Re: [foxboro] CP60 new image problem
- From: "Johnson, Alex P (IPS)" <alex.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 13:42:34 -0400
Re: Alex, is there anything shaking on eliminating the workfile
upload/shrink mechanisms?
Yes, but it is some time away and it won't be ICC based.
Regards,
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 -
www.invensys.com/usergroup2005
-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of tom.vandewater@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 12:19 PM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [foxboro] CP60 new image problem
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
_______________________________________________________________________
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
Other related posts:
