Re: [foxboro] Alarming inconsistencies

Matt,
I  have seen this before and what I ended up doing was to go into the
station block of the CP and changed the value in group to a different hex
number and then back to the one I had originally and after the checkpoint
was done tried the alarms again and things worked again.

Jim

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Gunter, Matt <Matt.Gunter@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> We have a test system set up and recently had to relocate the whole kit
> and caboodle.  Once the WPs were up and running, I noticed some odd
> behavior with the alarming.  Our service engineer recommended that I run
>
>
>
> dm_recon t
>
> dm_recon d
>
> dm_recon
>
>
>
> on the AW which helped quite a bit, but there is still a problem I
> haven't been able to clear up so I thought I would toss it out to the
> group.
>
>
>
> The system is a bunch of CP60's hosted by a P80.  The WPs are P81's and
> P79's.  We are running I/A 7.1.4 with FV 9.0.3.
>
>
>
> In two different CPs I have similar compounds that contain station
> blocks with essentially identical definitions, i.e. group 4 has the same
> set of devices defined and the same hex value for selecting which
> devices from group 4 for alarm notification.  Within the two compounds I
> have essentially the same AIN block with the same alarm limits.  Both of
> the blocks are in alarm but only one of them is distributed to all of
> the selected devices in group 4.  The other block is sent to a few of
> the devices (printer and one of the WPs) but not all of them (AW and
> other WPs) - or at least it doesn't show up on any of the AM displays.
> I know that there are other blocks in other compounds and other CPs that
> exhibit similar behavior, but with a differing set of devices their
> alarms show up on (though group 4 and hex value are all identical).
> There is one WP they all seem to reach and they all show up on LP01 of
> the AW.
>
>
>
> Any ideas about how to make alarms go to the selected devices?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Matt Gunter
>
> ATK Launch Systems
>
> 801.251.4330
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process
> Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at
> your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html
>
> foxboro mailing list:             http://www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
> to subscribe:         mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
> to unsubscribe:      mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave
>
>


 
 
_______________________________________________________________________
This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process
Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at
your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html
 
foxboro mailing list:             http://www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe:         mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
to unsubscribe:      mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave

Other related posts: