Dear William,
Thanks.
We could establish communication between FBM 231 AND Stahl ICS MUX. The
issue was that MUX required quary for 32 registers at a time and we made it
possible through scan groups of 32 registers.
On Dec 22, 2016 11:44 AM, "miten thakkar" <mitenthakkar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear William,
We defined 2 scan groups: 40064 to 40096 and 40097 to 40128
We defined 32 IIN blcoks with address ranging from 40064 to 40096
We also defined one IIN block with 40097 address.
We connected FBM 231 to ModSlaveSim software which shows communication
traffic on its COM Port.
We came to know that FBM 231 is generating 2 no of quaries:
One quary for 32 registers
Second quary for only 1 register as only one register is defined.
Then we difined one more IIN block with 40128 address.
Then FBM 231 was genrating 2 no of quaries:
One query for 32 registers
Second query for all 32 registers although only two points i.e. 40097 and
40128 are defined.
So we came to conclusion that Whichever first and last point of scan
group are defined in IIN block, query would be sent for all register
between all registers including those two registers.
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 9:46 PM, William C Ricker <
wcricker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Without actual testing I can not say for certain, but I think:
If no scan groups are defined, and no other points are defined to read
40000 series registers, the I think it only reads the two points.
If scan groups are defined, then I think the scan groups are scanned even
if no points are defined.
WCR
*From:* miten thakkar [mailto:mitenthakkar@xxxxxxxxx]
*Sent:* Monday, December 19, 2016 10:23 PM
*To:* foxboro freelist <foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Cc:* wcricker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* Re: [foxboro] MODBUS MGFT30 vs FBM231 query
Thanks William.
Referring to your three sets, if we define only two RIN blocks with pnt
no:401025 and 401026, then FDSI driver will generate read quary for only
these two points or entire group of 401025 to 401032 I.e. complete set 1 ?
On Dec 20, 2016 2:02 AM, "William C Ricker" <wcricker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
The FDSI has optimization of scanning that MG30 doesn't have, so some
addresses not scanned by MG30 may
now be scanned by FDSI unless you set up specific scan groups.
This is a problem with some Modbus-like devices which report errors when
unused addresses are scanned.
For example, an obscure ABB gateway connected to parallel electrical units
in a precipitator system.
The analog input addresses where in registers something like:
401025 to 401032 Set 1
401089 to 401096 Set 2
401153 to 401160 Set 3
We set up IINs for the 16 registers in each set. The FDSI optimized
scanning and so scanned registers
between the blocks of data. The ABB Gateway didn't like that as it
reported as an error any attempt to
scan registers it didn't have defined.
As such, we defined a separate scan group for each data set. FDSI scanned
the registers in these groups
Specifically, and no others. Problem Solved.
(By the way, the MG30 being replaced did have a separate MDSCAN group for
each of these sets.)
William C Ricker
FeedForward, Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On
Behalf Of miten thakkar
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 1:12 AM
To: foxboro freelist <foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [foxboro] MODBUS MGFT30 vs FBM231 query
Currently third party Device is connected to I/A Nod bus using MGFT30. It
is
having PCTYPE parameter 2 (i.e. 584 type device) FBM 231 is not having
such
parameter. So should this make any difference because we are not able
communicate with third party device using FBM 231 with other parameters
remaining same(like baud,start bit,stop bit,parity,heart bit,slave
address)
?
_________________________________________________________________________
This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Schneider Electric
(formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at your own
risks. See the disclaimer at www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html
foxboro mailing list: //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 Schneider Electric
(formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at your own
risks. See the disclaimer at www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html
foxboro mailing list: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
to unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave
