<html><body><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000">I have set up a meeting in TED 2561B at 1:30PM to discuss the 325K error.<br><br>Tyler<br><br><hr id="zwchr" data-marker=""><div data-marker=""><b>From: </b>"Probir Ghoshal" <ghoshal@jlab.org><br><b>To: </b>"Brian Eng" <beng@jlab.org><br><b>Cc: </b>"Tyler Lemon" <tlemon@jlab.org>, "dsg-hallb magnets" <dsg-hallb_magnets@jlab.org>, bachiman@jlab.org<br><b>Sent: </b>Friday, February 10, 2017 10:45:55 AM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Dsg-hallb_magnets] cernox sensors 325K error<br></div><br><div data-marker="">Can we get together with Rama Tyler Pablo Brian and me today!<br>I still cannot point any on the chassis as the message is not clear and people interpret things differently. <br>Tyler could you Please set up a meeting for this afternoon! Also invite Ruben...<br><br>Thanks <br>Probir<br><br>Sent from my iPhone<br><br>> On Feb 10, 2017, at 10:27 AM, Brian Eng <beng@jlab.org> wrote:<br>> <br>> Since the raw values are the same it isn't the software conversion, so at least that's been eliminated as possible cause.<br>> <br>> 1. I have no idea how to debug this, but we have seen a failure of a chassis before. Rama would know better on this one.<br>> <br>> 2. This would be pretty easy to test: just swap the 9870 modules on the cRIO. Since the failures have only been on chassis 1 & 4 they're both on the first module. If the failures follow the module problem found and if it is still chassis 1 & 4 then it is probably upstream of the cRIO (chassis itself, cabling, etc).<br>> <br>> 3. While this is a possibility I think it's pretty unlikely, we already know from testing that the cRIO can recover from having a sensor unplugged and plugged back in, so even if it was an intermittent short it shouldn't cause it to get stuck, it isn't a complete sensor/cable failure since restarting the cRIO recovers the system.<br>> <br>> While it wasn't approved last time the Cernox sensors were misbehaving (partly because it stopped happening) I'm still of the opinion the code should just use a fixed voltage (using only V1 & I1) instead of power (but still use V1/V2 & I1/I2 to calculate the temperature) since this is basically what the startup algorithm does anyway, not to mention that's how the sensors were calibrated from the factory.<br>> <br>>> On Feb 10, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Tyler Lemon <tlemon@jlab.org> wrote:<br>>> <br>>> Hello,<br>>> <br>>> The LabVIEW shows that the raw hexadecimal value for V1 and V2 from the LV Chassis are the same. Since December, the 325K error has happened seven times. Five of seven have all been Coil B Cerenoxes in LV Chassis 4; remaining two have been in VCL Cerenoxes in Chassis 1.<br>>> <br>>> This above could mean any of the below:<br>>> • Something wrong in LV Chassis: five of seven sensors with 325K error were in same Chassis. Since we are reading back the same raw hexadecimal value for V1 and V2 when the error occurs, it could be a problem internal to the LV Chassis.<br>>> • cRIO module is bad: Since the majority of the 325K errors are from the same LV Chassis, the port on the cRIO module could be bad and causing incorrect information to be sent/received.<br>>> • Sensor cable is bad: The 325K error will also happen if the cable is broken or shorted<br>>> In the mean time, the LV cRIO has been reset and I have also moved the latching indicators to show whether what is written to the LV Chassis by LabVIEW is the same when the 325K error occurs. <br>>> <br>>> Best regards,<br>>> Tyler<br>>> <br>>> From: "Ruben Fair" <rfair@jlab.org><br>>> To: "David Kashy" <kashy@jlab.org><br>>> Cc: "Tyler Lemon" <tlemon@jlab.org>, "dsg-hallb magnets" <dsg-hallb_magnets@jlab.org><br>>> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 7:55:00 AM<br>>> Subject: Re: [Dsg-hallb_magnets] cernox sensors 325K error<br>>> <br>>> Ok - let's see what Tyler learns from the LV chassis output.<br>>> <br>>> Ruben<br>>> <br>>> From: "David Kashy" <kashy@jlab.org><br>>> To: "Ruben Fair" <rfair@jlab.org><br>>> Cc: "Tyler Lemon" <tlemon@jlab.org>, "dsg-hallb magnets" <dsg-hallb_magnets@jlab.org><br>>> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 7:49:11 AM<br>>> Subject: Re: [Dsg-hallb_magnets] cernox sensors 325K error<br>>> <br>>> We have a 325 on coil B now<br>>> <br>>> <br>>> <br>>> ----- Original Message -----<br>>> From: "Ruben Fair" <rfair@jlab.org><br>>> To: "Tyler Lemon" <tlemon@jlab.org><br>>> Cc: "dsg-hallb magnets" <dsg-hallb_magnets@jlab.org>, "kashy" <kashy@jlab.org><br>>> Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 4:50:28 PM<br>>> Subject: Re: [Dsg-hallb_magnets] cernox sensors 325K error<br>>> <br>>> Ok Tyler - sounds like a reasonable approach. <br>>> <br>>> Regards <br>>> <br>>> Ruben <br>>> <br>>> <br>>> <br>>> From: "Tyler Lemon" <tlemon@jlab.org> <br>>> To: "dsg-hallb magnets" <dsg-hallb_magnets@jlab.org>, "David Kashy" <kashy@jlab.org> <br>>> Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 4:48:11 PM <br>>> Subject: [Dsg-hallb_magnets] cernox sensors 325K error <br>>> <br>>> Hello Ruben and Dave Kashy, <br>>> <br>>> Before implementing the LabVIEW that will automatically reinitialize a Cerenox sensor if it reads 325K, a version will be deployed to look at the raw hexadecimal text output from the LV Chassis. As Peter mentioned below, this would tell us if the 325K error is caused by the LV Chassis or some conversion done in LabVIEW. <br>>> <br>>> Since we cannot force the 325K error, we will have to wait for the error to occur to compare the raw LV Chassis output. <br>>> <br>>> Best regards, <br>>> Tyler <br>>> <br>>> <br>>> <br>>> From: "Amrit Yegneswaran" <yeg@jlab.org> <br>>> To: "dsg-hallb magnets" <dsg-hallb_magnets@jlab.org> <br>>> Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 2:44:31 PM <br>>> Subject: Re: [Dsg-hallb_magnets] cernox sensors <br>>> <br>>> thanks peter and tyler. <br>>> <br>>> <br>>> From: "Peter Bonneau" <bonneau@jlab.org> <br>>> To: "Amrit Yegneswaran" <yeg@jlab.org> <br>>> Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 2:16:49 PM <br>>> Subject: cernox sensors <br>>> <br>>> Hi Amrit, <br>>> <br>>> I looked at the LV cRio code with Tyler. <br>>> <br>>> They don't seem to know if the excitation chassis is the problem or the <br>>> conversions, etc in the code. <br>>> <br>>> The data is sent to cRio as text via serial communications then <br>>> immediately changed to a number for the calculations & lookup table. <br>>> <br>>> We've seen a lot of errors in serial communications in other <br>>> instrumentation. <br>>> <br>>> I suggested to Tyler that we latch the received text numbers V1 and V2 <br>>> when this error occurs before the conversion to numbers. <br>>> <br>>> That will tell us if the excitation chassis is not sending or we're not <br>>> receiving the raw data correctly. <br>>> <br>>> Thanks, <br>>> <br>>> Peter <br>>> <br>>> _______________________________________________ <br>>> Dsg-hallb_magnets mailing list <br>>> Dsg-hallb_magnets@jlab.org <br>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/dsg-hallb_magnets <br>>> <br>>> _______________________________________________ <br>>> Dsg-hallb_magnets mailing list <br>>> Dsg-hallb_magnets@jlab.org <br>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/dsg-hallb_magnets<br>>> <br>>> _______________________________________________<br>>> Dsg-hallb_magnets mailing list<br>>> Dsg-hallb_magnets@jlab.org<br>>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/dsg-hallb_magnets<br>> <br>> <br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Dsg-hallb_magnets mailing list<br>> Dsg-hallb_magnets@jlab.org<br>> https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/dsg-hallb_magnets<br></div></div></body></html>