From the "death by a thousand papercuts" file... The following is from C&D Technologies/Powercom Division:

Year 2000 Compliance Status

C&D Technologies Battery Cycle Monitor rev. 1/5/99

Battery Cycle Monitor (BCM) Versions

BCM 1000 (and BCM 1000M)

BCM 1100 (and BCM 1100M)

BCM 2200M (also known as BCM Plus)

BCM 1000 and BCM 1000M

Y2K status: These units are NOT compliant  these units will not operate properly and reliably after Dec. 31, 1999. There is no field repair available for these units which will make them Y2K compliant.

BCM 1100 and BCM 1100M

Units with firmware (software) versions 2.0 and 2.01:

Y2K status: These units are compliant. They will continue to operate properly after Dec. 31, 1999. The internal date on these units can only be changed using software, connected to an external personal computer. Note that the date must be entered using two digits only.

Units with firmware (software) versions 2.10:

Y2K status: These units are Y2K compliant in terms of their operation. They will operate properly if the date is allowed to roll over from Dec. 31, 1999 to Jan. 1, 2000. It will also operate properly if the date is set to a date after Dec. 31, 1999 using a computer link. Note that the date must be entered in as a two-digit number.

However, if the faceplate keypad is used to manually set the date to a date after Dec. 31, 1999, the display screen will display a colon in place of the first digit for the two-digit date (i.e., :0 for year 2000, :1 for year 2001, etc.). This colon will only appear on the faceplate display, and will not appear on the internal reports. The internal data and printed reports will display the proper two digit data. All data will be recorded and accumulated properly. The colon on the faceplate will not affect the proper operation of the unit.

There is no field repair being offered to address the issue of faceplate display.

BCM 2200M (a.k.a. BCM Plus)

Y2K status: These units are fully compliant. They will continue to operate properly and reliably after Dec. 31, 1999.

C&D batteries and battery monitors are used in many, many areas of the electric utility industry, from nuclear power plant "vital bus" / UPS systems to transmission system facility backup power. I can't tell you how many places I've seen these puppies.

In and of themselves, these battery monitors won't take down anything. But the above statements from C&D are indicative of the level that a Y2k program has to get to. Are these types of items that are considered mission critical? In most cases, I rather doubt it. There are many, many more of these types of things that are problematic, but taken alone, aren't a big deal. When you start lumping many, many of these types of things together, you have problems.

A lot of discussion revolving around Y2k in the electric industry has dealt with the "big bang" items in a typical electric company's Y2k inventory. There's a lot of minutea that has to be dealt with, as well.

I'm wondering how many companies that use these battery monitors are even aware of C&D's recent updates to their Y2k statements on these pieces of equipment?

-- Anonymous, April 05, 1999

Answers

Rick,

It is possible that this is an embedded device with a hard failure. I can't confirm or deny anything because this device is not used in my utility or even even listed on any of the major Y2K databases I have access too.

But let me make an observation. There are a lot of vendors trying real hard to sell unneeded upgrades due to Y2K "problems". This particular vendors statement is suspicious because it contains more "useless word" that the typical utility Y2K statement for their non-compliant device. There is no description of what caused the problem, nor any specific characteristics of the problem listed.

If this is the best example of an embedded device hard failure you can come up with, I will still stay of the opinion that the embedded Y2K problem has been extremely overhyped.

bob

-- Anonymous, April 08, 1999

I agree with Bob that a lot of companies are trying to sell new equipment, and don't support older models. The right questions to ask are what exactly is the nature of the y2k problem?

However,I also know that there are some devices that fail due to y2k or leap year date problems - I have seen one, and know of another lab device that had serious problems with data due to y2k before the manufacturer upgraded it. Both are devices not installed in the field, and both are "obscure" devices. I also know of some medical laboratory devices that will fail from doing research.

True Y2K failures, failures of devices to perform their function (not just minor date errors) are as rare as hen's teeth. It very well looks like Rick may have found one of these. The work is making sure that we don't have anything we aren't aware of.

Test equipment failures due to y2k are not a siginficant risk unless the data is erronous (and undetectable) due to the bug.

Regards,

-- Anonymous, April 12, 1999

FF, I spoke with an engineer at C&D regarding this model of battery alarm. It has event logging and averaging functions and will indeed cease to operate. This model has not been sold since 1992 or so and there are not many out there.

If I had to pick one device in the substation to fail, the battery alarm would be right up there with the remote alarm on the substation door.

-- Anonymous, April 13, 1999

Good follow-up, CL! There's your confirmation Rick.

Regards,

-- Anonymous, April 16, 1999