controller

[ofblong]

Sorry if a thread has been started on this suggestion already so please if it has and my ? has been answered just direct me to the thread as I didnt find one.

With that said Why do you sell a controller with every PH? Why cant you sell 1 controller to control say 4 ph's that will allow you to setup each one individually to do something different everytime?

meaning you can program ph 1 to only run at night and at 50%
ph2 to run 100% during the day
ph3 and ph4 to alternate 50% power day and night (meaning 1 runs at 50% for say 10min than turns off and t he other runs at 50% power for 10 min) all from one controller....

Meaning instead of having 4 vortechs with 4 controllers have 4 vortechs with 1 controller. I mean $400 per ph seems excessive to me course I am only running a 29g tank. I realize what you are trying to do by having 1 controller for each ph but I would think it would be more simplified, cheaper, and easier if you could have 1 controller for say 4 ph's or 2 ph's or 8 ph's (obviously it depends on the size of the tank lol).

Hopefully I didnt confuse the hell out of you guys lol.

 

[ganjero]

I'd say they easier to control and more independent the way they are. You can create all kind of random currents. Look at the tunze controller, if you have 4 pumps they will be controlled in pairs, meaning 2 will always do the same at any time.
Another thing is that if your one controller dies, all your pumps are uncontrollable while with the vortechs you can still use and control the others until you get it serviced or get a replacement

 

[ofblong]

That isnt a very good reason. they should all be able to be plugged into an oulet until you can get a replacement controller. Plus you can create a program that WILL allow them to be controlled individually so your point of being in pairs is a moot one.

 

[Fuppets]

Each controler is also the driver that makes the motor work. Each "PH" MUST have a driver. These just happen to be a controler also.

 

[ofblong]

still not an excuse to not have 1 controller for multiple ph's. With that said I just thought of something based on the fact I just had to replace a controller board on one of the machines at work. Why not have one controller but each PH has its own plug in board. meaning plug n play sort of thing. The programing on the controller will auto sense the new PH based on the board being plugged in. This way if just the board goes bad on 1 ph you still have all the other ph's running. The likely hood of the controller itself ever going bad is very slim. I replace plug n play boards all the time but rarely replace the actual controller. I would say in almost 8 years of working where I do I have only replaced 1 controller but about every 6 months I have to replace at least 1 plug n play board. Now granted these plug n play boards are all on diff machines and they do a heck of alot more than some board that would be designed for a ph but still.

 

[ganjero]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12930571#post12930571 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ofblong
That isnt a very good reason. they should all be able to be plugged into an oulet until you can get a replacement controller. Plus you can create a program that WILL allow them to be controlled individually so your point of being in pairs is a moot one.

Well with the tunzes you can run them w/o the controler, but my point is you wont be able to control them so the will be pumping flow at the same speed 24/7, very inconvenient for me.
I gave tunze as an example and they run like that, in pairs. I dont think creating a separate controller will reduce the price by much neither, again take as an example tunzes. The pumps alone are expensive, and a controller with all the features you want will be very expensive too. $300-$400 controllers (like neptunes systems, digital aquatics) dont have those features.
Im pretty sure ecotech thought about this and probably will be working on this, but I dont think it will save much money. JMO

Again I think the ability of running and controlling the pumps independently from each other is worth the price. Also a controller will be limited to control the amount of pumps by the outlets on it. With wireless drivers like the vortech's you can create all kinds of currents, with as many pumps as you want running together or independently.

 

[ofblong]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12931216#post12931216 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ganjero
Well with the tunzes you can run them w/o the controler, but my point is you wont be able to control them so the will be pumping flow at the same speed 24/7, very inconvenient for me.
I gave tunze as an example and they run like that, in pairs. I dont think creating a separate controller will reduce the price by much neither, again take as an example tunzes. The pumps alone are expensive, and a controller with all the features you want will be very expensive too. $300-$400 controllers (like neptunes systems, digital aquatics) dont have those features.
Im pretty sure ecotech thought about this and probably will be working on this, but I dont think it will save much money. JMO

Again I think the ability of running and controlling the pumps independently from each other is worth the price. Also a controller will be limited to control the amount of pumps by the outlets on it. With wireless drivers like the vortech's you can create all kinds of currents, with as many pumps as you want running together or independently.

sigh you obviously dont get anything I am saying so ill just wait until the guys who make vortechs can answer me.

 

[IceCap Service]

Tim is away and I am sure will elaborate on this when he returns. I am in now way shape or form an engineer but I have personally done all the service work on these from the beginning. I easily see what you want to accomplish. To do what you want to see would take a major engineering change. It would take designing a completely new master controller to allow programming and controlling multiple pumps. With what EcoTech has accomplished so far this may be a possibility but would not be in the very near future. Who knows what lies ahead. Again, Tim can go into more details when he returns.

 

[unbreakable]

i know what he means and it does make sense. basically having one controller that you can push a button for like lets say pump 1, program the speed, save it, push pump 2 program it, etc.

i think as it is, so far, i like it. really easy. in antisync, i control two pumps with 1 controller. pick the mode, set the flow, set it, and the slave does the oppposite of the master. same thing with the sync mode except the slave does the same as the master

would be nice to vary the flow from the master controller for the slaves

if they ever do something like that i just hope they dont end up setting the pumps at set flows. i like being able fine tune the flow to my liking

 

[ofblong]

Thanks for seeing what I get at. I am in no way saying what they have now is a bad thing I just think it can be "simplified" for the end user so to speak. Maybe have both types of systems for sale so the end user can pick which "setup" they may like. I understand it isnt something that would happen overnight but at least its something to think about .

 

[ganjero]

I understand what you were saying too. I just gave examples of something similar that is on the market already. Like I said I don't think it would reduce the price, a controller with those capabilities would be expensive. I also said maybe they are already working on this but again it wont reduce the prices.

 

[EcoTech Marine]

Thank you for your feedback. The idea that you have suggested makes logical sense but in the end it does not necessarily result in a lower cost product.

All controllable powerheads require a "driver" in order to commutate (power) the motors. Because this expense is necessary to bring our product to market, we have opted to integrate control functions into our driver in order to save cost. Removing this function from the driver would not actually result in much of a savings and would then require that you purchase an expensive auxiliary controller in order to control the pump. However, there is much merit in the concept of an auxiliary controller that would allow further programing opportunities, and it is something that we are very aware of.

Beyond this I'm not able to comment as we do not publicly discuss our product development plans.

-Tim

 

[ofblong]

thanks for the reply. I truly dont see why it wouldnt cost less since I do have to work in electronics and plc programming but whatever.