Jump to content

Coulomb

Members+
  • Content Count

    3,080
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    84

Coulomb last won the day on October 17

Coulomb had the most liked content!

About Coulomb

  • Birthday 05/11/1958

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Brisbane, Australia
  • Interests
    Solar energy systems with storage; firmware for inverters and chargers

Recent Profile Visitors

9,228 profile views
  1. It should work OK, though the Sirius are expensive batteries (from what I have heard), and won't give anything like the life of supercapacitors. I don't know, but it will be the same cable as used in the Kings and VM IIIs. Search the King topics for sources, or make your own from the posted pinouts.
  2. A few more details, please. Is it a 1200 W inverter? What does the 7500 W refer to? PV power? That seems a lot in comparison to the inverter power. What type battery do you have? If possible, post the model number.
  3. No error code 15, but there is a warning code 15. Only warnings alternate with HS/SL. Warning 15 means "PV energy is low". That would have been warning code 04, battery low. See FAQ 3.
  4. Oops! Of course it would start with LC1 or LF1, to indicate the Lead aCid (or Lithium with Cobalt) flavour, or the LFP (Lithium Ferrous Phosphate, LiFePO₄) flavour. Most of the clones that could not be updated came with LC1_72.70c.
  5. I assume that one of those was supposed to say "from PV". The problem supposedly fixed in 71.93 was "no AC force charger"; I can't quickly find it but I think it was something about not being able to prevent AC charging under some conditions. I'm still concerned that we've lost something in 71.94 that was gained in 71.93.
  6. Does 71.94 also sort out the AC bug? My reading is that 71.94 does not have the modifications that 71.93 made (compared to 71.92). But maybe they fixed the AC bug some other way, in another part of the firmware that I haven't noticed. For technical reasons, 71.94 is tedious to compare with either 71.93 or 71.92.
  7. On the front of the inverter, keep pressing up or down buttons until you get to a screen that starts with "U1". [ Edit: Or "LF1" or "LC1", see below. ] Note the the other 7-segment positions. For example, I suspect you'll see "LC1 72 70C" [ edit: was "U1 72 70C" ] (meaning the main (U1) firmware version is 72.70c).
  8. The recent 5 kVA models all have a nominal 4000 W (80 A @ 50 V) solar charge controller. So that's a 25% overclock already. So I don't believe that you can overclock any further than that.
  9. Yes. I suspect that you need the VM III equivalent of King firmware version 71.94. Edit: and it's difficult to compare the two, because they have such different ways of talking to the Solar Charge Controller (it's internal to the VM IIIs, connected to a separate processor for the Kings).
  10. No, from my understanding of that setting. I can't imagine why anyone would want to disable solar balance.
  11. As a point of interest, what is the main firmware version? It seems it might be patched firmware, since I see the PV frame icon is there, but the "cells" in the frame are missing. Our fully patched Axpert firmware (e.g. 73.00e) does this. That would indicate that the Schubart clones are using patched Axpert firmware. At least it would mean that the hardware is Axpert compatible. If so, that makes the behaviour even more inexplicable. Axpert firmware isn't supposed to stop charging when PV is available (at least, not for more than a minute or two). It should have the CHG LED on, indicating
  12. D'oh! I'm having the senior moment, thanks. Yes, 20 A per pair should be fine. So 2.3 V drop, or around 3% loss. Pretty reasonable.
  13. I bet that's only with a dual MPPT system (two trackers). I wonder if it might work better to connect half the N and the E set to one inverter, and the other half of the N and the W set to the other inverter.
  14. Ah, that makes sense. So each pair of 6 mm² cable carries two pairs of panels, so around 40 A. [ Edit: duh, it's 20 A. Sigh. ] That's close to the maximum current the cables can take without overheating, so the voltage drop could be significant. An on-line calculator seems to indicate that 40 m (go and return) of 6 mm² cable has a resistance of 114 mΩ, so a voltage drop of some 4.6 V (assuming 40 A per pair). Roughly 5.6% loss. That's on the high side.
  15. That seems reasonable. Those seem good too. Isense is low, but that's quite probably because it's not doing much (not providing much power). Ah, of course. It looks very different to Axperts. The solar charge controller seems very Axpert-like. Can you measure an AC voltage at the output of the transformer? My guess now is that the soft start power supply is working, it just can't charge the bus capacitors because there is a load on the bus. Possibly damaged IGBTs. If it's easy to pull out the diode at the output of the soft start circuit, do so and see if
×
×
  • Create New...