Question On Axis 233D

We have a client with multiple 233D PTZ cameras. 2 of them were down for their parking lot and had been down for a while. The resident technician had said it was most likely bad fiber runs (they are the worst runs in the whole campus). I had my fiber test gear ready to diagnose but connected my laptop the the media convertor and had quick ping response and everything seemed fine. Went up to the camera with my meter and measured 24VAC as expected. They were in a Videoalarm outdoor housing and had a Altronix VR2T 24VAC to 12VDC convertor that states a 500mA max connection. Both of these were not working properly.

My question is why, if the 233D accepts 24VAC power, would you convert existing 24VAC to 12VDC when the spec sheet states a 22-40VDC 20W power consumption. Both VR2T had charred marks on them and blown caps. The cameras are now running fine on 24VAC. Another one we cleaned had signs that a VR2T was in place at some point but was removed from the circuit.

I just wasn't sure if the 233D preferred DC power to AC or there was some reason that I'm not aware of that I should be finding a replacement converter in the meantime. I'm always open to learning something new.

I guess they technically they 'prefer' DC, since that's what they use ultimately, but if you are running 24VAC already, I would think it best to let the camera bring it down itself, instead of another device.

Maybe there was a different camera inside the dome originally that only took DC, and got replaced. Maybe the slammer just used the law of 'bare minimum effort' in connecting the 233d.

I always ran mine on 24VAC, the loss running 12VDC was too great and would make the PTZ movement impossible. I believe the inline adapter that it came with was 3A, so 500ma sounds light.

According to Axis, that converter should be removed and the cameras should work fine using the 24VAC supply.

I have no idea why they converted 24VAC (which the camera accepts) to 12VDC (which is below its input voltage range). Chris may have the right idea, that something else was in the housing at some point.

Well I did get a little information which kind of sends the message that they didn't know what they were doing. The same contractor that installed the cameras also installed the fiber for the parking lot in question. I guess there were a lot of fiber issues. That was OK though because they had a 5 year maintenance agreement. A year after install they went out of business.

I was thinking about going to all remaining working 233D cameras in the parking lot and making sure if these devices are still present in those, they be removed.

Thanks for the replies back Ethan and Chris.