Message-ID: <14685679.1075840442099.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 08:12:00 -0800 (PST)
From: garth.ripton@enron.com
To: mark.fisher@enron.com, mark.walker@enron.com
Subject: EW 1.5 Status counters
Cc: ronald.brzezinski@enron.com, joe.chapman@enron.com, 
	alaadin.suliman@enron.com, kim.nguyen@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: ronald.brzezinski@enron.com, joe.chapman@enron.com, 
	alaadin.suliman@enron.com, kim.nguyen@enron.com
X-From: Garth Ripton
X-To: Mark Fisher, Mark V Walker
X-cc: Ronald Brzezinski, Joe Chapman, Alaadin Suliman, Kim Nguyen
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \mark fischer 7-12-02\Notes Folders\All documents
X-Origin: FISCHER-M
X-FileName: mark fischer 7-12-02 LNotes.nsf

Hi Mark and Mark,

Over the past few weeks we have generated a list of which status counters are 
incremented during which fault/status conditions. Kim Nguyen tested all the 
fault/status conditions that she could using the EW1.5 software simulator 
(about 50% of them). Her list also includes the "theoretical" counter that is 
supposed to increment according to the specifications that we have received 
from the Scada department in Rheine.



I took that list and indexed it by counter so it show all the faults that 
actually (according to our simulation) increment a given counter. I also 
included the faults that we could not test and the counters they 
theoretically increment. 



If you have time could you please check to see that the given faults are 
incrementing the correct counters using the proper definitions of 
availability. Specifically, there are several highlighted items in the second 
document that may not be correct. We are trying to get a list back to the 
Scada group in Rheine to correct any problems with our counters and you input 
would be extremely valuable.

Thanks,

Garth