Re: [foxboro] New Alarm Delay Parameters NASOPT and NASTDB
- From: <duc.do@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 13:16:24 -0400
> (Incidentally, is there a way to reply from the archive? Or do you
> have to save all the list emails to be able to reply to a specific
one?)
No, there is no way to directly reply from the archive. Even if there
was to be that option, I would've opted to turn it off. The archive is
publicly available, and direct-reply from it would invite tons of spams.
In lieu of copy-and-paste the posting in question, you can reference it
by using the URL that points to its archived copy.
(Doubly incidentally, I really like the way freelists.org obfuscates the
e-mail addresses in the archive.)
Duc
-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Loudermilk, Virgil:
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 1:07 PM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [foxboro] New Alarm Delay Parameters NASOPT and NASTDB
List,
A search of the list archive for NASOPT came up empty, and the only one
for NASTDB that wasn't related to the trouble it causes on CP60
databases is this one pasted in red below. So it sounds like we STILL
have to a logic block for a delay on timer for CIN state alarming?
NASOPT doesn't even in appear in the V8.3 SOTM Control Concepts Document
(we are using a CP270 on 8.3 SOTM), so I assume that they have only
implemented one of the two options shown in the IACC, the one that's far
less useful, to delay alarm return?
So I suppose our only option is to put in a PER as suggested (or just
one that says I support 2923)?
(Incidentally, is there a way to reply from the archive? Or do you have
to save all the list emails to be able to reply to a specific one?)
Thanks,
Virgil
Re: [foxboro] Some things to talk about
* From: Neil Martin <neil_martin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
* To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
* Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:50:13 -0500
For those interested and who might want to second the suggestion to
Invensys, I submitted PER (Product Enhancement Request) 2923 on June 16
for a boolean and real alarm wait parameter. Text from the suggestion
is
shown below, but please, be kind about my wording.
For those who are not aware, following requests from several years ago,
Invensys is finally implementing a control block parameter (NASTDB) in
8.X
and the CP270s that provides a time deadband for boolean alarms - like
CIN
state alarms. Working similar to a measurement alarm's DeadBand, I
believe this parameter enables a time duration to be configured for a
state to return to "GOOD" before the state alarm will go away. This is
an
OFF delay. Now what we are also needing is an alarm ON delay.
PER 2923 - submitted June 16, 2008
Description:
Need built in capability for real and boolean alarms to not
trigger the alarm unless it is in the alarm state for a
designated amount of time. This will help eliminate
nuisance alarms due to momentary or short duration
spikes.
Suggested Solution:
Provide a parameter called something like ALMWT (Alarm
Wait) that specifies the time that an alarm condition shall
exist before the alarm is triggered. It is like the opposite of
the NASTDB parameter.
Anticipated Benefits:
Provide additional system capability to reduce nuisance
alarms.
Neil Martin
Huntsman Performance Chemicals
Conroe & Dayton , TX.
Conroe ph) 936-760-6205
Dayton ph) 936-257-4212
pager) 936-522-0052
"Jones, Charles R. (Chuck)" <Chuck.Jones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
07/24/2008 11:15 AM
Please respond to
foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To
<foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
Re: [foxboro] Some things to talk about
Like Corey, I (often) use LOGIC blocks for their inexpensive alarm delay
capability (to filter out spikes). I sometimes use them for creating
interlocks where I need to OR or AND some inputs. If LOGIC blocks go
away, I can use a MON block for the same function. For alarm delays, I
could still use the larger CALC or CALCA.
I think we should keep LOGIC blocks. Or, better yet, build a Delay ON
function into our existing alarms.
Chuck Jones
Automation Technologist
Tate & Lyle South Plant
_______________________________________________________________________
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:
