I'm installing a Victon system and I am already thousands into this system. I really don't WANT a BMV when I'm paying 700 cdn for a CCGX. But yet I think you need the shunt from the BMV to run the CCGX??? Is it possible to get the CCGX running without wasting another 300 on a boring BMV? How can I run a CCGX without the BMV?
Hi
You can use there smart shunt device to send data to the CCGX and a phone if required.
Regards
Rob D
NZ
Hi @Lukevader
You don't need a BMV to make a CCGX work. As an example, Easysolar boxes don't have a BMV aboard, and they work fine.
The BMV (or Smartshunt) mightn't be so boring if you need the info it provides, but if you don't, don't buy it..
To answer that question we need more information about your system.
Batteries? Inverter/charger? Are there DC loads and/or DC chargers (PV, alternator)?
Hi there, thanks for the help. My system so far has evolved into 12v 560ah total LiFePo4 batteries, 12/3000/120 multiplus, ccgx, victron 250/100 SCC, 385wx4, 144 split cell panels, all on/in a 2002 dutch star mh.
DC loads? DC charging from the alternator?
If you only have AC loads via the MultiPlus and no charging from the alternator you can use the internal BMV of the Multi.
If you have DC loads and/or charging from the alternator you need the BMV or the cheaper SmartShunt (133€ ex VAT).
@Lukevader Typically with LifeP04 system you should consider having it's BMS talk to the CGX via can.bus and be the master source of battery information. Naturally these batteries should ideally be certified compatible with the Multiplus. I often state "smart batteries" knows best as on mine I have access down to individual cell information which none of these other solutions can provide. The battery is even accessible via the internet for remote monitoring and firmware updates.
I am missing your point actually as you give the me the impression you were told you need one, which should not be the case. Of course there are individuals who like for good measure to have one or maybe they have starter batteries etc. as was mentioned. I'd question your source or at least determine why you you were left with that impression given this should have already been decided at the system design stage.
