Alex, The PLB ladder "warning" message "W59- duplicate output channel" would indicate to most users that they incorrectly configured a 2nd reference to the same contact output, which, it sounds like, may or may not be true. It would make more sense for Foxboro to check the ladders running in the FBM, instead of the IOM ID in PLB blocks, to see if there is a "duplicate output channel" defined, before sending a warning message.=20 Based on Kevin and Dirk's response it sounds like the change gets installed but the warning message comes up making it difficult for the user to know if the change took place. The potentially erroneous warning mechanism also makes it difficult for the user to know that the change will be retained if he selects "Cancel" instead of "Done" to exit the block editor. A better place to check duplicate channel assignment would be during the ladder logic "Compile" operation or when actually attempting to download the ladder to the same FBM used by another ladder. All in all, it sounds like one of many half-baked attempts, to modify a monolithic software application such as the ICC. At one time I thought there was a movement underway to overhaul the ICC and its very confusing and complex file based infrastructure. I thought there was some intent to eliminate the current work-file mechanism and always use a de-compilation of the current checkpoint file as the basis for changes. Based on communications on this list, it sounds like the "new" IACC application still uses the same file infrastructure but displays it in a graphical front end. Alex, is there anything shaking on eliminating the workfile/upload/shrink mechanisms? BTW, we elected at a very early time to always run only one ladder in an "FBM - Extended FBM" combo. We always name the PLB block "PLB050302" where 050302 is the six character letterbug of the primary FBM. In this way, we insured that there were no "duplicate output channels" defined, and that only one ladder runs in an FBM or extended combo. Because of this we are probably not affected by this new CP image. This worked for us but now, as we move to 200 series FBM's that don't support extensions, we have to split our ladders in half to be able to load them into each individual FBM. =20 We also continue to experience large #'s of Intermittent Fieldbus Communication Access Errors, mostly on discrete 100 series FBM's running ladder logic that communicate through DCM10E's to CP-60's. It is my strong belief that additional communication loading needed to communicate IFL/OFL, and other ladder info across the fieldbus is one of the root causes of fieldbus communication errors. Although we have found ladder logic very helpful in the past, I would recommend new users avoid running ladder logic in discrete FBM's in the future. Tom VandeWater Control Systems Developer/Analyst Dow Corning Corporation Carrollton, KY USA =20 -----Original Message----- From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Johnson, Alex P (IPS) Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 10:18 AM To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [foxboro] CP60 new image problem Dirk, Re: W59- duplicate output channel This is not an error message. It is a warning message that attempts to alert the user that the potential exists that the same output channel is/maybe in use by multiple blocks. This change was made in response to a problem originally reported by CAR1002747. The CAR stated that there were several cases of damaged equipment in the field caused by multiple PLB blocks writing to the same contact output.=20 This issue was taken to the Safety Committee. The committee concluded that it was NOT a safety issue, since the user documentation warned against the possibility of incorrect behavior when multiple PLB blocks are connected to the same FBM.=20 That said, the Safety Committee also strongly recommended that a warning message be added to the I/A product in a future release. In response to this recommendation, this was done. I haven't searched the user notes for the QF that you have, but it should mention the warning message. Would you mind checking for me? Please let me know if you have any other questions. Regards, =20 Alex Johnson Invensys Systems, Inc. 10707 Haddington Houston, TX 77063 +1 713 722 2859 (voice) +1 713 932 0222 (fax) +1 713 722 2700 (switchboard) alex.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I hope to see you at the Invensys Process System User Group meeting October 3-6 in Houston, TX -=20 www.invensys.com/usergroup2005 -----Original Message----- From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dirk Pauwels Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 2:36 AM To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [foxboro] CP60 new image problem Does anyone outhere have FBM41 & 42 on CP60's? We do, and have never=20 experienced problems with it, now we re-imaged the CP60, using QF1005621,=20 and all of our PLB's which are on FBM41 & 42 are showing in green in the select. Reason for this seems to be the fact that if you use FBM41 with=20 extender FBM42, both plb's use the same iomid, the FBM42 doesn't have it's=20 own iomid. The plb's are working ok, but it's not possible to change the config in the icc, we keep getting error W59- duplicate output channel. So=20 we cannot save the changes. Therefore we cannot edit any of the PLB's=20 concerned. Is there any solution without changing back to the old image? Seems Foxboro forgot about the Extender FBM42 in their new image.... One way to edit the plb's seems to be to save the ladder logic in the library,=20 delete the plb and create it again, type in all the ifl's, including the=20 corrections/new ifl's and then copy the logic from the library, edit and save. Any suggestions from the Foxboro guru's? _________________________________________________________________ Gratis bloggen op MSN Spaces http://spaces.msn.com/?mkt=3Dnl-be =20 =20 _______________________________________________________________________ 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 =20 foxboro mailing list: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro to subscribe: = mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3Djoin to unsubscribe: = mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3Dleave =20 =20 =20 _______________________________________________________________________ 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 =20 foxboro mailing list: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro to subscribe: = mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3Djoin to unsubscribe: = mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3Dleave =20 _______________________________________________________________________ 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: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro to subscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join to unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave