8/2/2010 10:21 AM | |
Posts: 8946 Rating:
|
May be, the instance - DB is used twice? |
8/2/2010 10:39 AM | |
Joined: 4/23/2007 Last visit: 1/12/2023 Posts: 58 Rating:
|
Nope. Double checked that first :) Regards, Wave |
"There is no spoon." |
|
8/2/2010 11:08 AM | |
Joined: 10/7/2005 Last visit: 6/1/2023 Posts: 2966 Rating:
|
Hello Wave this is a bit weird, a "0" PT Time setpoint value should disable the IEC Timer completely, which means the Output will never be On(unlike S5 Timers where a "0" Time setpoint means just that - a delay of 0 seconds). I'd say something else is going on in that FB, can you perhaps post you logic here for evaluation? |
Cheers |
|
8/2/2010 11:14 AM | |
Joined: 4/23/2007 Last visit: 1/12/2023 Posts: 58 Rating:
|
Is there a limit for the number of SFBs that I can use in my program? Regards, Wave |
"There is no spoon." |
|
8/2/2010 11:31 AM | |
Joined: 10/7/2005 Last visit: 6/1/2023 Posts: 2966 Rating:
|
Isee (and obviously did not read your original post properly Well, in that case I'd say that it can explain the "odd" behaviour (I haven't tried or tested this). The "STATE" variable is an SFB internal STAT variable, sincethe SFB is know How protected and the meaning of the "STATE" variablenot explained in theSFB's Help, you are "gambling" a bit by writing to it. Having said that, if your intent is to actually disable the Timer,why not write 0 to the PT Time Setpointinstead (it works rather well with IEC Timers)? I hope this helps P.S: You are only limited by available memory and/or DB's when it comes to usage ofIEC SFB timers. |
Last edited by: fritz at: 8/2/2010 11:32 AMAdded P.S: Cheers |
|
8/2/2010 11:36 AM | |
Posts: 8946 Rating:
|
Just the size of memory / max. no. of DB. |
Follow us on