Nut upsdev - Feb 2006 - 2.0.3-pre2: Spurious UPS UPS@localhost battery is low ?

Hi there,

[ http://www.contribs.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=654 ]

I just received this:

Broadcast message from nut (Sat Feb  4 04:02:45 2006):

UPS UPS@localhost battery is low

and

Feb  4 04:02:45 bigted upsmon[11532]: UPS UPS@localhost battery is low
Feb  4 04:02:45 bigted wall[4032]: wall: user nut broadcasted 1 lines (34
chars)

but I believe this looks o.k., except for the input voltage value. Is it 
meant to be a largish negative number (checked again and got -6301.0).

The system has been running on stable (well, o.k. domestic) line power.

[gordonr@bigted]$ upsc UPS@localhost
battery.charge: 100
battery.charge.low: 10
battery.charge.warning: 50
battery.date: 3150/08/01
battery.mfr.date: 2005/01/20
battery.runtime: 322
battery.runtime.low: 120
battery.temperature: 302.0
battery.voltage: 13.0
battery.voltage.nominal: 12.0
driver.name: newhidups
driver.version: 2.0.3-pre2
driver.version.data: APC HID 0.8
driver.version.internal: 0.28
input.voltage: -6301.0
input.voltage.nominal: 230
output.voltage: 230.0
output.voltage.target.line: 230.0
ups.beeper.status: enabled
ups.delay.shutdown: -1
ups.firmware: 814.s3.I
ups.firmware.aux: s3
ups.load: 73.0
ups.mfr: American Power Conversion
ups.mfr.date: 2005/01/20
ups.model: Back-UPS BF500
ups.serial: AB0504244053
ups.status: OL
ups.temperature: 302.0
ups.test.result: No test initiated

If you would like this in the bug tracker instead, please let me know.

It's certainly not easy to find from http://www.networkupstools.org/ :-)

Gordon

Hi Gordon,

Just looking at the numbers, it looks like you might have found a bug
in the voltage conversion function that might be related to the
signedness/unsignedness of numbers; note that -6301.0 + 65536/10 252.6.  The
latter could be a legitimate voltage, but seems unusually
high for any country (your "nominal" voltage is 230).

I am also worried about your battery.temperature, ups.temperature, and
battery.date. It looks like we might need to tweak the driver a bit
for your unit. (This seems to be a different UPS than the one you
wrote about last week?)

Could you again run "./drivers/newhidups -u root -DD -a UPS auto" and
post the "Path" lines, so that I can see the raw, unconverted values
of these variables?

Thanks, -- Peter


Gordon Rowell wrote:
> 
> Hi there,
> 
> [ http://www.contribs.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=654 ]
> 
> I just received this:
> 
> Broadcast message from nut (Sat Feb  4 04:02:45 2006):
> 
> UPS UPS@localhost battery is low
> 
> and
> 
> Feb  4 04:02:45 bigted upsmon[11532]: UPS UPS@localhost battery is low
> Feb  4 04:02:45 bigted wall[4032]: wall: user nut broadcasted 1 lines (34
> chars)
> 
> but I believe this looks o.k., except for the input voltage value. Is it 
> meant to be a largish negative number (checked again and got -6301.0).
> 
> The system has been running on stable (well, o.k. domestic) line power.
> 
> [gordonr@bigted]$ upsc UPS@localhost
> battery.charge: 100
> battery.charge.low: 10
> battery.charge.warning: 50
> battery.date: 3150/08/01
> battery.mfr.date: 2005/01/20
> battery.runtime: 322
> battery.runtime.low: 120
> battery.temperature: 302.0
> battery.voltage: 13.0
> battery.voltage.nominal: 12.0
> driver.name: newhidups
> driver.version: 2.0.3-pre2
> driver.version.data: APC HID 0.8
> driver.version.internal: 0.28
> input.voltage: -6301.0
> input.voltage.nominal: 230
> output.voltage: 230.0
> output.voltage.target.line: 230.0
> ups.beeper.status: enabled
> ups.delay.shutdown: -1
> ups.firmware: 814.s3.I
> ups.firmware.aux: s3
> ups.load: 73.0
> ups.mfr: American Power Conversion
> ups.mfr.date: 2005/01/20
> ups.model: Back-UPS BF500
> ups.serial: AB0504244053
> ups.status: OL
> ups.temperature: 302.0
> ups.test.result: No test initiated
> 
> If you would like this in the bug tracker instead, please let me know.
> 
> It's certainly not easy to find from http://www.networkupstools.org/
:-)
> 
> Gordon
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Nut-upsdev mailing list
> Nut-upsdev@lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsdev
>

On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, Peter Selinger wrote:
> Just looking at the numbers, it looks like you might have found a bug
> in the voltage conversion function that might be related to the
> signedness/unsignedness of numbers; note that -6301.0 + 65536/10 >
252.6.  The latter could be a legitimate voltage, but seems unusually
> high for any country (your "nominal" voltage is 230).
But used to be, quite recently, 240V. 252.6V is within standard tolerance 
- just.

--
Charlie