|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > September 2005 > most efficient way to light, given a 48vdc pv system?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
most efficient way to light, given a 48vdc pv system?
|
|
|
| I am trying to light an off-grid house that had 60% of the lighting
configured for 12vdc, (large gauge wire feeding to a distribution
center in the middle of the house). The seller says that 12v lighting
is more efficient than 110vac, the inverter doesn't need to run at
night. Given my 48vdc system, what's the most efficient way to light?
I'm assuming that it's either a 48v to 12v converter, or reconfigure
the system and go with purely 110vac from my inverter, (xantrex 4048)?
I'm deep in Baja and would really appreciate some help from this group.
I am not beyond snivelling if that would expedite some assistance.
Thanks,
Per
| |
| Charles Foot 2005-07-31, 3:21 am |
| t38 wrote:
> I am trying to light an off-grid house that had 60% of the lighting
> configured for 12vdc, (large gauge wire feeding to a distribution
> center in the middle of the house). The seller says that 12v lighting
> is more efficient than 110vac, the inverter doesn't need to run at
> night. Given my 48vdc system, what's the most efficient way to light?
> I'm assuming that it's either a 48v to 12v converter, or reconfigure
> the system and go with purely 110vac from my inverter, (xantrex 4048)?
> I'm deep in Baja and would really appreciate some help from this group.
> I am not beyond snivelling if that would expedite some assistance.
> Thanks,
> Per
>
I'd say that the seller is sort of right, sort of wrong. An inverter is
more efficient the greater the load. And, a 48v to 12v converter is
going to lose some power in the process.
I assume you'll be running a lot more than just lights at night? Maybe a
TV, a DVD, a stereo maybe?
Compact (110vac) fluorescents are the way to go.... if you're running a
tv as well as a light or two.
12v wiring is a lot more 'lossy' than 48v also.
It's a good idea however, to keep a few critically placed 48v. lights in
the system, just in case the inverter decides to die one dark night.
Wire them up to pull switches.
| |
|
| Wow, that was quick, thanks! Assume that half of the power load is
lighting. Is it more efficient to light through the inverter to compact
flurescents, or through a converter to 12v lighting, and now you bring
up a third option I was unaware of - 48vdc lighting?
| |
| Eric Sears 2005-07-31, 4:21 am |
| On 30 Jul 2005 22:35:30 -0700, "t38" <pcorbeil@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Wow, that was quick, thanks! Assume that half of the power load is
>lighting. Is it more efficient to light through the inverter to compact
>flurescents, or through a converter to 12v lighting, and now you bring
>up a third option I was unaware of - 48vdc lighting?
>
Just a quick comment - there are two issues here - efficiency and
cost.
I suspect that a 48v to 12v (dc-dc) converter will have much the same
efficiency at the inverter - but could be more costly. However it
would mean not needing to change the existing 12v system,
The inverter could possibly be cheaper, and the mains-voltage cf's are
readily available.
I don't personally know of any cf-type 48v bulbs, though in NZ 50v
incandescents have been available (used by telecom). However, these
are not very efficient.
If approx half of your load is lights - what is the other half? Is it
12volt loads only? And what max wattage do you expect?
Eric
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2005-07-31, 7:21 am |
| t38 wrote:
> Wow, that was quick, thanks! Assume that half of the power load is
> lighting. Is it more efficient to light through the inverter to compact
> flurescents, or through a converter to 12v lighting, and now you bring
> up a third option I was unaware of - 48vdc lighting?
I did a quick google search and found a number of 48vdc fluorescent
lights, although they were rather expensive and somewhat harder to
find than 12V or 24V lights.
Another alternative, apart from just going to AC, would be to rig
up a separate 12V system just for the lights. If it's just a few
lights then it need not be particularly large or expensive.
Anthony
| |
| George Ghio 2005-07-31, 9:21 am |
|
Charles Foot wrote:
> t38 wrote:
>
> I'd say that the seller is sort of right, sort of wrong. An inverter is
> more efficient the greater the load.
Ah, not quite true. An inverter will have its best efficiency at around
one third of its rated continuous load. This will vary some depending on
make. But once past this sweet spot it is all down hill and may be as
low as 60% at the max continuous rating.
> And, a 48v to 12v converter is
> going to lose some power in the process.
> I assume you'll be running a lot more than just lights at night? Maybe a
> TV, a DVD, a stereo maybe?
> Compact (110vac) fluorescents are the way to go.... if you're running a
> tv as well as a light or two.
> 12v wiring is a lot more 'lossy' than 48v also.
> It's a good idea however, to keep a few critically placed 48v. lights in
> the system, just in case the inverter decides to die one dark night.
> Wire them up to pull switches.
This is true. It is always nice to see why the inverter is dead.
| |
| Harry Chickpea 2005-07-31, 11:21 am |
| Anthony Matonak <anthonym40@nothing.like.comcast.net> wrote:
>t38 wrote:
>
>I did a quick google search and found a number of 48vdc fluorescent
>lights, although they were rather expensive and somewhat harder to
>find than 12V or 24V lights.
>
>Another alternative, apart from just going to AC, would be to rig
>up a separate 12V system just for the lights. If it's just a few
>lights then it need not be particularly large or expensive.
>
>Anthony
If the lights are not sensitive and will be on at the same time,
another option might be to wire four 12 volt lights in series,
Christmas light string fashion.
| |
| Solar Guppy 2005-07-31, 12:21 pm |
| For people who would like real numbers instead of opinions:
For the Outback FX series
http://www.consumerenergycenter.org...GVFX%203648.pdf
For The Xantrex SW series
http://www.consumerenergycenter.org...ex%20SW4048.pdf
The Outback is typical of newer designed inverters, sweet spot is about 50%
load but even full power is still
about 90% efficiency
The SW series from Xantrex is a ten year old design, even with this at full
load its 85% efficiency.
George , care to share some data on make/model of inverters that are only
60% efficient at full load ? this would be helpful to
prevent people from buying such poorly designed products
"George Ghio" <AKA@nomailhere.com> wrote in message
news:42ecbbca_1@news.chariot.net.au...
>
>
> Charles Foot wrote:
>
> Ah, not quite true. An inverter will have its best efficiency at around
> one third of its rated continuous load. This will vary some depending on
> make. But once past this sweet spot it is all down hill and may be as low
> as 60% at the max continuous rating.
>
>
>
> This is true. It is always nice to see why the inverter is dead.
| |
| JoeSixPack 2005-07-31, 1:21 pm |
|
"Harry Chickpea" <hchickpeaREMOVEME@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42eb8389.9420976@localhost...
> Anthony Matonak <anthonym40@nothing.like.comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> If the lights are not sensitive and will be on at the same time,
> another option might be to wire four 12 volt lights in series,
> Christmas light string fashion.
Or even in a small circle. That's what I would do. Put four small 12V bulbs
in one place, wired in series. An added benefit: when one bulb burns out,
you won't be in the dark.
| |
| JoeSixPack 2005-07-31, 1:21 pm |
|
"JoeSixPack" <olegp@telus.net> wrote in message
news:9a6He.150540$HI.48352@edtnps84...
>
> Or even in a small circle. That's what I would do. Put four small 12V
> bulbs in one place, wired in series. An added benefit: when one bulb
> burns out, you won't be in the dark.
My mistake. Actually you would be in the dark until you find the right bulb.
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-07-31, 2:21 pm |
| The power ratings (current) would all have to match and he would have to
modify the wiring in the walls anyway. Run 120vac then.
"JoeSixPack" <olegp@telus.net> wrote in message
news:gc6He.150541$HI.39373@edtnps84...
>
> "JoeSixPack" <olegp@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:9a6He.150540$HI.48352@edtnps84...
> My mistake. Actually you would be in the dark until you find the right
bulb.
>
>
| |
| JoeSixPack 2005-07-31, 2:21 pm |
|
"Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OM-dnZz-4obwYHHfRVn-jQ@golden.net...
> The power ratings (current) would all have to match and he would have to
> modify the wiring in the walls anyway. Run 120vac then.
>
What are you talking about? He's got 48V now. If he wires in 4 identical
12V bulbs, that's a lot less hassle than converting everything over to
120VAC.
> "JoeSixPack" <olegp@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:gc6He.150541$HI.39373@edtnps84...
> bulb.
>
>
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-07-31, 9:21 pm |
| He doesn't have anything 48v now. Only a new energy storage system that
isn't compatible. I assume you read his post.
He has 12v wiring now and 12v circuits in his walls and ceilings. This can
be a whole different code class of wiring. How do you propose to get all
these bulbs in series without stringing wires across his living room?
"JoeSixPack" <olegp@telus.net> wrote in message
news:ao7He.150556$HI.89501@edtnps84...
>
> "Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OM-dnZz-4obwYHHfRVn-jQ@golden.net...
>
> What are you talking about? He's got 48V now. If he wires in 4 identical
> 12V bulbs, that's a lot less hassle than converting everything over to
> 120VAC.
>
>
12V[color=darkred]
>
>
| |
| Harry Chickpea 2005-07-31, 10:21 pm |
| "Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com> wrote:
>He has 12v wiring now and 12v circuits in his walls and ceilings. This can
>be a whole different code class of wiring.
He also said "I'm deep in Baja " I doubt that code standards are even
enforced, and IIRC anything under 50 vts is treated the same anyway.
>How do you propose to get all
>these bulbs in series without stringing wires across his living room?
The easest way is to cluster four lamps in a group - IE: chandelier.
Modifying a dedicated circuit is probably the next choice.
You are correct that the current draw should be similar.
| |
| Solar Flare 2005-08-01, 12:21 am |
| Geeezzzz I thought that was like "Deep in Dooo-doo"
"Harry Chickpea" <hchickpeaREMOVEME@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42f21bee.48439776@localhost...
> "Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
can[color=darkred]
>
> He also said "I'm deep in Baja " I doubt that code standards are even
> enforced, and IIRC anything under 50 vts is treated the same anyway.
>
>
> The easest way is to cluster four lamps in a group - IE: chandelier.
> Modifying a dedicated circuit is probably the next choice.
>
> You are correct that the current draw should be similar.
| |
| George Ghio 2005-08-01, 1:21 am |
|
Solar Guppy wrote:
> For people who would like real numbers instead of opinions:
>
> For the Outback FX series
> http://www.consumerenergycenter.org...GVFX%203648.pdf
>
> For The Xantrex SW series
> http://www.consumerenergycenter.org...ex%20SW4048.pdf
>
> The Outback is typical of newer designed inverters, sweet spot is about 50%
> load but even full power is still
> about 90% efficiency
According to Outback the operating voltage range is 42V to 68V. Funny
that the tests show best efficiency at 40V. Mmmm A full two volts below
the operating range for this inverter.
>
> The SW series from Xantrex is a ten year old design, even with this at full
> load its 85% efficiency.
According to Xantrex the operating voltage range is 44V to 66V. Funny
that the tests show best efficiency at 44V. Mmmm I wonder how long this
efficiency will last at that voltage.
The test results you used would seem to be suspect. Or the
manufacturer's don't know their own products.
>
> George , care to share some data on make/model of inverters that are only
> 60% efficient at full load ? this would be helpful to
> prevent people from buying such poorly designed products
>
>
> "George Ghio" <AKA@nomailhere.com> wrote in message
> news:42ecbbca_1@news.chariot.net.au...
>
This seems to be pretty well correct as a general assessment of
inverters. Which is all it is.
Even if the tests you cited are 100% correct, given that they do not
really match the manufacturer's data, they really do fall within my
assessment of inverters. And indeed the Xantrex does have its best
efficiency at around the 30% mark and does drop off after that.[color=darkred]
>
>
>
| |
|
| I really want to thank all you folks for your assistance. I've been
travelling and haven't been able to get to a machine for a bit.
Eric- I was just throwing out a number when I said 50% of the load was
lighting. The fridge will be an occasion load unless I put a timer on
it to prohibit night operations, maybe a coffee maker, blender etc.
might make up the rest of the load. I still haven't heard anything
about the efficiency of a 48-12vdc converter.
Anthony - I had thought of a seperate 12v system but assumed a
converter would be simpler/less expensive than a new pv panel, charge
controller, and battery.
George - I'm also interested in efficiencies at the low end of inverter
loading.
Harry - Great idea about series lighting, but as has been noted: the
construction is concrete with embedded wiring, It might be too
difficult to configure every circuit. The house is approx 2000 sq. ft.
So far it doesn't sound like there is a consensus about whether to
convert voltage, convert from 12v lighting, run 48vdc lighting, or
install a seperate 12v system.
Thanks again,
Per
| |
| William P. N. Smith 2005-08-01, 2:21 am |
| "t38" <pcorbeil@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I still haven't heard anything
>about the efficiency of a 48-12vdc converter.
I've just bought a couple of
http://golfcarcatalog.com/catalog/i...product&id=2788
for my golf carts, pretty pricey at nearly $200 each, but less than
the "buck a watt" rule of thumb for low-volume power converters I
usually use.
The data sheet for it claims 20-60V input and {80% minimum, 85%
average, 92% maximum) efficiency from 1-25A output. My primary
criteria was weatherproof, and this one seems to do that. It claims
100-200mA quiescent current drain, which seems like a lot, but I'll
have to measure it to be sure it's really that high.
I haven't installed them yet (one cart's 48->12V converter has a
fault, and draws significant 48V current all the time, the other one
has a 16->12V converter, which offends my sensibilities), but am
planning on it in the next couple of weeks.
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2005-08-01, 5:21 am |
| t38 <pcorbeil@hotmail.com> wrote:
>So far it doesn't sound like there is a consensus about whether to
>convert voltage, convert from 12v lighting, run 48vdc lighting, or
>install a seperate 12v system.
We might agree that 18 lumen/W CFs on a 120 V inverter with 90% efficiency
are 18x0.9/6 = 2.7 times more efficient than 6 lumen/W incandescents with
no inverter.
Making them equally inefficient would require a 33% inverter :-)
Nick
| |
|
| Nick wrote:
We might agree that 18 lumen/W CFs on a 120 V inverter with 90%
efficiency
are 18x0.9/6 = 2.7 times more efficient than 6 lumen/W incandescents
with
no inverter.
Sorry Nick, I need small words. What is the 6 lumen/W figure for? Is
that for 12v lighting? or is it for 110v in which case why wouldn't I
need the inverter?
Per
| |
| wmbjk 2005-08-01, 12:21 pm |
| On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 13:14:13 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
wrote:
>Solar Guppy wrote:
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
>According to Xantrex the operating voltage range is 44V to 66V. Funny
>that the tests show best efficiency at 44V. Mmmm I wonder how long this
>efficiency will last at that voltage.
>The test results you used would seem to be suspect. Or the
>manufacturer's don't know their own products.
George, rather than letting your imagination run wild, and claiming
yet again that something is "suspect", why not simply do what SG asked
and post some examples of these allegedly 60% efficient inverters?
Could it be because you made up that number, and intend to mount a
feeble defense of your own exaggeration by accusing others of making
up numbers? Nah!
Wayne
| |
|
| >
> We might agree that 18 lumen/W CFs on a 120 V inverter with 90% efficiency
> are 18x0.9/6 = 2.7 times more efficient than 6 lumen/W incandescents with
> no inverter.
Sorry Nick, I need small words. What is the 6 lumen/W figure for? Is
that for 12v lighting? If so, you wouldn't happen to know the value for
12v halogen would you? Or is it for 110v in which case why wouldn't I
need the inverter?
Per
| |
| dances_with_barkadas@yahoo.com 2005-08-01, 12:21 pm |
| > what's the most efficient way to light?
It might not be with ANY flavor of electricity. How about modern
mantle fuel lamps? Work fine with kerosene. Mount them outside the
windows in some sort of frame, so that they burn outside air, and don't
heat up the interior. Fabricate reflectors out of aluminum foil glued
onto cardboard. Make sure you cut light off from going UP, so that you
don't pollute the observation-space of your amateur-astronomer
neighbors.... Light travels a LONG way.
USe the waste heat to bake or slow-cook.
Save the electricity for doing electrical things.
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2005-08-01, 1:21 pm |
| t38 <pcorbeil@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>...What is the 6 lumen/W figure for? Is that for 12v lighting?
Yes, my guesstimate.
>If so, you wouldn't happen to know the value for 12v halogen would you?
Maybe 10% better? Duane's redrok site may have these numbers.
In other words, if 120 V CFs are 3X more efficient than 12 V incandescents
and the inverter has 90% efficiency, the CF system would be 2.7 times more
efficient than the incandescent system.
Nick
| |
| vaughnsimon@att.net 2005-08-01, 3:21 pm |
| Nicksans wrote" In other words, if 120 V CFs are 3X more efficient than
12 V incandescents and the inverter has 90% efficiency, the CF system
would be 2.7 times more efficient than the incandescent system."
True, but a far better comparison would be 120 V CFs plus inverter
compared to 12 CFs (sans inverter). I am 99.9% sure that the 12V CF
would be the clear winner. That said, the 12 CFs are not cheap.
Vaughn
| |
| Ron Rosenfeld 2005-08-01, 11:21 pm |
| On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 13:14:13 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com> wrote:
>
>According to Outback the operating voltage range is 42V to 68V. Funny
>that the tests show best efficiency at 40V. Mmmm A full two volts below
>the operating range for this inverter.
And at 100% load at 51.2V, the efficiency is 89.7%; far better than the
inverter you cited with 60% efficiency
>
>According to Xantrex the operating voltage range is 44V to 66V. Funny
>that the tests show best efficiency at 44V. Mmmm I wonder how long this
>efficiency will last at that voltage.
And at 100% load at 53.2V, the efficiency is 84.8%; again much better than
your 60% efficient inverter.
Or, if you look closely, you will see that these tests were not done by the
manufacturer.
If you really look closely, you can also note the variability in efficiency
vs voltage for these units.
For the Trace unit, going from 44V to 60V drops the efficiency from 85.5%
all the way down to 85.0%
For the Outback unit, going from 40V to 60V drops the efficiency from 91.3%
to 88.4%
>
>The test results you used would seem to be suspect. Or the
>manufacturer's don't know their own products.
After looking at the tests, I would come to a very different conclusion.
-- ron (off the grid in Downeast Maine)
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-08-01, 11:21 pm |
| Harry Chickpea wrote:
> Anthony Matonak <anthonym40@nothing.like.comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> If the lights are not sensitive and will be on at the same time,
> another option might be to wire four 12 volt lights in series,
> Christmas light string fashion.
Which I did on my 24v system before I had an inverter. I bought only
two-lamp fixtures, and wired the lamps in series. That's a little more
awkward to do with 48V systems, though.
--
derek
| |
| JoeSixPack 2005-08-02, 1:21 am |
|
"t38" <pcorbeil@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122867144.759802.82570@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I really want to thank all you folks for your assistance. I've been
> travelling and haven't been able to get to a machine for a bit.
>
> Eric- I was just throwing out a number when I said 50% of the load was
> lighting. The fridge will be an occasion load unless I put a timer on
> it to prohibit night operations, maybe a coffee maker, blender etc.
> might make up the rest of the load. I still haven't heard anything
> about the efficiency of a 48-12vdc converter.
>
> Anthony - I had thought of a seperate 12v system but assumed a
> converter would be simpler/less expensive than a new pv panel, charge
> controller, and battery.
>
> George - I'm also interested in efficiencies at the low end of inverter
> loading.
>
> Harry - Great idea about series lighting, but as has been noted: the
> construction is concrete with embedded wiring, It might be too
> difficult to configure every circuit. The house is approx 2000 sq. ft.
>
> So far it doesn't sound like there is a consensus about whether to
> convert voltage, convert from 12v lighting, run 48vdc lighting, or
> install a seperate 12v system.
>
> Thanks again,
> Per
>
Consensus? LOL That's asking for the moon here.
| |
| George Ghio 2005-08-02, 6:21 am |
|
Derek Broughton wrote:
> Harry Chickpea wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Which I did on my 24v system before I had an inverter. I bought only
> two-lamp fixtures, and wired the lamps in series. That's a little more
> awkward to do with 48V systems, though.
Shouldn't think it was that hard with 24V lamps.
| |
| George Ghio 2005-08-02, 6:21 am |
|
Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 13:14:13 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> And at 100% load at 51.2V, the efficiency is 89.7%; far better than the
> inverter you cited with 60% efficiency
As pointed out it is just possible that the information given could be sus.
Then there is the matter of my not specifying a particular inverter.
and the fact that I said:
"Ah, not quite true. An inverter will have its best efficiency at around
one third of its rated continuous load. This will vary some depending on
make. But once past this sweet spot it is all down hill and may be as
low as 60% at the max continuous rating."
Notice the part where it says; "This will vary some depending on make."
Also; "But once past this sweet spot it is all down hill and may be as
low as 60% at the max continuous rating."
Both these statements are in line with the fact that the OP did not
state a brand of inverter either.
>
>
>
>
>
> And at 100% load at 53.2V, the efficiency is 84.8%; again much better than
> your 60% efficient inverter.
>
>
>
> Or, if you look closely, you will see that these tests were not done by the
> manufacturer.
>
> If you really look closely, you can also note the variability in efficiency
> vs voltage for these units.
>
> For the Trace unit, going from 44V to 60V drops the efficiency from 85.5%
> all the way down to 85.0%
>
> For the Outback unit, going from 40V to 60V drops the efficiency from 91.3%
> to 88.4%
Except for the fact that the manufacturer seems to think that this
inverter should stop working at 42V
>
>
>
>
>
> After looking at the tests, I would come to a very different conclusion.
>
>
> -- ron (off the grid in Downeast Maine)
| |
| Ron Rosenfeld 2005-08-02, 7:21 am |
| On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:49:34 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com> wrote:
>
>Except for the fact that the manufacturer seems to think that this
>inverter should stop working at 42V
Not sure where that info comes from. For both the Trace and the Outback,
the LBCO (Low Battery Cutoff Voltage) is adjustable. On the Outback it can
be set as low as 36V; for the Trace -- 32V.
-- ron (off the grid in Downeast Maine)
| |
|
|
>
> In other words, if 120 V CFs are 3X more efficient than 12 V incandescents
> and the inverter has 90% efficiency, the CF system would be 2.7 times more
> efficient than the incandescent system.
>
Thanks for the clarification Nick.
I am leaning toward the shotgun method: Use 110cf where I can due to
the ease and efficiency; be creative and fabricate a 48v fixture out of
4 12v halogen in the living room; and get the aforementioned 48v to 12v
converter with 85% efficiency for a few runs off the central dc hub.
Thanks again for everyone's inputs.
Per
| |
| George Ghio 2005-08-02, 9:21 pm |
|
Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:49:34 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Not sure where that info comes from. For both the Trace and the Outback,
> the LBCO (Low Battery Cutoff Voltage) is adjustable. On the Outback it can
> be set as low as 36V; for the Trace -- 32V.
>
>
> -- ron (off the grid in Downeast Maine)
Not according to the pdf downloaded from their site.
| |
| Solar Guppy 2005-08-02, 9:21 pm |
| http://www.outbackpower.com/pdfs_ma..._manual_7_1.pdf
Page 44 , menu Low Battery Cut-Out
Its listed as 18.0 to 24 Volts DC (for a 24 volts inverter) , so Ron is
correct , its 36 volts for an 48Volt inverter
http://www.xantrex.com/web/id/602/docserve.asp
page 54 of the SW-series manual
Range 32.0 to 64.0 for Low Battery Cutoff
Again , Ron is correct
"George Ghio" <AKA@nomailhere.com> wrote in message
news:42f001b5_2@news.chariot.net.au...
>
>
> Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>
> Not according to the pdf downloaded from their site.
| |
| Ron Rosenfeld 2005-08-02, 11:21 pm |
| On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 09:23:27 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>
>Not according to the pdf downloaded from their site.
Really? Which "pdf" and which "site" are you looking at? I looked at the
manuals for the units at the respective manufacturer's web sites. In the
Outback manuals, I saw data for the 12 & 24V unit; for the Trace SW, the
manual shows the 48V unit specifically. (Both are in the Inverter setup
section).
For the Outback 12V: "This setting has a range between 9.0 vdc and
12.0 vdc in 0.1 vdc increments."
For the 24V: "This setting has a range between 18.0 vdc and
24.0 vdc in 0.2 vdc increments."
Did you find something that stated the LBCO for a 48V unit would be other
than "a range between 36.0 vdc and 48.0 vdc in 0.4 vdc increments" ??
For the Trace SW units, for the 48V model Range: 32.0-64.0. Again, this is
directly from the manual.
-- ron (off the grid in Downeast Maine)
| |
| Derek Broughton 2005-08-03, 12:21 pm |
| Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 09:23:27 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Really? Which "pdf" and which "site" are you looking at? I looked at the
> manuals for the units at the respective manufacturer's web sites. In the
> Outback manuals, I saw data for the 12 & 24V unit; for the Trace SW, the
> manual shows the 48V unit specifically. (Both are in the Inverter setup
> section).
....
> For the 24V: "This setting has a range between 18.0 vdc and
> 24.0 vdc in 0.2 vdc increments."
And I can guarantee that, in practice, the 24V is in fact that adjustable.
I have one.
--
derek
| |
| Ron Rosenfeld 2005-08-03, 5:21 pm |
| On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 11:37:16 -0300, Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca>
wrote:
>...
>
>And I can guarantee that, in practice, the 24V is in fact that adjustable.
>I have one.
And I have an SW5548 which also has the LBCO adjustable as per the manual
which I posted.
I wonder what George was looking at to come up with different values.
-- ron (off the grid in Downeast Maine)
| |
| George Ghio 2005-08-04, 8:21 am |
|
Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 11:37:16 -0300, Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> And I have an SW5548 which also has the LBCO adjustable as per the manual
> which I posted.
>
> I wonder what George was looking at to come up with different values.
>
>
> -- ron (off the grid in Downeast Maine)
Ron
Can post the PDF spec sheet to you if you want. Or you can get from the
Xantrex / Outback sites. Too simple
| |
| Solar Guppy 2005-08-04, 10:21 am |
| George , here is the exact links and pages,
http://www.outbackpower.com/pdfs_ma..._manual_7_1.pdf
Page 44 , menu Low Battery Cut-Out
Its listed as 18.0 to 24 Volts DC (for a 24 volts inverter) , so Ron is
correct , its 36 volts for an 48Volt inverter
http://www.xantrex.com/web/id/602/docserve.asp
page 54 of the SW-series manual
Range 32.0 to 64.0 for Low Battery Cutoff
Again , Ron is correct
"George Ghio" <AKA@nomailhere.com> wrote in message
news:42f1f4e1_1@news.chariot.net.au...
>
>
> Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>
> Ron
>
> Can post the PDF spec sheet to you if you want. Or you can get from the
> Xantrex / Outback sites. Too simple
| |
| Ron Rosenfeld 2005-08-04, 2:21 pm |
| On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 20:53:13 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>
>Ron
>
>Can post the PDF spec sheet to you if you want. Or you can get from the
> Xantrex / Outback sites. Too simple
Aha. It seems that the range noted on the spec sheet does not refer to the
maximum programmable range, which is well documented elsewhere, and also
confirmed by owners of units from the different companies.
To get back to your previous statement:
"... and may be as low as 60% at the max continuous rating."
Which inverter has an efficiency of 60% at max continuous rating?
-- ron (off the grid in Downeast Maine)
| |
| George Ghio 2005-08-05, 8:21 pm |
|
Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 20:53:13 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Aha. It seems that the range noted on the spec sheet does not refer to the
> maximum programmable range, which is well documented elsewhere, and also
> confirmed by owners of units from the different companies.
So, all that shows is that the companys involved need to up their data
sheets. The data sheets in question clearly state the operating range
for input.
>
> To get back to your previous statement:
>
> "... and may be as low as 60% at the max continuous rating."
>
>
> Which inverter has an efficiency of 60% at max continuous rating?
>
>
>
>
>
> -- ron (off the grid in Downeast Maine)
Been trying to find a documented example for you. Unfortunately, while
there are a number of inverters which fall into this category I have not
found any that provide comprehensive data sheets. This in itself should
be enough to prevent any sound thinker to be wary of the product.
But then. If you read these groups it would seem that such machines are
preferred.
OTOH citing the performance of good quality equipment in a manner that
suggests that such performance is typical of all products is not helpful.
| |
| Ron Rosenfeld 2005-08-06, 12:21 am |
| On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 08:30:18 +1000, George Ghio <AKA@nomailhere.com> wrote:
>citing the performance of good quality equipment in a manner that
>suggests that such performance is typical of all products is not helpful.
I would agree with that statement. The OP's inverter is an SW4048 which
does have acceptable efficiencies, though.
-- ron (off the grid in Downeast Maine)
| |
| Dré Jansen 2005-08-07, 7:21 pm |
| Use 24V dc, becouse in truck shops you can buy every household device TV,
fridge, coffee maker, etc for 24 DC.
You can use an converter 24 to 110 or 230V for the special items that is not
for sale in a truck shop. like PC etc.
The higer the voltage, the lower the current and therefore the lesser the
loss of power in transport.
Lower current reduces also the risk of fire expecily when bad contacts in
the circuits so as old and/or dirty switches.
Lights on low voltage, uses thick glowtreads, so these are more efficient
than high voltage bulbs projector lights in the old days used always low
voltages for this reason. This is only for ordinary glow bulbs.
Fluoressent lights ar more efficient when the frequenty is high.
sucses wiht your home.
--
Groeten, Dré Jansen
djansen.2@hccnet.nl
"t38" <pcorbeil@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:1122786858.798862.240040@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>I am trying to light an off-grid house that had 60% of the lighting
> configured for 12vdc, (large gauge wire feeding to a distribution
> center in the middle of the house). The seller says that 12v lighting
> is more efficient than 110vac, the inverter doesn't need to run at
> night. Given my 48vdc system, what's the most efficient way to light?
> I'm assuming that it's either a 48v to 12v converter, or reconfigure
> the system and go with purely 110vac from my inverter, (xantrex 4048)?
> I'm deep in Baja and would really appreciate some help from this group.
> I am not beyond snivelling if that would expedite some assistance.
> Thanks,
> Per
>
| |
|
| Harry Chickpea wrote:
> "Solar Flare" <sflare@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> He also said "I'm deep in Baja " I doubt that code standards are even
> enforced, and IIRC anything under 50 vts is treated the same anyway.
>
>
>
>
> The easest way is to cluster four lamps in a group - IE: chandelier.
> Modifying a dedicated circuit is probably the next choice.
>
> You are correct that the current draw should be similar.
The best way it to just buy 48V bulbs they are available from marine
supliers or for trucks or just Google a bit, there are lots. They are
cheap and require no change to the wiring other than connecting the 48V
supply. Better still the efficiency of the circuits will be improved as
the cables installed for 12V will present a lower proportion of the
total resistance to the circuit.
| |
| Vaughn 2005-09-20, 9:21 pm |
| > The best way it to just buy 48V bulbs they are available from marine supliers
> or for trucks or just Google a bit, there are lots. They are cheap and require
> no change to the wiring other than connecting the 48V supply. Better still the
> efficiency of the circuits will be improved as the cables installed for 12V
> will present a lower proportion of the total resistance to the circuit.
48 volt fluorescent lights are available if you look hard enough for
example (look at bottom of page):
http://www.montanalight.com/12_volt...fluorescent.htm
Vaughn
|
|
|
|
|