alt.energy.homepower

On Feb 18, 1:21 am, wmbjkREM...@ wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 21:30:02 -0600, z wrote:
> >wmbjkREM...@ wrote in
> >news:hsuer3tsi0t9ljd2s8sq4sj4vv47t9kbm2@:

What we have here is a fine example of someone who likes to talk the
talk, but, is unable to walk the walk. This post shows a person who is
able to gather information from other peoples websites and post it as
his own.

>
> A proper battery monitor uses a shunt between the batteries and
> everything else, which allows accounting for all current in and out.
> Any charge controller's data capability is limited to the loads
> connected to it alone. For example, in most cases inverters are
> connected directly to the battery, so the charge controller has no way
> to see that power consumption. Even if all your loads are connected to
> the C35, its metering and calculation functionality is extremely
> limited compared to a Link 10. On the other hand, a charge controller
> can break out the contribution of the source it's controlling, which
> is nice, especially if you have multiple sources. But I'd consider the
> battery monitor mandatory and the charging data optional. Two common
> scenarios with new setups - operator underutilizes the system because
> he's afraid of using too much, and operator is living with chronic
> undercharge that he has no practical way of recognizing, and therefore
> fails to make use of his backup source. A battery monitor will go a
> long way to preventing both problems.

He has no knowledge of his own on this subject. If he did he would not
have spent the last ten years running away from questions about his
systems parameters.