On the base unit, the - side of both DC inputs are tied together.  It is
designed that way, since it was designed to be powered from two positive
sources.

If you are connecting two -48VDC busses to the base unit by connecting
'common or return' to the + input on each, and the -48VDC bus to the -
input on each, the base unit will internally connect both of those buses.
As I described, this is by design because the unit was designed for +
voltages, not negative ones.

The next iteration of the base unit will handle this much more gracefully.
  I am not yet sure about whether the device will simply just support
either +48VDC or -48VDC, or if you'll have to select it in some way (at
ordering, with a jumper, etc....)



On May 10, 2017 7:34 AM, "Sorin Esanu" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Yes, neg48 plant.
>  I’ll send the requested info.
>
> Thank you!
>
>
> On 10 May 2017, at 16:32, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> If we're still selling the same version of a product,  we warranty it.  We
> regularly replace things which are far older.  I like to see the in field
> failures so I can roll the lessons learned into the next generation of
> products.
>
> Just send an email info [email protected] with the serial (mac
> address) and your address we'll send a ups label to ship it back to us.
> Please include a note as to what is wrong so I can remember when I look at
> it.
>
> Oh,  one thing I just noticed. ..  is this a positive ground plant by
> chance?  (I.E. -48)
>
>
> On May 10, 2017 7:16 AM, "Sorin Esanu" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> We’re monitoring A and B of our DC power plant. It is wired directly into
> the GMT fuses panel, A and B sides.
> This particular unit was installed over 1 year ago, close to 2 years. If
> your offer is still valid, let me know the procedure.
>
> Thanks!
>
> On 10 May 2017, at 10:32, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> Can you let me know more about your setup?
>
> Is this the unit you bought in November?  (In case this is something which
> has gone weird with a batch, and somehow not caught by our test procedures).
>
> If you've got a defective one, we'll swap it, paying shipping both ways.
>
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Sorin Esanu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> We’ve experienced this exact same behaviour last week. It seems like PWR1
>> and PWR2 are acting like one now.
>> We are in process of replacing all the SiteMonitor II devices with Tycon
>> TPDIN-Monitor-WEB2, which can monitor more things and it’s a lot smarter.
>>
>>
>> > On 10 May 2017, at 01:31, Bill Prince <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > I think I have a SiteMonitor II with a problem, as I always thought
>> that the two power sensors (PWR1 and PWR2) were independent of each other,
>> and should have a pretty high impedance between then.
>> >
>> > We set  up a new solar site, and put our load on PWR1 and the batteries
>> on PWR2. As soon as we hook up either one of the sense wires, the breaker
>> to the batteries (30 amp) pops, and all the lights go out.
>> >
>> > We can monitor one voltage on PWR1, or the same or different voltage on
>> PWR2. However, if both are connected we blow the 30 amp breaker to the
>> batteries.
>> >
>> > We've checked the polarity (both voltages are negative ground), and
>> they are both "about" the same voltage (although we have monitored
>> radically different voltage in the past (like 12V on one and 48V on the
>> other). This is a 48VDC system, so we are seeing ~~ 56V on both right now,
>> >
>> > BTW, when we hook up just one of the sensors and leave the other open,
>> we see ~~ 43 volts between PWR1 and PWR2. I haven't checked other
>> SiteMonitors, but this doesn't seem right to me.
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > --
>> > bp
>> > part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
> [email protected] | http://www.packetflux.com
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/fwchristian>  <http://facebook.com/packetflux>
>   <http://twitter.com/@packetflux>
>
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to