Quote: (Originally Posted by
Drmike)
groan, exactly - so there
are component differences
the cables, what they carry and where they go. thats all it could take. It could be one of those unshielded cables.
Isnt that exactly the point of these tests? When my machines were tested for same thing they bent over backwards to try to get it to fail! thats what makes it robustly safe.
its interesting that you admit you have no idea how the tests were done yet you are insinuating that they werent done properly or are invalid.....
I cant wait for ISC to test the explorer computer lol! seeing you jump all over that as well would be fun
I have never said nor am I insuating the test were invalid, I said more data about the test is needed.. By the posted results and from what I know about the HH electronics, My best guess is that the failure was due to 6the wet switch and the A/d in the CPU is fried.. This can be verified in less than 1 minute..
Here is my reasoning..
I know that the way the HH is laid out that a voltage though a single sensor would not effect all 3 sensors..
The unit does not shut off and the voltages displayed by the mv reading are similiar..
If the A/d is blown all sensor will read low,, the MV reading is just a scaled and rounded output.. it does not need any calibration data..
unit does not shut off means that its probable seeing a low voltage on the W/s pin so it assumes its in the water..
This could be verified in a few seconds by reading the voltage across the w/s pins (using a multimeter) and the voltage measurement of the w/s in the diagnostics menu (not user accessable / only by pswd).. The voltages should be very close for voltages of 2.5v and below (the max the HH can read here is 2.5v). If I had the choice of having a w/s for diver dafety or having a potential problem with extremely strong fields, I'll take the W/s..
If this is the problem a totally indepent way of measuring the w/s could prevent failure of the rest of the controller, it would only prevent the unit from ever going to sleep..