Re: [foxboro] INVALM issue on a CIN block -- solved
- From: Corey R Clingo <corey.clingo@xxxxxxxx>
- To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:15:50 -0500
I do that some, too, but we have some conventions for configuring
parameters like IV0 that vary by application. These blocks are motor run
status, and one of our conventions (well, mine anyway :) is that the CIN
is ON when the motor is running. In this case, the operations folks want
an alarm when the motor is stopped; hence the use of INVALM.
However, a rereading of the documentation has answered my question, and
actually (after only 7 years or so :) clarified my understanding of what
SCTXT0/SCTXT1 vs. NM0/NM1 are really supposed to be used for. In a
nutshell, SCTXT0 and SCTXT1 are text definitions of the actual block
states, whereas NM0 is the "return-to-normal" alarm message, and NM1 is
the "in alarm" alarm message -- _regardless_ of how INVALM is set. My
apologies to the guy who built the CIN detail and faceplate displays for
using (what I thought were) the "state change" parameters instead of
(what I thought were) the "state name" parameters. He had many aspersions
cast his way :)
I believe I just need to swap my NM0 and NM1 text and I think it will
work.
Corey Clingo
BASF Corporation
P.S. while digging through the docs, I found a couple other potentially
useful blocks. Anyone ever used a DPIDA? It looks cool for high-speed
loops, if it will work in any 200-series FBMs. Better for a handful of
fast loops then making your entire CP 0.1 BPC.
"Illingsworth, John" <JIllings@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
08/21/2008 05:04 PM
Please respond to
foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To
"'foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
Re: [foxboro] INVALM issue on a CIN block
Corey
We use the IVO paramater to invert alarms in CIN blocks.
Regards
John Illingsworth
NRG Gladstone Power Station
Gladstone QLD 4680
-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Corey R Clingo
Sent: Friday, 22 August 2008 7:57 AM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [foxboro] INVALM issue on a CIN block
Hi list,
Yes, I'm fishing for a quick answer before I call TAC :)
We had to change some CIN blocks today such that the alarm state was the
OFF state on the blocks. I set INVALM to 1 and the block detail display
looked fine -- the OFF state of the block caused the big red STATE to come
up, and the ON state caused the alarm to clear (well, STATE changed to
UNACK).
However, when I look in the alarm history display, it appears that INVALM
is being ignored there. The ON state of the CIN block generates the alarm
message, and the OFF state generates the return message -- exactly the
opposite of what I'm seeing on the block detail. The alarm "printer"
(actually, a PC running Visual Alert) exhibits this same behavior.
I looked through the QFs for I/A version 6.5.3 but didn't find anything.
Anyone ever seen anything like this before? I'll probably delete/undelete
all the changed CIN blocks next if I can't find some other remedy. These
blocks are in a CP40A.
Thanks,
Corey Clingo
BASF Corporation
_______________________________________________________________________
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
The contents of this electronic message and any attachments are intended
only for the addressee and may contain legally privileged, personal,
sensitive or confidential information. If you are not the intended
addressee, and have received this email, any transmission, distribution,
downloading, printing or photocopying of the contents of this message or
attachments is strictly prohibited. Any legal privilege or confidentiality
attached to this message and attachments is not waived, lost or destroyed
by reason of delivery to any person other than intended addressee. If you
have received this message and are not the intended addressee you should
notify the sender by return email and destroy all copies of the message
and any attachments. Unless expressly attributed, the views expressed in
this email do not necessarily represent the views of the company.
_______________________________________________________________________
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
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [foxboro] INVALM issue on a CIN block -- solved
- From: Kevin Fitzgerrell
- Re: [foxboro] INVALM issue on a CIN block -- solved
- From: Badura, Tom
- References:
- Re: [foxboro] INVALM issue on a CIN block
- From: Illingsworth, John
Other related posts:
- » Re: [foxboro] INVALM issue on a CIN block -- solved
- » Re: [foxboro] INVALM issue on a CIN block -- solved
- » Re: [foxboro] INVALM issue on a CIN block -- solved
- » Re: [foxboro] INVALM issue on a CIN block -- solved
- » Re: [foxboro] INVALM issue on a CIN block -- solved
- » Re: [foxboro] INVALM issue on a CIN block -- solved
- Re: [foxboro] INVALM issue on a CIN block -- solved
- From: Kevin Fitzgerrell
- Re: [foxboro] INVALM issue on a CIN block -- solved
- From: Badura, Tom
- Re: [foxboro] INVALM issue on a CIN block
- From: Illingsworth, John