Re: [foxboro] One IND block per compound -- still true?
- From: "Pedersen, Eric" <pedersen.em@xxxxxx>
- To: <foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:40:17 -0400
Hmm. I have never heard of being restricted to 1 IND per compound. I
have multiple compounds with multiple IND blocks running without
problems. It's been that way since the early 1990's with CP30's;
currently running on CP40's and CP60's.
Eric M. Pedersen
Procter & Gamble Paper Products Company
Oxnard Plant PC&IS Engineering
-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Corey R Clingo
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 4:29 PM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [foxboro] One IND block per compound -- still true?
OK, I might be turning into an HLBL crackhead :)
I rolled my own rolling average program in an IND block the other day,
and
it's sooo much nicer for long average periods or fast scan times than 47
CALCA blocks. Maybe 20 actual lines of code (plus comments), and it
executed fully in a BPC with no noticeable loading on a CP40B. So
naturally I get to thinking where else I could use this shiny new power
tool...
I did it as an IND block, which was OK for my one application, but got
to
wondering if I should implement it also as a MON/DEP combination or
something similar, so as not to hog up that compound's IND block slot
(which might be doing something important, like sending out mass emails
urging people to write in David Johnson for prez) with some chicken-poo
little rolling average program. I guess I could locate it in another
compound, but that seems ugly. As I was reading through the HLBL docs,
though, I never saw any mention of the 1-IND-per-compound restriction
I've
heard for all these years, and so I wonder if that limit is still real?
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
_______________________________________________________________________
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
- References:
- [foxboro] HART AOUT gives error in sysmon
- From: David Johnson
- [foxboro] One IND block per compound -- still true?
- From: Corey R Clingo
Other related posts:
- » Re: [foxboro] One IND block per compound -- still true?
- » Re: [foxboro] One IND block per compound -- still true?
- » Re: [foxboro] One IND block per compound -- still true?
- » Re: [foxboro] One IND block per compound -- still true?
- » Re: [foxboro] One IND block per compound -- still true?
- » Re: [foxboro] One IND block per compound -- still true?
- » Re: [foxboro] One IND block per compound -- still true?
- » Re: [foxboro] One IND block per compound -- still true?
- » Re: [foxboro] One IND block per compound -- still true?
- » Re: [foxboro] One IND block per compound -- still true?
- [foxboro] HART AOUT gives error in sysmon
- From: David Johnson
- [foxboro] One IND block per compound -- still true?
- From: Corey R Clingo