<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
William,<br>
<br>
There are some issues with putting the charge controller at the other
end of the feeder:<br>
1. The advantage of a higher voltage feeder is lost.<br>
2. The voltage drop in the feeder will mess up the charge controller's
absorption and float set points. Say there is only 1% drop in the
deeper, that's 0.14 volt for a 12 volt system (2x for 24 or 4X for 48
volts). If the feeder loss is more ... You could raise the set
points at the regulator to offset the feeder loss, but the loss in the
feeder is not a constant.<br>
3. The charge controllers are not NEMA 3 rated, they need to be inside.<br>
<br>
Kent Osterberg<br>
Blue Mountain Solar<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
William Miller wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:6.0.1.1.2.20101020083650.03788ea0@millersolar.com"
type="cite"><font size="3">Jay:<br>
<br>
Bad idea. The differences in tolerances within components will make
one work harder than the other. They will never balance. Why
not put the charge controllers at the other end of the feeder?<br>
<br>
William Miller<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
At 08:06 AM 10/20/2010, you wrote:<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite=""><font size="3">HI All,<br>
<br>
Say anyone ever paralleled mx/fm-60's?<br>
<br>
I have a unique situation that would be very expensive to pull
additional
wire however the existing wire is large enough to need 2 fm-60s'<br>
<br>
If I put a diode between them so they don't feed each other any
problems
that anyone knows of?<br>
<br>
thanks,<br>
<br>
jay<br>
</font></blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>