stackability

Discussion about the FX2000 Inverter
This forum has been closed

Moderators: OutBack Moderator Team, OutBack

Locked
Rea Orthner

stackability

Post by Rea Orthner »

Hi,

I've recently been directed to your company from RMS electric in Boulder, CO. I'm currently building a small cabin around here with the eventual idea of building a large house. I want to design a small system for the cabin now. Both the cabin and house will be off grid with back up propane generator, however I think it would be better to have just one power system not two in the future. The idea of being able to stack inverters is very attractive so I don't have to put out the big bucks for a 4 to 5 kw inverter now.

My question is this: What specifically makes your product (the FX2000 inverter) so much better than the Xantrex SW2512 or SW2524 in terms of stacking? Are there general disadvantages of stacking SW inverters that i should be aware of? Should I really just buy a big inverter now?

Thanks
arnold
Forum Guru
Posts: 158
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2002 11:01 pm
My RE system: Current: 10.9 kW STC (128 BP-585), 4 MX60, 3 GVFX, 4 Concorde PVX-12255
2.46 kW STC (12 KD205GX-LP), Xantrex GT2.8
Previous (still owned): 9.1 kW STC (108 BP-585), 6 SB 3048, 2 SW5048, 8 Concorde PVX-12255

stackability

Post by arnold »

I don't work for Outback but I can tell you some of the reasons I have 4 FX-2048s on order for my second PV system.

My other system has stacked SW5548s.

One of the things that drove me crazy with my first system is watching one inverter charging the batteries while the other inverter was inverting. Coordination between the inverters with the SWs was minimal.

One of the cool things that the FXs will be able to do is coordinate amongst each other. So one inverter can be the master and determine if they should be charging or discharging.

The system can also shutdown surplus inverter capacity (resulting in better efficiency). In 240V configuration a balancing transformer can be used to allow the system to go down to one inverter.

My understanding is that the architecture is robust enough that the Mate failed the inverters can continue to function in mode no worse that the SWs were.

Other features I am expecting to get from FX are:

o better instrumentation
o better computer control/logging
o better looking sine wave
o less RFI
o coordination between the charge controller
and inverter (MX-60)
o better looking hardware :-)

arnold
DavidB
Forum Guru
Posts: 246
Joined: Sun May 19, 2002 11:01 pm
Location: Minnesota

stackability

Post by DavidB »

One of the most important items you forgot to mention is reliability. A big difference is that the SW's suck air into the inverter where dust and everything else will collect and eventually cause problems unless it is in a very clean environment. The FX's are built with a heatsink type enclosure to dissipate heat without the need to suck any air inside the enclosure.
arnold
Forum Guru
Posts: 158
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2002 11:01 pm
My RE system: Current: 10.9 kW STC (128 BP-585), 4 MX60, 3 GVFX, 4 Concorde PVX-12255
2.46 kW STC (12 KD205GX-LP), Xantrex GT2.8
Previous (still owned): 9.1 kW STC (108 BP-585), 6 SB 3048, 2 SW5048, 8 Concorde PVX-12255

stackability

Post by arnold »

Sure. The design definitely looks better. I have some experience with all points that I brought up.

I haven't had any reliability problems (yet) with SWs but I have seen the side effects of the cooling design on the SW and I certainly appreciate the improvements made by Outback.

arnold
Brock
Forum Guru
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 11:01 pm
Location: Green Bay, WI
Contact:

stackability

Post by Brock »

I also had the impression that you could stack up to 10 outback's and you can only stack two matched Trace SW inverters. For the system your speaking of you could start with a single outback 2k unit, them add them as your needs grow. If you started with a single SW25xx the most you could stack or add would be double that. That is the problem I have now, and I am stuck with 2 stacked SW2512ÔÇÖs.

<small>[ March 11, 2003, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Brock ]</small>
Locked