Re: [AFMUG] WTB: Packetflux Generator Controller

[Chuck McCown]

Wow, what a mess.

Watchdog problem rminds me of a line from Dr Strangelove:
“I think the auto destruct mechanism got hit and blew itself up”
From: Forrest Christian (List Account) 
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 7:03 PM
To: af 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WTB: Packetflux Generator Controller

Just the 32 bit PIC.   They released a new PIC32MZ family with 2MB of program 
space and 512K of ram.   The original release was a disaster.   What worked, 
worked really good.  What didn't, well let's just say there was 21 pages of 
errata, 56 items.  And 5 datasheet 'clarifications' which basically gutted the 
specs for all of the interesting peripherals. 

One of the first fun things I dealt with was the fact that they have a second 
set of pins to connect to the Ethernet phy, which is laid out much better for 
the phy I'm using.  So I used them.   Well evidently "The Alternate Ethernet 
pins, AERXDV and AERXCLK, are not available on 100-pin devices.", even though 
the datasheet says they are.  So, 12 bodge wires later...

And it just went downhill from there.   Some fun quotes from the errata that I 
bumped into during dealing with the part:

The watchdog timer resets even when it's not supposed to:
"When the Watchdog Timer is used in Window mode, the module may issue a Reset 
even if the user tries to clear the module within the allowed window."

The XTAL oscillator doesn't:
"Depending on the revision of silicon, a crystal oscillator cannot be used as 
the input to the Primary Oscillator (OSC1/OSC2 pins)"
-Thank you microchip for making me discover the wonderful world of cheap and 
small MEMS oscillators.

The UART can't gracefully handle overflows:
"During a RX FIFO overflow condition, the shift register stops receiving data. 
This causes the UART to lose synchronization with the serial data stream. The 
only way to recover from this is to turn the UART OFF and ON until it 
synchronizes. This could require several OFF/ON sequences."
-This is just annoying, but the workaround isn't as bad as it sounds.   
Especially if  you can keep the UART serviced so it never overflows.

The ADC, well using it is like a puzzle (then you end up with a horribly 
nonlinear 8 bit (instead of 12 bit high linearity) ADC):
Unsupported ADC operating modes:
• Software polling of ADC status bits
• Manual software ADC triggering
• ADC interrupt modes (use DMA Interrupt mode)
• ADC SFR accesses by the CPU while ADC is operating
• ADC Boost or low-power mode.
• Individual ADC Input Conversion Requests (i.e., RQCNVRT bit in the ADCCON3 
register)
• Use of ADC S Channels 0-4 except for calibration
• Any ADC references other than external VREF+ and VREF- pins
• ADC Differential mode
- it may have just been easier to list what IS working

It goes on and on.

They a few months back they released the 'EF' version.   The F is supposedly 
floating point since it includes a hardware floating point coprocessor.  I 
think it means 'Fixed'.   And the 'C' in the original's 'EC' version means 
crap.   The EF has only 10 relatively minor issues, although a couple which bit 
me amazingly are still present - but they aren't a big issue.

Because I have a large codebase already in a mostly-compatible compiler (using 
the same underlying libraries), it just made sense for me to move the PIC32MZ.  
 At some point, there will probably be an ARM processor on here, but I sure 
didn't find any which I felt was worth the hassle of the integration.



On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

  Sad, but I have many products in the same category.  Some of them were very 
costly development projects.
  Good that good will come from it.  Many people don’t understand that you have 
to fail your way to success with things like this at times.

  Which processor did you switch to?

  From: Forrest Christian (List Account) 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 7:37 PM
  To: af 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WTB: Packetflux Generator Controller

  Sort of.  

  We sold a total of around 80 (over a few years).   There were some 
manufacturability issues which needed to be dealt with (why there's 80 instead 
of 100 - not  a good yield).   Fixing those with the current design isn't 
really practical.   Reordering and making just a few more of the existing 
design is also prohibitive due to some minimum orders for parts I'm no longer 
using other than on that board.   Or summarized:  We really can't cost 
effectively make any more of the existing design, especially at the volumes 
we're moving (1-2/month if we're lucky).


  The good news is that the next iteration of the sitemonitor base units will 
actually be able to do everything that standby power controller did, and a 
whole lot more.   The intent is to circle around and build a new standby power 
controller board which runs the new sitemonitor firmware.  This was supposed to 
be done by now, but the processor switch for the new base units was anything 
but the smo

Re: [AFMUG] WTB: Packetflux Generator Controller

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

Just the 32 bit PIC.   They released a new PIC32MZ family with 2MB of
program space and 512K of ram.   The original release was a disaster.
What worked, worked really good.  What didn't, well let's just say there
was 21 pages of errata, 56 items.  And 5 datasheet 'clarifications' which
basically gutted the specs for all of the interesting peripherals.

One of the first fun things I dealt with was the fact that they have a
second set of pins to connect to the Ethernet phy, which is laid out much
better for the phy I'm using.  So I used them.   Well evidently "The
Alternate Ethernet pins, AERXDV and AERXCLK, are not available on 100-pin
devices.", even though the datasheet says they are.  So, 12 bodge wires
later...

And it just went downhill from there.   Some fun quotes from the errata
that I bumped into during dealing with the part:

The watchdog timer resets even when it's not supposed to:
"When the Watchdog Timer is used in Window mode, the module may issue a
Reset even if the user tries to clear the module within the allowed window."

The XTAL oscillator doesn't:
"Depending on the revision of silicon, a crystal oscillator cannot be used
as the input to the Primary Oscillator (OSC1/OSC2 pins)"
-Thank you microchip for making me discover the wonderful world of cheap
and small MEMS oscillators.

The UART can't gracefully handle overflows:
"During a RX FIFO overflow condition, the shift register stops receiving
data. This causes the UART to lose synchronization with the serial data
stream. The only way to recover from this is to turn the UART OFF and ON
until it synchronizes. This could require several OFF/ON sequences."
-This is just annoying, but the workaround isn't as bad as it sounds.
Especially if  you can keep the UART serviced so it never overflows.

The ADC, well using it is like a puzzle (then you end up with a horribly
nonlinear 8 bit (instead of 12 bit high linearity) ADC):
Unsupported ADC operating modes:
• Software polling of ADC status bits
• Manual software ADC triggering
• ADC interrupt modes (use DMA Interrupt mode)
• ADC SFR accesses by the CPU while ADC is operating
• ADC Boost or low-power mode.
• Individual ADC Input Conversion Requests (i.e., RQCNVRT bit in the
ADCCON3 register)
• Use of ADC S Channels 0-4 except for calibration
• Any ADC references other than external VREF+ and VREF- pins
• ADC Differential mode
 - it may have just been easier to list what IS working

It goes on and on.

They a few months back they released the 'EF' version.   The F is
supposedly floating point since it includes a hardware floating point
coprocessor.  I think it means 'Fixed'.   And the 'C' in the original's
'EC' version means crap.   The EF has only 10 relatively minor issues,
although a couple which bit me amazingly are still present - but they
aren't a big issue.

Because I have a large codebase already in a mostly-compatible compiler
(using the same underlying libraries), it just made sense for me to move
the PIC32MZ.   At some point, there will probably be an ARM processor on
here, but I sure didn't find any which I felt was worth the hassle of the
integration.



On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

> Sad, but I have many products in the same category.  Some of them were
> very costly development projects.
> Good that good will come from it.  Many people don’t understand that you
> have to fail your way to success with things like this at times.
>
> Which processor did you switch to?
>
> *From:* Forrest Christian (List Account) <li...@packetflux.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 24, 2016 7:37 PM
> *To:* af <af@afmug.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] WTB: Packetflux Generator Controller
>
> Sort of.
>
> We sold a total of around 80 (over a few years).   There were some
> manufacturability issues which needed to be dealt with (why there's 80
> instead of 100 - not  a good yield).   Fixing those with the current design
> isn't really practical.   Reordering and making just a few more of the
> existing design is also prohibitive due to some minimum orders for parts
> I'm no longer using other than on that board.   Or summarized:  We really
> can't cost effectively make any more of the existing design, especially at
> the volumes we're moving (1-2/month if we're lucky).
>
> The good news is that the next iteration of the sitemonitor base units
> will actually be able to do everything that standby power controller did,
> and a whole lot more.   The intent is to circle around and build a new
> standby power controller board which runs the new sitemonitor firmware.
> This was supposed to be done by now, but the processor switch for the new
> base units was anything but the smooth transition we had hoped.
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 6:23 PM, George Skorup <geo...@cbcast.com> wrote:
>
>> Did Forrest discontinue 

Re: [AFMUG] WTB: Packetflux Generator Controller

[Chuck McCown]

Sad, but I have many products in the same category.  Some of them were very 
costly development projects.
Good that good will come from it.  Many people don’t understand that you have 
to fail your way to success with things like this at times.

Which processor did you switch to?

From: Forrest Christian (List Account) 
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 7:37 PM
To: af 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WTB: Packetflux Generator Controller

Sort of.  

We sold a total of around 80 (over a few years).   There were some 
manufacturability issues which needed to be dealt with (why there's 80 instead 
of 100 - not  a good yield).   Fixing those with the current design isn't 
really practical.   Reordering and making just a few more of the existing 
design is also prohibitive due to some minimum orders for parts I'm no longer 
using other than on that board.   Or summarized:  We really can't cost 
effectively make any more of the existing design, especially at the volumes 
we're moving (1-2/month if we're lucky).


The good news is that the next iteration of the sitemonitor base units will 
actually be able to do everything that standby power controller did, and a 
whole lot more.   The intent is to circle around and build a new standby power 
controller board which runs the new sitemonitor firmware.  This was supposed to 
be done by now, but the processor switch for the new base units was anything 
but the smooth transition we had hoped.   

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 6:23 PM, George Skorup <geo...@cbcast.com> wrote:

  Did Forrest discontinue it!?

  On 5/24/2016 6:57 PM, Gino Villarini wrote:

Anyone has units for sale?







-- 

  Forrest Christian CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.

  Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
  forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com

 

Re: [AFMUG] WTB: Packetflux Generator Controller

[Gino Villarini]

not ASAP, but if you can sell it, let me know

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 8:58 PM, George Skorup  wrote:

> Ah man. That thing is awesome. I have one. We're probably going to change
> up our double transfer switch setup at the office. My design wasn't going
> to work the way I wanted it to. So I might not need the PacketFlux
> controller.
>
> Let me check with the boss and see if he's cool selling you this one. Do
> you need one ASAP?
>
> On 5/24/2016 7:25 PM, Gino Villarini wrote:
>
> yes
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 8:23 PM, George Skorup  wrote:
>
>> Did Forrest discontinue it!?
>>
>> On 5/24/2016 6:57 PM, Gino Villarini wrote:
>>
>>> Anyone has units for sale?
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] WTB: Packetflux Generator Controller

[Gino Villarini]

$100 ?

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 8:58 PM, Gerard Dupont III 
wrote:

> I have one sitting on my desk that's still in the bag/box. Pre ordered
> it and never did anything with it once it came in. Give me whatever you
> think is fair and I'll get it shipped tomorrow.
>
> Gerard
>
> On Tuesday, May 24, 2016, Gino Villarini  wrote:
>
>> yes
>>
>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 8:23 PM, George Skorup  wrote:
>>
>>> Did Forrest discontinue it!?
>>>
>>> On 5/24/2016 6:57 PM, Gino Villarini wrote:
>>>
 Anyone has units for sale?

>>>
>>>
>>

Re: [AFMUG] WTB: Packetflux Generator Controller

[Gino Villarini]

80? i must have been your bigger  buyer them... i believe we have over 10?

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 9:37 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
li...@packetflux.com> wrote:

> Sort of.
>
> We sold a total of around 80 (over a few years).   There were some
> manufacturability issues which needed to be dealt with (why there's 80
> instead of 100 - not  a good yield).   Fixing those with the current design
> isn't really practical.   Reordering and making just a few more of the
> existing design is also prohibitive due to some minimum orders for parts
> I'm no longer using other than on that board.   Or summarized:  We really
> can't cost effectively make any more of the existing design, especially at
> the volumes we're moving (1-2/month if we're lucky).
>
> The good news is that the next iteration of the sitemonitor base units
> will actually be able to do everything that standby power controller did,
> and a whole lot more.   The intent is to circle around and build a new
> standby power controller board which runs the new sitemonitor firmware.
> This was supposed to be done by now, but the processor switch for the new
> base units was anything but the smooth transition we had hoped.
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 6:23 PM, George Skorup  wrote:
>
>> Did Forrest discontinue it!?
>>
>> On 5/24/2016 6:57 PM, Gino Villarini wrote:
>>
>>> Anyone has units for sale?
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>   
>   
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] WTB: Packetflux Generator Controller

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

Sort of.

We sold a total of around 80 (over a few years).   There were some
manufacturability issues which needed to be dealt with (why there's 80
instead of 100 - not  a good yield).   Fixing those with the current design
isn't really practical.   Reordering and making just a few more of the
existing design is also prohibitive due to some minimum orders for parts
I'm no longer using other than on that board.   Or summarized:  We really
can't cost effectively make any more of the existing design, especially at
the volumes we're moving (1-2/month if we're lucky).

The good news is that the next iteration of the sitemonitor base units will
actually be able to do everything that standby power controller did, and a
whole lot more.   The intent is to circle around and build a new standby
power controller board which runs the new sitemonitor firmware.  This was
supposed to be done by now, but the processor switch for the new base units
was anything but the smooth transition we had hoped.

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 6:23 PM, George Skorup  wrote:

> Did Forrest discontinue it!?
>
> On 5/24/2016 6:57 PM, Gino Villarini wrote:
>
>> Anyone has units for sale?
>>
>
>


-- 
*Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
  

Re: [AFMUG] WTB: Packetflux Generator Controller

[George Skorup]

Ah man. That thing is awesome. I have one. We're probably going to 
change up our double transfer switch setup at the office. My design 
wasn't going to work the way I wanted it to. So I might not need the 
PacketFlux controller.


Let me check with the boss and see if he's cool selling you this one. Do 
you need one ASAP?


On 5/24/2016 7:25 PM, Gino Villarini wrote:

yes

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 8:23 PM, George Skorup > wrote:


Did Forrest discontinue it!?

On 5/24/2016 6:57 PM, Gino Villarini wrote:

Anyone has units for sale?

Re: [AFMUG] WTB: Packetflux Generator Controller

[Gerard Dupont III]

I have one sitting on my desk that's still in the bag/box. Pre ordered
it and never did anything with it once it came in. Give me whatever you
think is fair and I'll get it shipped tomorrow.

Gerard

On Tuesday, May 24, 2016, Gino Villarini  wrote:

> yes
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 8:23 PM, George Skorup  > wrote:
>
>> Did Forrest discontinue it!?
>>
>> On 5/24/2016 6:57 PM, Gino Villarini wrote:
>>
>>> Anyone has units for sale?
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] WTB: Packetflux Generator Controller

[Gino Villarini]

yes

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 8:23 PM, George Skorup  wrote:

> Did Forrest discontinue it!?
>
> On 5/24/2016 6:57 PM, Gino Villarini wrote:
>
>> Anyone has units for sale?
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] WTB: Packetflux Generator Controller

[George Skorup]

Did Forrest discontinue it!?

On 5/24/2016 6:57 PM, Gino Villarini wrote:

Anyone has units for sale?