Skip to content

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

No synchronisation after one bad round #2732

Closed
Plotter123 opened this issue Dec 8, 2023 · 5 comments
Closed

No synchronisation after one bad round #2732

Plotter123 opened this issue Dec 8, 2023 · 5 comments

Comments

@Plotter123
Copy link

The Problem

Several weeks everything works fine, but today I found that since one week I have only errors. Looking in the csv file shows, that one measurement was to high (7 instaed of 1), but already the next value was good again. But this good value was marked as an error and all following values too. The reason seems to be the used timestamp to determine the rate. The timestamp to calculate the gradient is always the one of the last measured value , but as value the last correct value which of course is longer ago. So the calculated gradient is always to high and gets worser with each new measurement.

My configuration is an allowed rate of 0.04 per minute and measurements were taken every 5 minutes.

Last good measurement: 2023-11-30T07:29:48+0100,main,33890.987
One wrong measurement: 2023-11-30T07:34:48+0100,main,33897.075 five minutes later, rate too high, 1.218 correct calculation
Next measurement: 2023-11-30T07:39:49+0100,main,33891.200 ten minutes after last good measurement, marked as rate too high (0.042) but the correct rate since last good measurement is 0.021 per minute which is below my allowed limit.

Version

15.3

Logfile

Logfile already deleted here the csv of the interesting region

2023-11-30T07:24:48+0100,main,33890.987,33890.987,33890.987,0.002800,0.014,no error,3.0,3.0,8.0,9.0,0.0,9.0,8.2,7.3
2023-11-30T07:29:48+0100,main,33890.987,33890.987,33890.987,0.000000,0.000,no error,3.0,3.0,8.0,9.0,0.0,9.0,8.3,7.3
2023-11-30T07:34:48+0100,main,33897.075,,33890.987,,0.000,Rate too high - Read: 33897.075 - Pre: 33890.987 - Rate: 1.218,3.0,3.0,8.0,9.0,7.0,0.0,7.3,5.5
2023-11-30T07:39:49+0100,main,33891.200,,33890.987,,0.000,Rate too high - Read: 33891.200 - Pre: 33890.987 - Rate: 0.042,3.0,3.0,8.0,9.0,1.0,2.0,0.0,0.3
2023-11-30T07:44:49+0100,main,33891.267,,33890.987,,0.000,Rate too high - Read: 33891.267 - Pre: 33890.987 - Rate: 0.056,3.0,3.0,8.0,9.0,1.0,2.0,6.0,7.4

Expected Behavior

No response

Screenshots

No response

Additional Context

No response

@Plotter123 Plotter123 added the bug Something isn't working label Dec 8, 2023
@friedpa
Copy link

friedpa commented Dec 9, 2023

You have to set the "Previous Value" new (in the Settings Menu)

@Plotter123
Copy link
Author

You have to set the "Previous Value" new (in the Settings Menu)

Yes, this is the solution if it has happened. But in my opinion the system should recover by itself.

@friedpa
Copy link

friedpa commented Dec 9, 2023

The Software is not designed like this.
E.g. The "rate too high" is a water leakage, in my case a valve is triggered to stop the water flow in the house. If the system would "recover" by itself, the valve would be opened again.... in my case: not good

@Plotter123
Copy link
Author

I don't think that you are right. The initial message "rate too high" is due to a reading error which according to the FAQ can always happen. My limit should filter out such impossible values and this works fine. But if next value is again in the limits (no reading error) the system should recover by itself.

@friedpa
Copy link

friedpa commented Dec 9, 2023

You can use this "feature" in both ways, look at your meter what the maximum thruput is and then measure your maximum "normal" waterflow. Did you also check the parameter "Maximum Age of Previous Value after Startup"
I am using this "feature" in the aboth way, togehter with a blocky script via IOBroker.

@caco3 caco3 removed the bug Something isn't working label Dec 11, 2023
Repository owner locked and limited conversation to collaborators Dec 11, 2023
@caco3 caco3 converted this issue into discussion #2737 Dec 11, 2023

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants