Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    43

    Unhappy FX40 Retrofit of NAE w/SWCVT Wireless N2 - HELP!

    We just replaced a failed NAE that had one of those SWCVT wireless N2 communications devices on it and are having problems getting the N2 back to communicate with the new FX40.

    Any ideas?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by esusa56 View Post
    We just replaced a failed NAE that had one of those SWCVT wireless N2 communications devices on it and are having problems getting the N2 back to communicate with the new FX40.

    Any ideas?
    As far as I know this will not work on the FX40

    The swcvt is a N2 bus extension over Ethernet IP and talks only to the
    IP Address in the NAE over the customers wireless network. I don't know if the is available in the FX40

  3. #3
    There has to be a way.

    What if you had one on both sides. convert RS485 to IP and then back to RS485? N2 devices wired to first SWCVT wireless to Second SWCVT from there wired to FX com trunk.
    Just speculating here. The JCI crap may not be capable, but I am sure something out there is.

    Go here http://www.bb-elec.com/
    Last edited by freddy-b; 12-03-2007 at 07:00 PM. Reason: added link

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Edmonton, AB Canada
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by freddy-b View Post
    There has to be a way.

    What if you had one on both sides. convert RS485 to IP and then back to RS485? N2 devices wired to first SWCVT wireless to Second SWCVT from there wired to FX com trunk.
    Just speculating here. The JCI crap may not be capable, but I am sure something out there is.

    Go here http://www.bb-elec.com/
    Good day Freddy,

    You can certainly do this, however you will need a device that is a lot more sophisticated than simple RS485 to Ethernet converters. Sadly these simple convertors cannot deal with all the nuances of Ethernet communication (packet loss, retries, etc) that are necessary for reliable N2 communication. Further, given the Ethernet loading characteristics one also has to deal with variable Ethernet packet times which can vary from below a milliseconds to as high as several hundred milliseconds. It is these nuances and variances that cause unreliable (large number of offlines, etc) rs485 to ethernet N2 networks.

    There are only two products that I am aware of that can deal with this. One is from JCI and is the Secvt which only creates an N2 tunnel with an NAE 5500 series, or our product the S2N2E http://www.s2innovations.com/content.php?id=14). The S2N2E is universal in that it goes from N2 to ethernet to N2 and will work with any type of NC (NCM, NAE, N30, etc). The S2N2E is really quite sophisticated and can compensate for all of the Ethernet issues (these variable packet delays/latencies, retries, etc). The devices are not cheap, but have been used successfully in literally hundreds of locations over the last 4 years (since Sept 2003). In fact, I have two customers that are successfully using them in wireless (5-10 miles using sophisticated wireless technologies) applications.

    Cheers,

    Sam

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Edmonton, AB Canada
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by esusa56 View Post
    We just replaced a failed NAE that had one of those SWCVT wireless N2 communications devices on it and are having problems getting the N2 back to communicate with the new FX40.

    Any ideas?
    Good day,

    See my response to Freddy post in your thread. As I stated, you could use our S2N2Es with a suitable wireless technology to extend N2 communications wirelessly. My current customers that have done this stated that simple wireless transceivers (those from BB, MaxStream) just were not reliable enough for their applications. Both of them used sophisticated equipment for their IP/Wireless bridge and have been extremely pleased with the results. Let me know if you wish the wireless manufacturers they used and I will find it out for you.

    Cheers,

    Sam

  6. #6
    Sounds too expensive and pretty much pointless then. It needs to be cost effective or whats the point.

    Just add another FX at the remote site and call it good. Probably work better anyway.

    Freddy

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Edmonton, AB Canada
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by freddy-b View Post
    Sounds too expensive and pretty much pointless then. It needs to be cost effective or whats the point.

    Just add another FX at the remote site and call it good. Probably work better anyway.

    Freddy
    Good day Freddy,

    Indeed, it can be costly... however if wireless is the only option what can you do. The one customer of mine has multiple buildings separated anywhere from 1 to 10 miles and so overhead cabling or working with the telco (it is a remote location) was not an option. Using the S2N2Es was the least expensive option by a long shot. What he did to help offset the wireless costs, was to share the wireless network (bandwidth) with other local vendors.

    Cheers,

    Sam

  8. #8
    I understand what you are saying, Then you just go traditional/standard wireless with without the n2 mumbo jumbo.

    Freddy

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event