Now that the network is up and we can look at things, I'm finding lots of TRHs with ifan=0:
tse06.2m: #67, no response to ^r, responded to pio (after power cycle, responds to ^r)
tse06.10m: #43, no response to ^r, pio didn't restart fan (after power cycle, responds to ^r)
tse06.60m: #8, responds to ^r and pio, but didn't restart fan
tse09b.2m: #103, ^r worked
tse11.2m: #120, no response to ^r, responded to pio
tse11.20m: #116, responds to ^r and pio, but didn't restart fan
tse11.40m: #110, responds to ^r and pio, but didn't restart fan
tse11.60m: #121, was in weird cal land, no response to ^r, responded to pio
tse13.2m: #119, no response to ^r, pio didn't restart fan (after power cycle, responds to ^r)
tse13.100m: #111, no response to ^r, pio didn't restart fan, reset CUR 200, now running at 167mA (and T dropped by 0.2 C). WATCH THIS! (has been running all day today)
tnw07.10m: #42, no response to ^r, responded to pio
tnw07.60m: #125, ^r killed totally! pio doesn't bring back. dead.
3 Comments
Steve Oncley AUTHOR
At 11 March, 1805, tse13.100m Ifan quickly increased from ~170 to over 200, at which point the current limit shut it off. I've just restarted it again with ^R and it is back to ~170. We'll keep on watching it...
Gordon Maclean
At the BAO project, scripts ran on the DSM's continuously, using rserial, that would do a power reset if any of the fields went out-of-range. That could be resurrected for Perdigao.
Steve Oncley AUTHOR
On 11 Mar, rsw03.20m Ifan started reporting values, that have been increasing – now pegged at 329. This, despite having the current limiter set at 80. Something strange with this fan board?