Matthias Gross
.Registered Member
chiefzod, your idea would work, but too much overhead in my opinion.
I found now a simple solution like this:
- level1: ATO & water change
- level2: part of water change
- level3: not used
Logic 1 = Cond1 upwards AND water 1
Logic 2 = inverted Cond2 upwards AND water 1
Socket 9 = water 2 (drain water during water change)
socket 17 = Logic 1 (saltwater in during refill and ATO)
Socket 18 = logic 2 (RO water in during refill and ATO)
-> Instead using "control upwards" and "control downwards" of the conductivity controller we should use "control upwards" and "inverse control upwards". The advantage is:
When using upwards and downwards we have the risk that none of both outputs is active (conducitivity meets the desired value) - nothing would happen during refill. But using an inverted signal ensures that there always one pump must be activated.
I found now a simple solution like this:
- level1: ATO & water change
- level2: part of water change
- level3: not used
Logic 1 = Cond1 upwards AND water 1
Logic 2 = inverted Cond2 upwards AND water 1
Socket 9 = water 2 (drain water during water change)
socket 17 = Logic 1 (saltwater in during refill and ATO)
Socket 18 = logic 2 (RO water in during refill and ATO)
-> Instead using "control upwards" and "control downwards" of the conductivity controller we should use "control upwards" and "inverse control upwards". The advantage is:
When using upwards and downwards we have the risk that none of both outputs is active (conducitivity meets the desired value) - nothing would happen during refill. But using an inverted signal ensures that there always one pump must be activated.
