Re: [foxboro] CP60 new image problem
- From: "Audenaert, Sven" <Sven.Audenaert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 06:38:17 -0400
Alex,
I was the service engineer who installed the latest CP60 image by installing
QF 1005621.
> 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?
RE: I have searched the user notes and this it wat is says:
PLB Block Duplicate Output Connection Check added
================================================
CAR:1002747 - Perform duplicate output checking for PLB Blocks
25449 There was no indication for duplicate output connections when two or
more PLB blocks were connected to the same FBM. As a result, two different
blocks were allowed to write to the same IFL in the ladder logic. Duplicate
output checking for PLB blocks was added.
So no indictation about the "W59 - DUPLICATE OUTPUT CHANNEL" warning.
TAC suggested to enter a seperate CAR to report this issue and get it
corrected.
regards,
Sven Audenaert
Service Engineer
Invensys Systems N.V./S.A.
Kontichsesteenweg 54
2630 Aartselaar - Belgium
T: +32 (0)3 205.14.45 F: +32 (0)3 232.17.98
sven.audenaert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx - www.invensys-systems.be
F o x b o r o * S i m S c i * T r i c o n e x * W o n d e r w a r e
> -----Original Message-----
> From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Johnson,
> Alex P (IPS)
> Sent: donderdag 8 september 2005 16:18
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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,
>
> 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 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 experienced problems with it, now we re-imaged the
> CP60, using QF1005621, 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 extender
> FBM42, both plb's use the same iomid, the FBM42 doesn't have
> it's 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 we cannot save the
> changes. Therefore we cannot edit any of the PLB's 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, delete the plb and create it again, type in all the
> ifl's, including the 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=nl-be
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> _________
> 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
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________
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:
