Current Cost \ Watts Clever : The 144 Bug

by Moderator [Steven] 26. January 2010 14:16

This article applies to the following brands and models:

Current Cost : Classic and Envi

Watts Clever : STC-4002 \ Jaycar MS6155

This bug related to the above mentioned Current Cost and Watts Clever products, and relates to incorrect values being recorded and displayed by the device. We have termed this bug the "144 Bug", however it will result in an incorrect value of 144 being added to phases (channels) 2 and 3 which means the error is 288 watts over-stated, this applies to both single and three phase installations.

The errors occurs when the actual wattage used is over 3KWatts, when this condition is true then an incorrect value of 144 watts is shown on channels 1 and 2 of the data store and as a result on the classic model represented on the screen, on the ENVI the manufacturers have attempted to fix the bug by not adding the error into the LCD display. However on all brand and models the history will be incorrect for all occurrences where Energy Now is greater than (about) 3kw. This is an issue that is not resolved true software with any reasonable accuracy, we have sighted a claim by Watts Clever that a certain software product will resolve this issue in relation to the history data, however we dispute that the history can be accurately corrected)

While this is a serious issue in relation to the accuracy, and could be resolved by the manufacturer, it has existed over two model generations so the bug is unlikely to be resolved in the near future. I did attempt to get a response from Current Cost about 4 months ago however, emails have remained unanswered.

While this blows the accuracy of the device out of the window, I would suggest that the products are still a very effective tool to assist with energy usage and to highlight areas that can be improved on - just consider the readings as relative indicators of energy used.

Updated August 2010

Some software products for the CurrentCost and Watts Clever devices have attempted to remove the 144*2 error, It should be noted that some owners have reported to us that this further impacts the accuracy when trying to make sense of the live readings against the history readings. We tend to agree with this finding as the only correct way of resolving this particular bug is to make changes to the firmware of the device to ensure the correct readings are stored in the history and live data.

 

Tags: , ,

Technical | Product Bugs and Issues

Comments (9) -

16 March 2010 3:10 AM #

David

On the CC128 Envi, it looks like the data sent on the serial port is correct and that the LCD display is overstated. Or is it that the display is correct and the data is understated?

David

18 March 2010 10:43 PM #

Moderator

David
As I understand it CurrentCost attempted to hide the bug by fixing the data displayed on the LCD, however they forgot to fix the data that is exported via the serial interface.

Therefore, the 144 x 2 bug that was interoduced in the classic still remains in the Envi, however the ENVI LCD display hides the overstated value. However the data presented via the serial data will be overstated on channels 2 and 3 when watts used if around 3kw or greater.

Moderator

19 March 2010 6:53 PM #

David

Well that is at variance with I am seeing.

I just checked my ENVI again and the display reads 10.5KW while CH1 on the serial data reads 10216W. (I do not use CH2 and 3, and indeed they do not show in the data). So it looks like the display over-reads somehow.

David

19 March 2010 7:02 PM #

Moderator

David
That does not line up with the models that we have here, do you know the version of the firmware on your ENVI?

Moderator

19 March 2010 7:09 PM #

David

version 0.11
<msg><src>CC128-v0.11</src><dsb>00002</dsb><time>14:10:11</time><tmpr>16.6</tmpr
><sensor>0</sensor><id>00077</id><type>1</type><ch1><watts>02710</watts></ch1></
msg>
<msg><src>CC128-v0.11</src><dsb>00002</dsb><time>14:10:17</time><tmpr>16.6</tmpr
><sensor>0</sensor><id>00077</id><type>1</type><ch1><watts>02693</watts></ch1></
msg>
<msg><src>CC128-v0.11</src><dsb>00002</dsb><time>14:10:23</time><tmpr>16.6</tmpr
><sensor>0</sensor><id>00077</id><type>1</type><ch1><watts>02676</watts></ch1></
msg>
<msg><src>CC128-v0.11</src><dsb>00002</dsb><time>14:10:29</time><tmpr>16.6</tmpr
><sensor>0</sensor><id>00077</id><type>1</type><ch1><watts>02696</watts></ch1></
msg>
<msg><src>CC128-v0.11</src><dsb>00002</dsb><time>14:10:36</time><tmpr>16.6</tmpr
><sensor>0</sensor><id>00077</id><type>1</type><ch1><watts>02661</watts></ch1></
msg>
<msg><src>CC128-v0.11</src><dsb>00002</dsb><time>14:10:42</time><tmpr>16.6</tmpr
><sensor>0</sensor><id>00077</id><type>1</type><ch1><watts>02628</watts></ch1></
msg>

David

19 March 2010 7:16 PM #

Moderator

David
The log shows 2661 watts on channel 1 which is below the 3kw threshold I mentioned previously.When the threshold is under 3kw the 144 bug does not occur.

You mentioned previously a reading of over 10 Kw, that's pretty high, I have only ever had an energy now reading of about 8kw with all air conditioners turn on.

I may email you directly over the weekend to clarify what issue that you are experiencing.

Moderator

19 March 2010 7:41 PM #

David

Craig,

That example was just one I had captured a while ago, purely to show the version, not the data when over 3Kw. The 10Kw is when my electric shower is operating, only for a couple of minutes a day. [I am in the UK] .

Currently the CC128 is hooked up to a small netbook and logging constantly, but I just parse out the CH1 data for my graphs.

I can confirm that the discrepancy between the serial data on CH1 and the display on the CC128 only happens above about 3KW (when I put the kettle on for example). The display always then reads a bit higher than the serial data on CH1.

David

19 March 2010 7:57 PM #

Moderator

David
Thanks, I guess I jumped ahead of myself, you are using the same firmware that is in the australian models. So I would assume that we both have the same models of Envi.

I have blogged about the how I only consider the readings on the CurrentCost as relative indications to help reduce energy usage.

I have just been going back to my lab notes of last year and I think your account is different that my results. I uderstand that the fix that was done by CurrentCost was to remove the error from the LCD display, but the data still contained the values of 144 in channels 2 and 3 when the usage was over 3Kw. I understand that this fix somehow detected if additional sensors had been installed and if not was implemented.

However, I did not note down when testing if the display verses data for channel 1 where correct. I have noted to test this and will post a reply here when I have.

While we know of this bug I would be keen to your feedback as to how effective the product has been for you, assuming that one of your goals was to reduce either carbon emissions and/or cost of supply.

Moderator

19 March 2010 8:17 PM #

David

Thanks Craig, Will be happy to compare notes.

I have had the unit for only about 3 weeks, but it has enabled me to see what appliances consume the most power and what not to leave on when not needed.

I have my CC128 hooked up to my low power Asus EeePC netbook, running linux, logging into a program called meteohub which also is hooked up to my automatic weather station. This produces graphs of peak watts, average watts and watthours for various periods.

David

Pingbacks and trackbacks (3)+

Comments are closed
Theme by

RecentComments

Comment RSS