Any chance that a cumulative Wh indication could be implemented? I sure was surprised to find the displayed Wh's went away when the sun went down. Guess the guys and gals at Xantrex didn't know about non-volitable RAM when the ST was designed. [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Yes , the frontpanel display is also the remote meter display , just missing a few parts , it already stores in the Eprom.

The issue is , folks would probably want both and then this gets back to my reason for this tread which is what should be displayed and how ....

Here are a few ideas:

Normal Display:

247V 60.1H 65.2V
2,152W 12,000WH


DC Volts > 99:

247V 60.1H 108V
_____0W___0WH


Grand Totals (Display 5 sec out of 60)

Totals____12,345HR
_____12,345,678WH


AC volt too high:

260V 60.1H 78.2V
AC Volt Too High


AC frequency too low:

247V 59.6H 78.3V
AC Freq Too Low


Counting down 5 min to connect:

245V 60.1H 80.8V
Start in 308 Sec


AC not present:

__0V__0.0H 81.3V
AC Not Present


AC/DC watts (display 5 sec out of 60)

_63.22VDC 19.65A
1242WDC 1118WAC

The grand total and AC/DC watt displays could alternate, showing one for 5 seconds, normal display for 25 seconds, other detail display, etc...

(The underscores are really spaces - just space holders in this message)

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Rob Larson ]

OK , I'm in the middle of re-writting the display code.

I really like the ideas so far and have implemented alot of them. ...

So as the say at the bar

Last Call .... get your wishes in now

[img]images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]

A few thoughts on the software liability question (also, note that "as_" replaces the letters a-s-s so the "bad word" filter doesn't turn them into ***):

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Solar Guppy:
The only thing holding me up from releasing this is I am very concerned that people would ignore the warnings about having to use the opto isolator ...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have seen software authorization schemes that can be as simple as a zipped file that is "pas_word protected" where the pas_word would be (in this case) something like "I will follow all SAFE usage requirements" .

You can also consider pas_word protecting a zip file inside a zip file with a README that has specific warnings along with the next level pas_word (which could be like "I as_ume all liability for using this software" or "I agree to all terms of use" or some other such legal-ease...)

The text of the README (which would be the only location of the next level pas_word) could have all the usual disclaimers that software folks use and start with your additional STRONG warnings re using isolators.

Also require that the software only be distributed as originally packaged (by you) so anyone who posts your program without the simple pas_word scheme would be liable for their actions.

Obviously, a slicker method would be to use a self extracting installer that prompts for all the same sort of acknowledgements... if you have access to this sort of tool (or want to develop your own.)

And/or you could put the package behind a web page that requires the same sort of statements first in order to download the code.

Or you could just insist that people email you asking for the link to the software and require that they include a specific statement that they will read all directions, as_ume all liability, etc. ... however this route could get a little ugly if a lot of people end up wanting the program!

-Roger

P.S. I thought of one other direction you might consider with or instead of the above: See if you can find a (web based?) interface seller that would bundle your code on CD with an appropriate isolator as a unique item. That way, you are forcing folks (for good reason) to buy an isolator in order to get the code.

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Roger ]

I use the Cbuilder installer and I have a complete disclosure as you suggest. All it would take is one person to sue ,it makes no differance wether there is merit or not , I would still have to defend myself.

I do like the idea of linking it to the purchase of the isolator , but that in of itself is more work than I want to do at the time ...

[img]images/smiles/icon_sad.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_sad.gif[/img]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Solar Guppy:
(snip happens...) All it would take is one person to sue ,it makes no differance wether there is merit or not , I would still have to defend myself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand and agree, although one might also argue that your article in H.P. magazine has already put you a lot closer to that possibility... e.g. some Bozo with a lawyer who frys an inverter (or worse, him or her self) because he/she forgets to rewire after trying a personal inverter comparison.

-Roger

UL 1741 clearly states that all external communications ports on inverters MUST be isolated. I guess that is one more requirement that they ignored. A few things to think about:

If the port is referenced to PV minus what happens if you have a positve ground fault and the GFDI breaker opens ? Now the PV positive is at ground and the negative is at ?? volts below ground. On the old SW's the shield on the com ports could go to array Voc (up to 110 Vdc) below ground.
Can you say Fire Hazard ??

Hi John,

I totally agree that the rs232 needs to be isolated. my questions were if I was to release a software program , would that cause me to be liable for any hardware damages , even of I require an opto-isolator but the user chooses to ingnore the warning ..

At this point I think the risks outway the gains ...

The only way I see doing this would be to package the software with the hardware isolator and this would require me to have inventory and charge for the program , neither of which I want to do ...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Berdner:
On the old SW's the shield on the com ports could go to array Voc (up to 110 Vdc) below ground. Can you say Fire Hazard ??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not quite correct, John - on a SW series inverter, the shield in the cable is connected to the DB25 shell of the com port which is connected to the ch***is of the inverter which is always connected to the system ground - even when a ground fault occurs with the positive conductor. The RS232 communication adapter "ground" wire is connected to battery negative which can however reach negative 100 vdc or so under a postive PV array ground fault. I doubt if it would cause a fire hazard but it might result in a shock hazard under some specific conditions. All I have seen occur from situations like this is a fried phone cable or damage to the RS232 port on a computer.

I don't think the com port on the SW or ST was evaluated by UL for connection to a customer's PC. This may be why it was not provided with means for isolation - not that is was "ignored" by Xantrex / UL.

If a manufacturer is going to allow for or support the connection of a computer to an inverter - then the communication port should include the necessary isolation.