The Energy Detective Forums
October 20, 2017, 05:38:30 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: New TED Support forum launched!!
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
Author Topic: Second MTUs - TEDstaff: do you have plans for smaller current transformers?
martingugino
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 57


« on: April 24, 2011, 10:32:41 AM »

Q1) If using a second MTU to monitor a single breaker, I would like a smaller current transformer to fit around the smaller wires. Does TEDco have any plans for that? Would it be possible to jury-rig something?

Q2) In single breaker monitoring, can I leave one current transformer unattached, or do I need to attach it to a ground wire?

Second MTU's for single breaker tracking seem like a natural for TED. More hardware revenue. Takes the pressure of the "Load Identification" programming effort. Meets a perceived need.
Logged
rotus8
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 315


« Reply #1 on: April 25, 2011, 04:20:05 AM »

Q2) Leave the unused CT clamped around air only.

One problem with the "single breaker" option is that the gateway can only handle a maximum for four MTUs. Remember that the little brick you plugged into the wall and your network is doing the work a whole rack of equipment was required for a couple of years ago. I think it does a lot for what it is, and the price you pay for it. I do agree that a smaller pickup option would be nice.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2011, 10:11:04 AM by TEDSupport6 » Logged
martingugino
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 57


« Reply #2 on: April 25, 2011, 07:51:02 AM »

re; I think it does a lot for what it is, and the price you pay for it.
Yes I agree.

Re: that the gateway can only handle a maximum for four MTUs.
Yes it would be awesome if the system captured each breaker (or ten), and you could look at each one, one at a time.

Q3) Instead of leaving the other current transformer clipped on air, you could clip it to another breaker on the alternate cycle. Might as well.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2011, 10:09:37 AM by TEDSupport6 » Logged
TEDSupport6
Global Moderator
Sr. Member
*****
Posts: 291


« Reply #3 on: April 25, 2011, 10:16:13 AM »

Quote
Q1) If using a second MTU to monitor a single breaker, I would like a smaller current transformer to fit around the smaller wires. Does TEDco have any plans for that?
Nothing in the works for smaller CTs at this time.

Quote
Q2) In single breaker monitoring, can I leave one current transformer unattached, or do I need to attach it to a ground wire?
This is what we recommend when monitoring a single circuit.
Quote
Instead of leaving the other current transformer clipped on air, you could clip it to another breaker on the alternate cycle. Might as well.
This option is fine as well, just keep in mind that the MTU is going to add these two figures together and the software cannot "separate" them out.

Quote
Yes it would be awesome if the system captured each breaker (or ten), and you could look at each one, one at a time.
TED5000 is really designed to monitor whole-house consumption (and/or generation), with the potential to monitor a few large loads in the home as well.
Logged
martingugino
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 57


« Reply #4 on: April 25, 2011, 10:56:59 AM »

Quote
TED5000 is really designed to monitor whole-house consumption (and/or generation), with the potential to monitor a few large loads in the home as well.
sigh.

Are you saying it wouldn't be a nice advance, or are you saying it would be too hard to do?
Because if it would be a nice advance, and not too hard, what it was really designed to do would be of historical interest, only. 

==
The least disruptive new device would be an octopus with six mini CT transformers, for monitoring up to 6 breakers. The gateway can handle 4 MTUs, so no change required there.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 06:53:27 AM by martingugino » Logged
rotus8
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 315


« Reply #5 on: April 26, 2011, 07:27:54 AM »

There is another company selling a system that will monitor up to 12 channels, but it is a LOT more expensive, starting at $650 for a two channel system.
Logged
stanar
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 52


« Reply #6 on: April 26, 2011, 08:59:39 AM »

Slightly off topic:

All these different energy monitoring systems will show real time usage of the whole use are individual appliances. But wont be in sync with the utility bill unless the device makers work with the energy providers. There are some providers offering the real time usage directly for water, gas, and electricity. But we still have a long way to go to get all the providers to offer these features.
Logged
martingugino
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 57


« Reply #7 on: April 26, 2011, 12:41:31 PM »

I don't happen to be so interested in the billing side of it. I am mostly interesting in learning about usage, and maybe trying to conserve.  If we get to "smart grid" billing, where I get a lower base rate in exchange for higher rates during high demand, then I will need something besides TED anyway.  

So I don't think that the companies like TEDco need to work all that much with the utilities. I see requests in the forum to accommodate additional rate structures, but as far as I am concerned, that's wasted effort. However, I would like to be able to enter a current meter reading, and have TED try to keep in sync, just as a high level check.  It wouldn't be that hard.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 12:48:31 PM by martingugino » Logged
martingugino
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 57


« Reply #8 on: April 26, 2011, 07:38:24 PM »

Quote
there is another company that monitors 12
What is the product? It's not the Black&Decker device. I'd like to see what they have, as often new features are developed to meet the competition's capabilities.
Logged
rotus8
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 315


« Reply #9 on: April 27, 2011, 05:53:50 AM »

Quote
there is another company that monitors 12
What is the product? It's not the Black&Decker device. I'd like to see what they have, as often new features are developed to meet the competition's capabilities.
PM sent.
Logged
martingugino
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 57


« Reply #10 on: April 28, 2011, 11:44:20 AM »

Can TED work with other commercially available CTs? Or more generally, is there any other equipment that is approved for use with a TED installation?
Logged
stanar
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 52


« Reply #11 on: April 28, 2011, 04:32:04 PM »

Quote
there is another company that monitors 12
What is the product? It's not the Black&Decker device. I'd like to see what they have, as often new features are developed to meet the competition's capabilities.

If you go to google.com/powermeter without signing in, and click on get powermeter, you will see a bunch of options.
Logged
dannyted
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 56


WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 29, 2011, 05:10:08 PM »

I was thinking the same as one of the posts above.  It would be nice if we knew what the ct would need to output so that we could tie our own ct into the gateway.  I would love to have a smaller ct to monitor some circuits inside of my subpanel
Logged

My Energy Blog - http://energymonitorblog.com
     --A site dedicated to discussing power saving information.

My Personal Blog - http://dannymullen.net

MyTed5000 - http://myted5k.com/danny/
     --Live Data from my ted5000

Like me on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/pages/EnergyMonitorB
martingugino
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 57


« Reply #13 on: May 12, 2011, 04:26:51 AM »

Quote
Instead of leaving the other current transformer clipped on air, you could clip it to another breaker on the alternate cycle. Might as well.
This option is fine as well, just keep in mind that the MTU is going to add these two figures together and the software cannot "separate" them out.

Does the load identification feature key on which MTU it is?
Logged
rotus8
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 315


« Reply #14 on: May 12, 2011, 07:21:09 AM »

Does the load identification feature key on which MTU it is?
Unfortunately no. This would be a great feature to add to the next release.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!