PLLs are configured for a 125MHz system clock and 48MHz USB/ADC.
As far as I can see set_sys_clock_khz() will work out a valid set of configuration registers and then set the PLL clock of the Pico. But only certain values are possible corresponding to the various combinations of the hardware registers. There are only specific frequencies that are supported.
Regardless of the frequency of a clock source, the user-available end clocks can usually be scaled back more if required. A typical method of scaling clock sources is to use a pre-scalar or divider value. These would often be a power of two, but not always.
The timers on an ATmega328, for example, can be linked to the system clock and scaled by factors of two by 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 and so on. This way, the 16MHz clock on an Arduino could become a 8MHz, 4MHz, 2MHz, 1MHz, etc “tick” when driving one of the timers.
The Pico incudes dividers too. The ROSC can be scaled down a factor of between 1 and 32 for example (the DIV register). The PLL has two dividers (POSTDIV1, POSTDIV2). Section 2.18.12 in the datasheet has the full set of criteria for setting the various configuration registers for the PLL.
It is complicated, which is why there is a python script provided that can be used to calculate the values for your requested frequency: https://github.com/raspberrypi/pico-sdk/blob/master/src/rp2_common/hardware_clocks/scripts/vcocalc.py.
There is also an API function that can be used to check if the requested values might work prior to their use: check_sys_clock_khz().
There is a Micropython function to set the system clock too: machine.freq(freq) which is pretty handy.
Putting various values into the python script, it appears to only go down to 8MHz without causing an exception, but it seems that the Micropython function itself will only accept down to 20,000,000 without returning “cannot change frequency”. I’m not sure why that is, as the code appears to just call set_sys_clock_khz() from the SDK which I think is following the same logic that is encoded in the python script.
If the minimum VCO frequency used by default in the calculations can be changed (I believe it defaults to 750MHz, but there have been suggestions that in previous versions of the SDK it was 400MHz) then lower frequencies might be possible. It seems to affect the following lines in check_sys_clock_khz() which is the function used in set_sys_clock_khz() to determine if a frequency is valid or not:
uint vco_khz = fbdiv * reference_freq_khz;
if (vco_khz < PICO_PLL_VCO_MIN_FREQ_KHZ ||
vco_khz > PICO_PLL_VCO_MAX_FREQ_KHZ) continue;This is iterating through fbdiv values from 320 down to 16. With a MIN_FREQ_KHZ of 750,000 only fbdiv values above 62 are valid. With a MIN_FREQ_KHZ of 400,000 that drops to around 33 opening up more possibilities.
The rest of the code then effectively “brute forces” various values of postdiv2 and postdiv1 to see if any of them yield the requested frequency. If not, then it will return FALSE, but if a combination is found it returns values for the VCO and the two dividers.
The upshot of all this is that unfortunately, despite the names of the API functions, I’ve not been able to successfully configure a clock below 20MHz. There might be other options, so further investigation will be required, but I suspect this is as (s)low as possible for now.
Which in microcontroller terms, is still actually pretty fast!
Here is the resultant initialisation code:
machine.freq(125000000) # Reset to normal for comparison
print ("Frequency: ", machine.freq())
for n in range (0, 10):
timepin.toggle()
machine.freq(20000000) # Slow down
print ("Frequency: ", machine.freq())
for n in range (0, 10):
timepin.toggle()And this is the result of monitoring the timepin:
So that looks promising at least in that I know the frequency has appeared to change.
In order to continue with the proof of concept, I’ve cheated for now. I’ve added a waiting loop delay in my main code! This slows the execution down by several factors, yielding toggle timings as follows:
- Full speed (125MHz): toggle period 20uS.
- Slowed (20MHz): toggle period 160uS.
- With waiting loop: toggle period 2mS.
I was tempted to add in another factor of 10 waiting around, but that would make the performance too long for a short demonstration, and as this isn’t really doing what I wanted fully – i.e. the timings are already somewhat artificial due to code waiting loops, and not wholly down to microcontroller speed, I didn’t see it necessary to prove the concept.
The PICO2/AFPOC Performance
Putting all this together, on a Raspberry Pi Pico, means that the first 518 unit wait before any notes sound lasts around 16 seconds and the longest sounding chord, at 2527 units, lasts around 1 minute, 20 seconds.
The entire extract at this speed takes just under 5 minutes which is long (and slow) enough to show that the idea might have some merit.
The sound itself is produced using Ben Everard’s PIOBeep library, which configures the Raspberry Pi Pico’s PIO state machines for a square wave output. This is the approach I used with my Pi Pico PIO Poly Tone Keyboard. For this demonstration I’ve used my Pi Pico PIO Poly Tone MIDI “Pack”.
The PIO runs at some divisor of the Pico’s system clock. The Micropython PIO interface allows the frequency to be set, and one of the examples in the Raspberry Pi Pico Python SDK guide shows a frequency of 2000Hz. The Micropython documentation for the RP2040 StateMachine class states the following about the “freq” parameter to StateMachine.init():
“freq is the frequency in Hz to run the state machine at. Defaults to the system clock frequency.
The clock divider is computed as
system clock frequency / freq, so there can be slight rounding errors.The minimum possible clock divider is one 65536th of the system clock: so at the default system clock frequency of 125MHz, the minimum value of freq is
1908. To run state machines at slower frequencies, you’ll need to reduce the system clock speed with machine.freq().“This can be seen in the source implementation. The following code calculates the PIO clock divisor for a given frequency. We can see how this will pick up any system frequency changes automatically via the call to clock_get_hz(clk_sys).
From rp2_pio.c:
// Frequency given in Hz, compute clkdiv from it.
uint64_t div = (uint64_t)clock_get_hz(clk_sys) * 256ULL /
(uint64_t)args[ARG_freq].u_int;
if (!(div >= 1 * 256 && div <= 65536 * 256)) {
mp_raise_ValueError(MP_ERROR_TEXT("freq out of range"));
}
clkdiv_int = div / 256;
clkdiv_frac = div & 0xff;Note the clk_sys is configured from set_sys_clock_pll() which is used by set_sys_clock_khz() which is used by machine.freq().
Ideally, the system clock would be running at such low frequencies that no divisor need be used, but for now I’ve just stuck with the default frequency specified in the PIOBeep library, of 1MHz rather than mess around with changing it.
Ok, so none of this is very slow, and it certainly isn’t “as slow as possible” at the moment, but it gives me plenty to work with moving forward.
Closing Thoughts
I’m happy I’ve proven the concept. There is plenty to do if I want to genuinely get this to be “as slow as possible”. Future directions for investigation are:
- See if the C/C++ SDK gives me access to raw registers on the Pico which might allow a system clock of less than 20MHz.
- See if there is any possibility of replacing the external crystal on a Pico with something slower.
- Learn how to drive a different microcontroller from an external clock. Ideally this would be one that doesn’t need a specific frequency setting in fuses. There might be something in the ATtiny range that is suitable, but more research is needed.
- Go back in time and get a “vintage” CPU on the case. My ZX Spectrum had a 3.5MHz Z80 back in the day so there must be several possibilities there.
Ultimately, if I’m simply triggering and generating tones then there might even be potential here for some discrete logic driven oscillators.
At one end, I guess I could have a bank of 555s for the oscillators and some (slow) logic to work out which to play. But is that really in the spirit of getting a microcontroller to go as slow as possible whilst making music? I’m not sure.
What would be really neat is a discrete logic CPU that could essentially be single-stepped to show itself working and then wound up to audio frequencies (say 2kHz) and have its outputs eventually become sound.
But considering today’s date, the ease of use of winding down the Pico this far, and the fact that the results are indeed audible, I’m very happy with my PICO2/AFPOC.
Kevin
https://diyelectromusic.wordpress.com/2024/04/01/pico2-afpoc/
#aslsp #johnCage #loficlassical #raspberryPiPico #tone #underclocking
-
Protocols for Common Injuries from Police Weapons
https://anarchist.nexus/c/anarchism/p/608894/protocols-for-common-injuries-from-police-weapons
-
Protocols for Common Injuries from Police Weapons
https://anarchist.nexus/c/anarchism/p/608894/protocols-for-common-injuries-from-police-weapons
-
Protocols for Common Injuries from Police Weapons
https://anarchist.nexus/c/anarchism/p/608894/protocols-for-common-injuries-from-police-weapons
-
Excellent article from @CrimethInc
Protocols for Common Injuries from Police Weapons - For Street Medics and Medical Professionals Treating Demonstrators
Discusses initial assessment and treatment of common injuries sustained during #protest events. Covers chemical devices, concussion grenades and rubber bullets.
Great basic knowledge to learn.
-
Excellent article from @CrimethInc
Protocols for Common Injuries from Police Weapons - For Street Medics and Medical Professionals Treating Demonstrators
Discusses initial assessment and treatment of common injuries sustained during #protest events. Covers chemical devices, concussion grenades and rubber bullets.
Great basic knowledge to learn.
-
Excellent article from @CrimethInc
Protocols for Common Injuries from Police Weapons - For Street Medics and Medical Professionals Treating Demonstrators
Discusses initial assessment and treatment of common injuries sustained during #protest events. Covers chemical devices, concussion grenades and rubber bullets.
Great basic knowledge to learn.
-
Excellent article from @CrimethInc
Protocols for Common Injuries from Police Weapons - For Street Medics and Medical Professionals Treating Demonstrators
Discusses initial assessment and treatment of common injuries sustained during #protest events. Covers chemical devices, concussion grenades and rubber bullets.
Great basic knowledge to learn.
-
Excellent article from @CrimethInc
Protocols for Common Injuries from Police Weapons - For Street Medics and Medical Professionals Treating Demonstrators
Discusses initial assessment and treatment of common injuries sustained during #protest events. Covers chemical devices, concussion grenades and rubber bullets.
Great basic knowledge to learn.
-
I looked up the display controller used by the SC-55’s display, and I suspected it follows the extremely common pinout and protocol used by most text LCDs of the era. I realized I have a display that will work, although the layout of the LCD elements is naturally totally wrong. So I wired it up, and it displays perfectly, confirming that the problem is indeed the SC-55’s display.
Unfortunately those are getting rarer and rarer to come by. There’s a small chance I can repair the existing display *if* I can identify the problem, find replacement ICs, and manage the very fiddly fine SMT desoldering/soldering that would be needed… but I may be better off just keeping an eye on eBay. #electronics #roland #soundcanvas #vintageelectronics #synth
-
EON currently sells a 11kW wallbox for a mere 199€, which is a steal in itself. In the past, most offers at double the price were very basic in their features. This one not so much. It’s actually a thinly whitelabeled Vestel EVC04 home smart 11kW. It brings WiFi and Ethernet, and speaks #OCPP 1.6, a by now rather common xml-based protocol for controlling charging infrastructure. That was my reason for buying, as I still somewhat remember OCPP from a research project 12 years ago, >
-
How common is it for authors of scientific papers to share the step-by-step method they used to get their results?
The latest Open Science Indicator we've developed at @PLOS tries to answer this question at scale. We're inviting feedback on the approach we've taken.
#OpenScience #OpenMethods #Protocols
https://theplosblog.plos.org/2023/10/measuring-protocol-sharing/
-
#ProtocolsForPublishers Nick Bennett: Mozilla Common Voice, which is labelled voice data in different languages is part of this
-
#ProtocolsForPublishers Nick Bennett: Mozilla Common Voice, which is labelled voice data in different languages is part of this
-
Das Protokolleditionen-Poster zur #TEIMEC2023 ist nun auch auf Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8359627) und in der H-Commons-Gruppe (https://hcommons.org/groups/encoding-cultures-joint-mec-and-tei-conference/documents/), siehe auch https://www.protokolleditionen.eu/aktuelles/2023/09/25/Poster-TEIMEC2023
#histodon #histodons -
Multi-language IDEs that interact with interpreters via protocols are now common, from classic Emacs with its inferior process protocols to VS Code with LSP and similar modern environments.
This paper described an early exploration of these ideas: a language-independend, Interlisp-based environment that interfaced with language processors over the ARPANET. In 1974.
-
Multi-language IDEs that interact with interpreters via protocols are now common, from classic Emacs with its inferior process protocols to VS Code with LSP and similar modern environments.
This paper described an early exploration of these ideas: a language-independend, Interlisp-based environment that interfaced with language processors over the ARPANET. In 1974.
-
Multi-language IDEs that interact with interpreters via protocols are now common, from classic Emacs with its inferior process protocols to VS Code with LSP and similar modern environments.
This paper described an early exploration of these ideas: a language-independend, Interlisp-based environment that interfaced with language processors over the ARPANET. In 1974.
-
Multi-language IDEs that interact with interpreters via protocols are now common, from classic Emacs with its inferior process protocols to VS Code with LSP and similar modern environments.
This paper described an early exploration of these ideas: a language-independend, Interlisp-based environment that interfaced with language processors over the ARPANET. In 1974.
-
Multi-language IDEs that interact with interpreters via protocols are now common, from classic Emacs with its inferior process protocols to VS Code with LSP and similar modern environments.
This paper described an early exploration of these ideas: a language-independend, Interlisp-based environment that interfaced with language processors over the ARPANET. In 1974.
-
Could the european #synchrotron get a common proposal /sample submission protocol developed for #MX and #SAXS. So much of my time seems to be spend reformatting / re-entering the same information in different formats and then getting the relevant user office complaining it isn't quite right.
-
Could the european #synchrotron get a common proposal /sample submission protocol developed for #MX and #SAXS. So much of my time seems to be spend reformatting / re-entering the same information in different formats and then getting the relevant user office complaining it isn't quite right.
-
Could the european #synchrotron get a common proposal /sample submission protocol developed for #MX and #SAXS. So much of my time seems to be spend reformatting / re-entering the same information in different formats and then getting the relevant user office complaining it isn't quite right.
-
Could the european #synchrotron get a common proposal /sample submission protocol developed for #MX and #SAXS. So much of my time seems to be spend reformatting / re-entering the same information in different formats and then getting the relevant user office complaining it isn't quite right.
-
Mavo’s Phantox Pro Wants to Shake Up the Mid-Range Manual Grinder Market
The manual coffee grinder market is a remarkably crowded space right now. There was a time when, if you wanted true precision grind quality, you bought a Comandante and accepted the price tag without flinching. Then 1Zpresso and Timemore arrived, collectively proving that serious burr geometry does not require a serious financial commitment. The mid-range segment they created is now seriously competitive, and a new name is trying to wedge itself right into that conversation.
That name is Mavo. The brand is not exactly a startup; they have been operating out of China since 2012, building a solid domestic presence while selling glass drippers, kettles, and electric grinders. For most of that time, their manual grinders were squarely aimed at the casual consumer market: somewhat capable, not particularly exciting.
The Phantox Pro (Amazon, $129) is a deliberate break from that. It is their first genuine shot at the specialty coffee enthusiast crowd, and it makes a reasonable case for itself. We got a sample unit in to check out for our forthcoming Best Budget Grinders for 2026 Guide, and have been putting it through its paces for a full Snapshot Review. Here are the initial impressions.
The box the Phantox Pro comes in.Build and Feel
Out of the box, the first thing you notice is the weight: a substantial 630 grams of CNC machined aluminium alloy. The fit and finish feel tight from the factory. There is no rattle in the handle assembly, no loose play anywhere. The “champagne” coloured unit we received looks sharp (a black version with slightly more readable markings is also available), and the cutouts and textures in the body give it a purposeful, grippy feel in hand. A silicone ring ships in the box for extra purchase if you need it.
The external grind adjustment dial is the thing you will notice first, and keep noticing. It moves with a dampened, deliberate resistance that is genuinely reminiscent of adjusting a manual f-stop ring on a high end camera lens (I’m talking Leica levels here, folks). There are 120 clicks per full revolution, with each click representing 0.0167mm of burr travel. It is a satisfying mechanism. More practically, it makes documenting and repeating your grind settings refreshingly straightforward. No guessing how many clicks from zero. No fumbling around with an internal adjustment collar while juggling a catch cup full of coffee you spent good money on.
The grind adjustment dial has 120 clicks and feels very nice when in use.Inside the chassis, Mavo uses a triple bearing stabilization system on the central axle to keep the inner burr running concentric under load. It is beefy and designed to work with a power drill if you’re so inclined (and don’t want to hand crank). In fact, the company ships the grinder with a secondary lid designed to work with a cordless drill.
This is the secondary lid the grinder ships with, if you’d prefer to use a cordless drill to electrically churn the burrs.One thing to note here: when you disassemble the grinder for a deep clean, the axle needs to be carefully realigned during reassembly. It is not complicated once you understand what is happening, but the first time you take it apart and find it does not quite want to go back together, do not force anything. Look closely at the axle alignment first.
The Burrs: What They Do Well, and What They Cannot Do
The 45mm seven-sided stainless steel burrs are the big picture story of this grinder. The cutting surface is noticeably larger than the 38mm to 40mm burrs common in this price bracket, and that size advantage pays off in grinding speed. In our initial testing, the Phantox Pro turned out roughly 0.5 grams per second at a standard pour over setting, which is a respectable clip for a hand grinder.
The rotating burr and its cutting pattern.The geometry of these burrs is genuinely unusual. The bottom third of the inner static burr does not use the standard conical cut pattern you would typically expect. Instead, it uses an aggressive hatch design that closely resembles a flat ghost burr, similar in principle to the burr design used in the much pricier Orphan Espresso Apex. Ghost burr geometries are known for producing highly uniform particle sizes while sharply limiting the production of fine coffee dust.
You can see the “ghost burr” pattern on the bottom portion of the static burr inside the grinder housing.That approach is very apparent in the cup. I’ve already pushed roughly 8kg of coffee through our test unit so far, and the output for pour over and full immersion brewing is impressive. The Phantox Pro produces a clean, well-separated flavour profile with good clarity and sweetness. For a Chemex, a press pot, a siphon, or a V60, this grinder punches well above its $140 USD price point. In early head to head testing, it is holding its own against our current filter benchmark, the 1Zpresso K Ultra, which costs considerably more.
The trade-off is straightforward and worth stating plainly: this burr design makes it a poor espresso grinder. Mavo markets the Phantox Pro as a multi-purpose tool capable of everything from Turkish coffee to French press, and the external dial has the mechanical precision to dial very fine. The problem is physics, not mechanics. Espresso extraction relies on a specific volume of fine particles to fill the gaps between larger grounds, building the puck resistance needed to generate nine bars of brew pressure.
Because these burrs are engineered to limit fines production, you simply cannot build that resistance. Shots run fast and extract poorly. No amount of careful dialling changes what the burr geometry is doing. Buyers who primarily pull espresso should look elsewhere, at something like the 1Zpresso J Ultra or the Kingrinder K6.
Where Things Stand
All that volume testing had a purpose: we wanted to know whether the Phantox Pro had earned a spot in our forthcoming Best Budget Grinders for 2026 Guide as a filter-focused recommendation. It has. For a brewer who lives and breathes pour over and immersion methods, $140 is a very reasonable entry point for this level of cup quality and build refinement.
We are wrapping up formal testing protocols now, including particle analysis and head to head comparisons with established competitors. Expect a full breakdown in our forthcoming Best Budget Grinders Guide, and a complete Snapshot Review of the Mavo Phantox Pro later this summer. In the meantime, the grinder is available on Amazon or directly from Mavo.
#brewGrinder #coffeeGrinder #grinder #manualGrinder #Mavo #phantoxPro -
Erzwungene „Grenzpartnerschaft“: EU-Kommission will US-Behörden erlauben, politische Ansichten und „Herkunft“ abzufragen
Laut dem nun vorliegenden Entwurf eines Rahmenabkommens über eine „Grenzpartnerschaft“ mit der Trump-Administration dürfen US-Behörden in EU-Staaten nicht nur Gesichtsbilder, sondern auch Namen, Gesundheitsdaten oder sexuelle Orientierung in Polizeidatenbanken abfragen.
Die Europäische Kommission hat nach Erteilung ihres Verhandlungsmandats im vergangenen Dezember ein Rahmenabkommen mit den USA über eine „Grenzpartnerschaft“ fertig ausgehandelt. Den Entwurf hat die britische Bürgerrechtsorganisation Statewatch veröffentlicht. Demzufolge geht das geplante Abkommen weit über die bislang bekannten US-Forderungen hinaus.
Den Abschluss einer „Enhanced Border Security Partnership“ (EBSP) hatte die US-Regierung bereits 2022 von allen Teilnehmerstaaten des Visa-Waiver-Programms (VWP) verlangt – mit einer Frist bis Ende 2026. Das VWP ermöglicht Staatsangehörigen aus 43 befreundeten Ländern im Rahmen von Kurzaufenthalten bis zu 90 Tagen visafreies Reisen in die USA – und umgekehrt.
Nun knüpft die Regierung in Washington die weitere Teilnahme an dem Programm an den Abschluss der „Grenzpartnerschaft“: Die beteiligten Staaten sollen ihre Polizeidatenbanken für US-Behörden öffnen. Wer sich weigert, verliert den visafreien Status. Das Abkommen soll dem Entwurf zufolge auf dem Prinzip der Gegenseitigkeit beruhen. EU-Mitgliedstaaten sollen also ihrerseits Zugriff auf US-Datenbanken erhalten – sofern sich die US-Regierung nicht dagegen sperrt.
Mehr als Fingerabdrücke und Gesichtsbilder
Im Entwurf für das Rahmenabkommen ist nun auch die Rede davon, die Datenabfrage dazu zu nutzen dass „Personen, die ein echtes Risiko für die öffentliche Sicherheit oder öffentliche Ordnung darstellen“, daran gehindert werden, in den USA „zu verbleiben“. Es geht also auch um Abschiebungen, wie sie derzeit monatlich tausendfach von der brutalen US-Einwanderungsbehörde ICE durchgeführt werden. Ursprünglich hieß es, die „Grenzpartnerschaft“ solle nur bei Einreisen in die USA angewandt werden.
Außerdem galt bislang, dass US-Grenzbehörden nur Zugriff auf Fingerabdrücke und Lichtbilder in Polizeidatenbanken der VWP-Staaten verlangen. Im von der EU-Kommission ausgehandelten Entwurf steht darüber hinaus, dass auch „alphanumerische Daten zur Identifizierung einer Person, wie Vorname, Nachname und Geburtsdatum“ abgefragt werden können.
Kommt es bei einer Anfrage zu einem Treffer, darf die angefragte Behörde – in Deutschland etwa das Bundeskriminalamt – ihrerseits nachfragen, was das Interesse an der Person ausgelöst hat und alle „bei der anfragenden zuständigen Behörde verfügbaren alphanumerischen und kontextuellen Daten zu derselben Person anfordern“.
Weitergabe an Drittstaaten möglich
Unter bestimmten Bedingungen dürfen laut Entwurf auch besonders sensible Kategorien personenbezogener Daten übermittelt werden, darunter Informationen zu „rassischer oder ethnischer Herkunft, politischen Ansichten oder religiösen oder sonstigen Überzeugungen, Gewerkschaftszugehörigkeit“ sowie Angaben zu „Gesundheit oder Sexualleben“.
Der Entwurf erlaubt sogar die Weitergabe empfangener Daten an Behörden in Drittstaaten oder internationale Organisationen – allerdings nur mit vorheriger Zustimmung der übermittelnden Behörde. Welche Drittstaaten konkret gemeint sein könnten, lässt der Entwurf offen. In Betracht kämen neben Interpol auch enge Verbündete der USA, etwa Großbritannien oder andere Staaten des Commonwealth sowie Israel, das eigene Abkommen zum Datentausch mit den USA geschlossen hat.
In Deutschland wären Millionen Datensätze betroffen
Angaben zu den abfrageberechtigten Behörden – auf US-Seite kämen vor allem der Zoll- und Grenzschutz (Customs and Border Protection, CBP) sowie ICE in Frage – enthält der nun veröffentlichte Rahmenentwurf nicht. Das soll jeweils in bilateralen Umsetzungsabkommen geregelt werden, die jeder betroffene Staat separat mit Washington schließen muss.
In Deutschland beträfe dies wohl die INPOL-Datenbank aller Polizeien des Bundes und der Länder, die derzeit Fotos und Fingerabdrücke von 5,4 Millionen Personen enthält – darunter mehr als die Hälfte Asylsuchende. Selbst innerhalb der EU gibt es bislang keinen gegenseitigen Direktzugriff auf derartig umfangreiche Informationssysteme einzelner Mitgliedstaaten – das geplante Abkommen mit den USA ist deshalb besonders intrusiv.
Das Rahmenabkommen regelt auch den Einsatz von Software zur Erstellung von Prognosen aus den abgefragten Datensätzen. Zwar sollen Entscheidungen mit „erheblichen nachteiligen Auswirkungen“ nicht ausschließlich automatisiert erfolgen, sondern stets mit „menschlicher Beteiligung“. Vollautomatische Entscheidungen sind aber erlaubt, wenn dies „nach dem jeweiligen Rechtsrahmen der Vertragsparteien zulässig“ ist. In der EU wäre dies nach der KI-Verordnung ausgeschlossen, in den USA gibt es einen vergleichbaren Rechtsakt nicht.
Eingeschränkte Rechte für Betroffene
Der Entwurf enthält auch Vorgaben zur Protokollierung für „Prüftätigkeiten“ unter anderem von Datenschutzbehörden. Das Abkommen sieht außerdem vor, dass betroffene Personen Auskunft über ihre gespeicherten Daten sowie deren Berichtigung oder Löschung beantragen können.
Diese Rechte stehen jedoch unter Einschränkungsvorbehalt: Verwehrt werden darf der Zugang unter anderem aus Gründen der nationalen Sicherheit, zum Schutz laufender Ermittlungen oder zur Strafverfolgung.
Den Entwurf des Rahmenabkommens werden die EU-Innen- und Justizminister*innen auf einer ihrer kommenden Sitzungen beraten. Nach derzeitigem Stand wird das Parlament daran nicht beteiligt. Die endgültige Entscheidung über den Abschluss wird dann im Rat der Europäischen Union von den 27 Mitgliedstaaten getroffen. Ob dies noch vor der Sommerpause erfolgt, ist unklar. Auch die US-Regierung muss ihre Zustimmung zu dem Entwurf geben. Bis zur Deadline am 31. Dezember 2026 könnte es dann in Kraft treten.
Matthias Monroy, Wissensarbeiter, Aktivist und Mitglied der Redaktion der Zeitschrift Bürgerrechte & Polizei/CILIP. Außerdem Redakteur für Innenpolitik der Zeitung nd.Der Tag. Texte auf Englisch unter digit.site36.net, auf Twitter @matthimon. Dieser Beitrag ist eine Übernahme von netzpolitik, gemäss Lizenz Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0.
-
Erzwungene „Grenzpartnerschaft“: EU-Kommission will US-Behörden erlauben, politische Ansichten und „Herkunft“ abzufragen
Laut dem nun vorliegenden Entwurf eines Rahmenabkommens über eine „Grenzpartnerschaft“ mit der Trump-Administration dürfen US-Behörden in EU-Staaten nicht nur Gesichtsbilder, sondern auch Namen, Gesundheitsdaten oder sexuelle Orientierung in Polizeidatenbanken abfragen.
Die Europäische Kommission hat nach Erteilung ihres Verhandlungsmandats im vergangenen Dezember ein Rahmenabkommen mit den USA über eine „Grenzpartnerschaft“ fertig ausgehandelt. Den Entwurf hat die britische Bürgerrechtsorganisation Statewatch veröffentlicht. Demzufolge geht das geplante Abkommen weit über die bislang bekannten US-Forderungen hinaus.
Den Abschluss einer „Enhanced Border Security Partnership“ (EBSP) hatte die US-Regierung bereits 2022 von allen Teilnehmerstaaten des Visa-Waiver-Programms (VWP) verlangt – mit einer Frist bis Ende 2026. Das VWP ermöglicht Staatsangehörigen aus 43 befreundeten Ländern im Rahmen von Kurzaufenthalten bis zu 90 Tagen visafreies Reisen in die USA – und umgekehrt.
Nun knüpft die Regierung in Washington die weitere Teilnahme an dem Programm an den Abschluss der „Grenzpartnerschaft“: Die beteiligten Staaten sollen ihre Polizeidatenbanken für US-Behörden öffnen. Wer sich weigert, verliert den visafreien Status. Das Abkommen soll dem Entwurf zufolge auf dem Prinzip der Gegenseitigkeit beruhen. EU-Mitgliedstaaten sollen also ihrerseits Zugriff auf US-Datenbanken erhalten – sofern sich die US-Regierung nicht dagegen sperrt.
Mehr als Fingerabdrücke und Gesichtsbilder
Im Entwurf für das Rahmenabkommen ist nun auch die Rede davon, die Datenabfrage dazu zu nutzen dass „Personen, die ein echtes Risiko für die öffentliche Sicherheit oder öffentliche Ordnung darstellen“, daran gehindert werden, in den USA „zu verbleiben“. Es geht also auch um Abschiebungen, wie sie derzeit monatlich tausendfach von der brutalen US-Einwanderungsbehörde ICE durchgeführt werden. Ursprünglich hieß es, die „Grenzpartnerschaft“ solle nur bei Einreisen in die USA angewandt werden.
Außerdem galt bislang, dass US-Grenzbehörden nur Zugriff auf Fingerabdrücke und Lichtbilder in Polizeidatenbanken der VWP-Staaten verlangen. Im von der EU-Kommission ausgehandelten Entwurf steht darüber hinaus, dass auch „alphanumerische Daten zur Identifizierung einer Person, wie Vorname, Nachname und Geburtsdatum“ abgefragt werden können.
Kommt es bei einer Anfrage zu einem Treffer, darf die angefragte Behörde – in Deutschland etwa das Bundeskriminalamt – ihrerseits nachfragen, was das Interesse an der Person ausgelöst hat und alle „bei der anfragenden zuständigen Behörde verfügbaren alphanumerischen und kontextuellen Daten zu derselben Person anfordern“.
Weitergabe an Drittstaaten möglich
Unter bestimmten Bedingungen dürfen laut Entwurf auch besonders sensible Kategorien personenbezogener Daten übermittelt werden, darunter Informationen zu „rassischer oder ethnischer Herkunft, politischen Ansichten oder religiösen oder sonstigen Überzeugungen, Gewerkschaftszugehörigkeit“ sowie Angaben zu „Gesundheit oder Sexualleben“.
Der Entwurf erlaubt sogar die Weitergabe empfangener Daten an Behörden in Drittstaaten oder internationale Organisationen – allerdings nur mit vorheriger Zustimmung der übermittelnden Behörde. Welche Drittstaaten konkret gemeint sein könnten, lässt der Entwurf offen. In Betracht kämen neben Interpol auch enge Verbündete der USA, etwa Großbritannien oder andere Staaten des Commonwealth sowie Israel, das eigene Abkommen zum Datentausch mit den USA geschlossen hat.
In Deutschland wären Millionen Datensätze betroffen
Angaben zu den abfrageberechtigten Behörden – auf US-Seite kämen vor allem der Zoll- und Grenzschutz (Customs and Border Protection, CBP) sowie ICE in Frage – enthält der nun veröffentlichte Rahmenentwurf nicht. Das soll jeweils in bilateralen Umsetzungsabkommen geregelt werden, die jeder betroffene Staat separat mit Washington schließen muss.
In Deutschland beträfe dies wohl die INPOL-Datenbank aller Polizeien des Bundes und der Länder, die derzeit Fotos und Fingerabdrücke von 5,4 Millionen Personen enthält – darunter mehr als die Hälfte Asylsuchende. Selbst innerhalb der EU gibt es bislang keinen gegenseitigen Direktzugriff auf derartig umfangreiche Informationssysteme einzelner Mitgliedstaaten – das geplante Abkommen mit den USA ist deshalb besonders intrusiv.
Das Rahmenabkommen regelt auch den Einsatz von Software zur Erstellung von Prognosen aus den abgefragten Datensätzen. Zwar sollen Entscheidungen mit „erheblichen nachteiligen Auswirkungen“ nicht ausschließlich automatisiert erfolgen, sondern stets mit „menschlicher Beteiligung“. Vollautomatische Entscheidungen sind aber erlaubt, wenn dies „nach dem jeweiligen Rechtsrahmen der Vertragsparteien zulässig“ ist. In der EU wäre dies nach der KI-Verordnung ausgeschlossen, in den USA gibt es einen vergleichbaren Rechtsakt nicht.
Eingeschränkte Rechte für Betroffene
Der Entwurf enthält auch Vorgaben zur Protokollierung für „Prüftätigkeiten“ unter anderem von Datenschutzbehörden. Das Abkommen sieht außerdem vor, dass betroffene Personen Auskunft über ihre gespeicherten Daten sowie deren Berichtigung oder Löschung beantragen können.
Diese Rechte stehen jedoch unter Einschränkungsvorbehalt: Verwehrt werden darf der Zugang unter anderem aus Gründen der nationalen Sicherheit, zum Schutz laufender Ermittlungen oder zur Strafverfolgung.
Den Entwurf des Rahmenabkommens werden die EU-Innen- und Justizminister*innen auf einer ihrer kommenden Sitzungen beraten. Nach derzeitigem Stand wird das Parlament daran nicht beteiligt. Die endgültige Entscheidung über den Abschluss wird dann im Rat der Europäischen Union von den 27 Mitgliedstaaten getroffen. Ob dies noch vor der Sommerpause erfolgt, ist unklar. Auch die US-Regierung muss ihre Zustimmung zu dem Entwurf geben. Bis zur Deadline am 31. Dezember 2026 könnte es dann in Kraft treten.
Matthias Monroy, Wissensarbeiter, Aktivist und Mitglied der Redaktion der Zeitschrift Bürgerrechte & Polizei/CILIP. Außerdem Redakteur für Innenpolitik der Zeitung nd.Der Tag. Texte auf Englisch unter digit.site36.net, auf Twitter @matthimon. Dieser Beitrag ist eine Übernahme von netzpolitik, gemäss Lizenz Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0.
Über Matthias Monroy - netzpolitik:
Unter der Kennung "Gastautor:innen" fassen wir die unterschiedlichsten Beiträge externer Quellen zusammen, die wir dankbar im Beueler-Extradienst (wieder-)veröffentlichen dürfen. Die Autor*innen, Quellen und ggf. Lizenzen sind, soweit bekannt, jeweils im Beitrag vermerkt und/oder verlinkt.
-
Cl-gopher is a Common Lisp library that implements the server and client sides of the Gopher protocol, as well as a sample text client. An easy to understand and well designed example of using CLOS.