3 ms·
> We added code that, if the power was too far off from what we asked for, tried to kill power three different ways, plus alerted the operator. My first worry
by wfunction 9y ago
> We added code that, if the power was too far off from what we asked for, tried to kill power three different ways, plus alerted the operator.
My first worry was that your measurement would be wrong, not that the power wouldn't be killed! Any redundancy on that side? Or was it not necessary?
- AnimalMuppet 9y agoThe specific issue that we encountered was that the power was measured correctly, but was out of control. At that point, not being able to kill the power is a very real concern. If we measured wrong, we could either be high or low. If we measured high (that is, the reading is higher than reality), we would either turn down the power until it read right, or else kill power completely. If we read low, though, IIRC we would limit how high we'd turn up the gain to try to get the power we were asking for. There was also a feedback loop based on temperature. If the power was double what we asked for, the temperature would quickly climb, and we'd reduce power. It would have worked, even with inaccurate power readings, though not as smoothly as it should with accurate power readings. But when we got 20 times the power we asked for (due to the power control failure), it was too much too fast.
- AstralStorm 9y agoCongratulations. You've found out there is value in having real programmable fuses instead of control electronics.