CT2 Internal Trouble

[namlashs]

Hi,

I am facing a weird issue when I install a new CT2 in my loop. After downloading the database, this is what happens:

1. The CT2 works perfectly fine for approximately 2 hours, after which it gives two "internal troubles". One for each contact of the CT2
2. If i restart the panel, the internal trouble goes away, and returns back after two hours.
3. I have set both contacts of the CT2 as a supervisory, and even after the internal trouble is displayed in the panel, the CT2 continues to operate and detects any supervisory signal on both contacts. However, the supervisory signal takes about 4 to 5 seconds to be displayed in the panel. Similarly, once the supervisory signal is restored at the module, it takes around 10 seconds to disappear from the panel. (These delays are unusual, because when this same module doesnt have an internal trouble, there is no delay at all) - As I mentioned before, it takes two hours for the internal trouble to appear, during which the module works great.
4. Before the internal trouble appears, if i remove resistor from one of the CT2 contacts, the panel displays trouble open act as expected. However, after 2 hours upon appearing of the internal trouble, the "trouble open" does not appear.

Adding other modules like CR, CT1, CC1, IM work perfectly fine
Even the existing CT2 modules which were installed during commissioning work perfectly fine, but adding a new CT2 module is the problem.

The trouble showing in SDU for both CT2 contacts is:

"Bit 07 (Bit 7 of Byte 3)
Double failure by EEPROM WRITE Verify."

I have eliminated all basic causes of this by doing the following:

I have used 4 brand new CT2 modules, all behave the same
I have connected them in different physical location, different panels and different loops, still the same result.
Now, the module is connected as the ONLY device in the loop, directly at the loop card inside the panel.
No Contact is connected, only the two resistors are connected.

If anyone has any idea about this, please let me know.
Thanks

[Leo]

did you try changing the ct2 address, if not what address are you using
if you have changed the address then your computer looks to be the only common thing

sometimes it is going to be what is it going to be, no one knows why
just got to do a work around

[namlashs]

I connected the CT2 in different loops. In each loop, it had a different address.

I have used address 153 & 154, and then 158 & 159 in the same loop (Both in circuit 1 of SDDC1)

Also, i have used address 158 & 159 in a different loop

Also, I have used address 376 & 377 in a different loop (Circuit 2 of SDDC1)

As you suggested that it might be my computer, I think it has something to do with SDU 4.01 that i'm using..

The only work around i have is to use two CT1's instead of one CT2

Thanks Leo for your input !

And as always a big thanks to EST for ZERO tech support in the middle east :)

[Leo]

I had problems using SDU-4.xx with my computer because it is 64bit
I got an older 32bit computer for SDU with versions lower then 4.xx
I bet if you did get tech support, first thing they would tell you is to upgrade the panel's SDU version

[gmcorreia]

In the past I had the same problem ...

http://www.thealarmtech.com/forum/viewt ... ?f=5&t=852

After so many attempts, we discovered many things responsible for these errors:

1 - many cable diameters in the same loop (a mess of cables by the installer)

2 - a series of "T-tap" in the loop

3 - loop distance

4 - device polarity reversed in the loop

All of above, just discovered with a SIGA-MFT or SIGA-HDT. If you don't have one of these tools, buy one for yourself because it is very useful.

After this diagnosis, we corrected everything and that error disappeared.

Hope this helps.

[namlashs]

@gmcorreia Thanks

I have ordered siga-hdt and siga-mft. Will be getting them soon hopefully.

Meanwhile, I was just troubleshooting further and luckily found the problem. It was something so simple that I didn't expect it at all. Unfortunately, I had received a batch of CT2's (10 pieces) with a factory defect. Once I tried CT2's from a different batch, everything was fine.

10 defective CT2's seems like a long shot, but EST never ceases to amaze me :)

[Leo]

that is not a simple find
who would thought that.
nice find

[namlashs]

Definitely not a simple find. Very unexpected.
Hence, it took a lot of time and effort :)