Page 1 of 1

GEM Send Intervals

Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2012 5:12 pm
by Teken
Hello,

I would like to know the pro's and con's of setting the GEM to broadcast at different timed values? :?: So, if I set the GEM for 4 seconds, will the data captured in that 4 seconds be broad-casted to the SEG site?

Or will the GEM simply send data at 4 second intervals, missing the data at 1-3 seconds? As Sam from SEG indicates that the GEM should be set to 45 second intervals.

Also, is there any negatives in setting the GEM to 4 seconds?

Teken . . .

Re: GEM Send Intervals

Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 10:43 am
by ben
Teken wrote:Hello,

I would like to know the pro's and con's of setting the GEM to broadcast at different timed values? :?: So, if I set the GEM for 4 seconds, will the data captured in that 4 seconds be broad-casted to the SEG site?

Or will the GEM simply send data at 4 second intervals, missing the data at 1-3 seconds? As Sam from SEG indicates that the GEM should be set to 45 second intervals.

Also, is there any negatives in setting the GEM to 4 seconds?

Teken . . .
The GEM works on Wattseconds, Seconds counters that increment. It'll send whatever has been accumulated within those 4 seconds.

I would suggest going by what Sam suggests as far as SEG goes.

Re: GEM Send Intervals

Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 10:53 am
by Teken
ben wrote:
Teken wrote:Hello,

I would like to know the pro's and con's of setting the GEM to broadcast at different timed values? :?: So, if I set the GEM for 4 seconds, will the data captured in that 4 seconds be broad-casted to the SEG site?

Or will the GEM simply send data at 4 second intervals, missing the data at 1-3 seconds? As Sam from SEG indicates that the GEM should be set to 45 second intervals.

Also, is there any negatives in setting the GEM to 4 seconds?

Teken . . .
The GEM works on Wattseconds, Seconds counters that increment. It'll send whatever has been accumulated within those 4 seconds.

I would suggest going by what Sam suggests as far as SEG goes.
I have set it to 30 seconds, as it was determined there were rounding issues of the data. So far it appears to be correct. As always thank you for your continued support and guidance.

Teken . . .