ANTMINER S5: 1155GH(+OverClock Potential), In Stock $0.319/GH & 0.51W/GH

[dogie]

Really wish you could just bypass bad sections, ugh. But i guess they were designed to be cheap to make, not easy to maintain, repair or be resilient.

You often lose modularity in chain design as you drop entire chains rather than modules (or sub modules). The benefits are still worth it though.

[1715476458]

1715476458

[1715476458]

1715476458

[1715476458]

1715476458

[VirosaGITS]

Really wish you could just bypass bad sections, ugh. But i guess they were designed to be cheap to make, not easy to maintain, repair or be resilient.

You often lose modularity in chain design as you drop entire chains rather than modules (or sub modules). The benefits are still worth it though.

I'm really curious about the differences and just googling string design / vs modual circuit design does not yield anything relevant. (Whoot string theory results?)
I'm suspecting thats not the proper terminology?

If i understood the differences then maybe i could bring up the bad instead of just bashing on the S5.

[RichBC]

"String" or "Module" refers to the way the Chips are powered. Might be better to think of it as Series or Parallel. In the S1 & S3 the chips are powered in Parallel. In practice it is slightly more complex with the 12V powering a number of Buck Converters that drop the 12V to the voltage required for the Core (0.7V -1.0V) Each Buck Converter then powers a number of chips, 8 in the S1 and 2 in the S3.

In the S5 & S7 the chips power is connected in Series (Just like old style Christmas Tree Lights) So in the case of the S5 there are 15 pairs of chips in the chain, 12V /15 = 0.8V / chip. All very neat and efficient as there are no Buck Converters needed, saves money and is very efficient, But....

If one of the chips in the chain fails then at best you loose all the chips after that one and often you loose the whole chain, dependant on the failure mode.  If a chip goes open circuit (Like a bulb blowing in the Christmas Lights) as the voltages to the chips are messed.

Also worth remembering that as well as the power all of the data & control signals in all of the Miners is chained through the chips. It seems that sometimes even if a chip is not hashing it continues to pass through these signals enabling the chips further down to keep operating , however with more major failures downstream chips will stop working.


Rich

[HolgerDansk]

"String" or "Module" refers to the way the Chips are powered. Might be better to think of it as Series or Parallel.

Thanks for the explanation Rich.  Series & parallel quickly relate to my electronics experience.  "String design" sounds all mysterious and high-brow.  Wish people that like that phrasing would instead say "string power design", so some like me don't think it's referring to the logic of the processing that is the string design.

[anamichii]

help what happen with my S5

Code:

[23330.314174] Send new block cmd
[23330.693485] jiffies{11792321}dev->cgminer_start_time{9318878}time_elasp_ms =4830943ms dev->total_nonce_num{16040}
[23330.704256] bgNonce_average{125}
[23330.707641] chain0 Chain_nonce_nu[6811] Chain_nonce_nu_last[6811]
[23330.714027] UTC time :2015-10-13 14:36:36 
[23330.730961] remap chain1(hardware chain0) power err
[23330.736093] bgNonce_average{125}chain_nonce_nu{6811}last{6811}
[23330.742200] Send new block cmd
[23330.745892] set_baud cmd_buf[0]{0x86}cmd_buf[1]{0x10}cmd_buf[2]{0x1a}cmd_buf[3]{0x17}
[23330.754097] send BC data:
[23330.754097] 0x0000: 0x03 0x00 0x00 0x05 0x86 0x10 0x1a 0x17 
[23330.771084] send_to_fpga_work in queue
[23330.775029] send BC data:
[23330.775029] 0x0000: 0x03 0x01 0x00 0x05 0x86 0x10 0x1a 0x17 
[23330.788667] send_to_fpga_work in queue
[23330.800381] send_to_fpga_work in queue
[23330.812098] send_to_fpga_work in queue
[23330.821860] send_to_fpga_work in queue
[23330.833596] send_to_fpga_work in queue
[23330.845310] send_to_fpga_work in queue
[23330.858979] send_to_fpga_work in queue
[23330.868736] send_to_fpga_work in queue
[23330.882409] send_to_fpga_work in queue
[23330.894144] send_to_fpga_work in queue
[23330.905850] send_to_fpga_work in queue
[23330.915607] send_to_fpga_work in queue
[23330.927333] send_to_fpga_work in queue
[23330.939054] send_to_fpga_work in queue
[23330.950771] send_to_fpga_work in queue
[23330.954728] Detect device for anyone power err
[23330.959377] send BC data:
[23330.959377] 0x0000: 0x03 0x02 0x00 0x1a 0x89 0x10 0x1f 0x00 
[23330.974197] send_to_fpga_work in queue
[23330.978937] reset hash asic
[23330.981869] clear FPGA nonce buffer

sometimes, hashrate is very low (half of normal or just 0.00)
i change the PSU, cable, etc still same.

what about :
[23330.730961] remap chain1(hardware chain0) power err
and
[23330.954728] Detect device for anyone power err

how to fix it up?
thank

[Richy_T]

"String" or "Module" refers to the way the Chips are powered. Might be better to think of it as Series or Parallel. In the S1 & S3 the chips are powered in Parallel. In practice it is slightly more complex with the 12V powering a number of Buck Converters that drop the 12V to the voltage required for the Core (0.7V -1.0V) Each Buck Converter then powers a number of chips, 8 in the S1 and 2 in the S3.

In the S5 & S7 the chips power is connected in Series (Just like old style Christmas Tree Lights) So in the case of the S5 there are 15 pairs of chips in the chain, 12V /15 = 0.8V / chip. All very neat and efficient as there are no Buck Converters needed, saves money and is very efficient, But....

If one of the chips in the chain fails then at best you loose all the chips after that one and often you loose the whole chain, dependant on the failure mode.  If a chip goes open circuit (Like a bulb blowing in the Christmas Lights) as the voltages to the chips are messed.

Also worth remembering that as well as the power all of the data & control signals in all of the Miners is chained through the chips. It seems that sometimes even if a chip is not hashing it continues to pass through these signals enabling the chips further down to keep operating , however with more major failures downstream chips will stop working.


Rich

It would be interesting to see a design based on rectified and smoothed 120V. No external PSU needed

Just as an aside on the Christmas lights, I have those ones where a dead bulb does not kill the lights. Problem is, it does that by shorting the connection through the bulb, leading to increased voltage to the other bulbs and more rapid failure. By the time you get to three dead bulbs in a row, it's game-over for that segment. Not sure this is relevant but I felt like sharing

[RichBC]

"String" or "Module" refers to the way the Chips are powered. Might be better to think of it as Series or Parallel. In the S1 & S3 the chips are powered in Parallel. In practice it is slightly more complex with the 12V powering a number of Buck Converters that drop the 12V to the voltage required for the Core (0.7V -1.0V) Each Buck Converter then powers a number of chips, 8 in the S1 and 2 in the S3.

In the S5 & S7 the chips power is connected in Series (Just like old style Christmas Tree Lights) So in the case of the S5 there are 15 pairs of chips in the chain, 12V /15 = 0.8V / chip. All very neat and efficient as there are no Buck Converters needed, saves money and is very efficient, But....

If one of the chips in the chain fails then at best you loose all the chips after that one and often you loose the whole chain, dependant on the failure mode.  If a chip goes open circuit (Like a bulb blowing in the Christmas Lights) as the voltages to the chips are messed.

Also worth remembering that as well as the power all of the data & control signals in all of the Miners is chained through the chips. It seems that sometimes even if a chip is not hashing it continues to pass through these signals enabling the chips further down to keep operating , however with more major failures downstream chips will stop working.


Rich

It would be interesting to see a design based on rectified and smoothed 120V. No external PSU needed

Just as an aside on the Christmas lights, I have those ones where a dead bulb does not kill the lights. Problem is, it does that by shorting the connection through the bulb, leading to increased voltage to the other bulbs and more rapid failure. By the time you get to three dead bulbs in a row, it's game-over for that segment. Not sure this is relevant but I felt like sharing

If you rectified & smoothed 120V Mains would give 168V. You are going to need a very long string, like 210 Chips. Could be done but the strings work better with more than one chip at each stage. S5 has 2, S7 has 3. So that means 420 or 660 so not very practical, and without an isolating transformer, which will have losses, not very safe.  

Yes the bulb failure mode you describe can also happen in a Miner if a chip goes short circuit...  

Rich

[Richy_T]

If you rectified & smoothed 120V Mains would give 168V. You are going to need a very long string, like 210 Chips. Could be done but the strings work better with more than one chip at each stage. S5 has 2, S7 has 3. So that means 420 or 660 so not very practical, and without an isolating transformer, which will have losses, not very safe.  

When I first thought of it, I had in mind that the chips were 3-4V but that would certainly be a lot of chips.

Safety though? Pshaw. Just think of the hashes per Joule

[Mudbankkeith]

Rectified & smothed 120v AC is  93v DC  sorry typo  83V

[RichBC]

Rectified & smothed 120v AC is  93v DC

Hmm not sure what rectifier you are using but with a full wave bridge I multiply by 1.4

Rich

[philipma1957]

Rectified & smothed 120v AC is  93v DC

Hmm not sure what rectifier you are using but with a full wave bridge I multiply by 1.4

Rich

Yeah I think it is 1.4 x volts.

Not divide.

I wonder if an old school transformer to rectifier to caps can be stable.

[pinhead666]

It is multiplied 1.4. But is that voltage from wall stabile enough to do that? I doubt it will vary too much.

[RichBC]

I would regard this as purely hypothetical. It could be made to work but you wouldn't want to do it. I suspect the varying mains voltage would be the least of the problems. In practice for safety reasons you would have to use a transformer, if you were doing that you might as well step the voltage down, and once you have done that you have created an old school low efficiency linear PSU. 

Rich

[Richy_T]

I would regard this as purely hypothetical. It could be made to work but you wouldn't want to do it. I suspect the varying mains voltage would be the least of the problems. In practice for safety reasons you would have to use a transformer, if you were doing that you might as well step the voltage down, and once you have done that you have created an old school low efficiency linear PSU.  

Rich

Yeah, it was more some idle contemplation but my thought was along the lines of not having to buy a pricey PSU for 10-20% of the miner cost. You could probably have a much higher current running through that too so more cost savings for multiple miners. A full ATX CPU seems like overkill just for a 12V supply.

[Mudbankkeith]

Multiply by 0.71  or divide by 1.41

http://www.trans-tronic.co.uk/rectifier/?circuit=Full+wave+-+capacitor&dc=1&voltage=240&current=&calculate=

Center tap to keep the amperage

Still a lot of chips...

[RichBC]

Multiply by 0.71  or divide by 1.41

http://www.trans-tronic.co.uk/rectifier/?circuit=Full+wave+-+capacitor&dc=1&voltage=240&current=&calculate=

Center tap to keep the amperage

Still a lot of chips...

Yes that is correct if you use that centre tapped transformer. However the OP was proposing to just rectify & smooth the mains voltage.

Voltage maths is correct with or without the transformer.

http://www.trans-tronic.co.uk/rectifier/?circuit=Full+wave+bridge+-+capacitor&dc=1&voltage=120&current=&calculate=


Rich

[anamichii]

help what happen with my S5

Code:

[23330.314174] Send new block cmd
[23330.693485] jiffies{11792321}dev->cgminer_start_time{9318878}time_elasp_ms =4830943ms dev->total_nonce_num{16040}
[23330.704256] bgNonce_average{125}
[23330.707641] chain0 Chain_nonce_nu[6811] Chain_nonce_nu_last[6811]
[23330.714027] UTC time :2015-10-13 14:36:36 
[23330.730961] remap chain1(hardware chain0) power err
[23330.736093] bgNonce_average{125}chain_nonce_nu{6811}last{6811}
[23330.742200] Send new block cmd
[23330.745892] set_baud cmd_buf[0]{0x86}cmd_buf[1]{0x10}cmd_buf[2]{0x1a}cmd_buf[3]{0x17}
[23330.754097] send BC data:
[23330.754097] 0x0000: 0x03 0x00 0x00 0x05 0x86 0x10 0x1a 0x17 
[23330.771084] send_to_fpga_work in queue
[23330.775029] send BC data:
[23330.775029] 0x0000: 0x03 0x01 0x00 0x05 0x86 0x10 0x1a 0x17 
[23330.788667] send_to_fpga_work in queue
[23330.800381] send_to_fpga_work in queue
[23330.812098] send_to_fpga_work in queue
[23330.821860] send_to_fpga_work in queue
[23330.833596] send_to_fpga_work in queue
[23330.845310] send_to_fpga_work in queue
[23330.858979] send_to_fpga_work in queue
[23330.868736] send_to_fpga_work in queue
[23330.882409] send_to_fpga_work in queue
[23330.894144] send_to_fpga_work in queue
[23330.905850] send_to_fpga_work in queue
[23330.915607] send_to_fpga_work in queue
[23330.927333] send_to_fpga_work in queue
[23330.939054] send_to_fpga_work in queue
[23330.950771] send_to_fpga_work in queue
[23330.954728] Detect device for anyone power err
[23330.959377] send BC data:
[23330.959377] 0x0000: 0x03 0x02 0x00 0x1a 0x89 0x10 0x1f 0x00 
[23330.974197] send_to_fpga_work in queue
[23330.978937] reset hash asic
[23330.981869] clear FPGA nonce buffer

sometimes, hashrate is very low (half of normal or just 0.00)
i change the PSU, cable, etc still same.

what about :
[23330.730961] remap chain1(hardware chain0) power err
and
[23330.954728] Detect device for anyone power err

how to fix it up?
thank

sorry i posting it again

[Richy_T]

Anyone know what this means?

Antminer (S5) starts beeping about every two seconds. If I check the status page, temperatures are OK (59 and 63), chains are all 'o' but hashrate has dropped to near zero. After about 60 seconds, there is a long beep then it looks like things recover.

Previously, I have just restarted when beeping has occurred but now I'm wondering if that was pointless and preferably, I'd like to stop it happening in the first place.

[RichBC]

Anyone know what this means?

Antminer (S5) starts beeping about every two seconds. If I check the status page, temperatures are OK (59 and 63), chains are all 'o' but hashrate has dropped to near zero. After about 60 seconds, there is a long beep then it looks like things recover.

Previously, I have just restarted when beeping has occurred but now I'm wondering if that was pointless and preferably, I'd like to stop it happening in the first place.

It will beep if you loose internet connection or the Pool goes down for some reason. This could be the reason?

Rich

[bbOOmm]

I was just fiddling around with the S5's Minerlink thing and noticed that when I click the save & apply button, the miner ~~Thinks~~ for a moment, then it reverts back to the OFF setting.

I tried searching for this problem, I saw some have had the same issue, but I didn't find a solution to try.

.........pssssst ....  whats the super douper double top secret procedure to use miner link???