Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 43 results by JohnnyBitGoode
I've noticed some big differences in current output from the TSP546 VRMs on a couple of my LV08s as seen in these next two lines of log info:
Both LV08s here are running at 525 MHz and hashing at 4.2 TH/s.
On LV08_1 (VOUT is actually set to 1.200v), notice TPS0 and TPS1 are around 22.5 Amps. However, TPS2 is only using 17.5 Amps.
On LV08_5, there is over 6.5 Amps difference between TPS0 and TPS1!
I added some code to the "edit.component.html" file to get individual control over the 3 VRMs on the LV08. Here is an image to show what it looks like.
You can see the 3 functions that are activated corresponding to which TSP button was clicked (see image). These functions have been added to the "edit.components.ts" file.
However, these functions are empty for the moment as I have not worked out how to set up the procedure inside the these functions!
Any help would be appreciated...
Code:
LV08_1: [TPS0: 1.193V, 22.500A, 48c] - [TPS1: 1.195V, 22.469A, 48c] - [TPS2: 1.193V, 17.531A, 45c]
LV08_5: [TPS0: 1.160V, 25.438A, 50c] - [TPS1: 1.158V, 18.844A, 49c] - [TPS2: 1.158V, 23.938A, 47c]
LV08_5: [TPS0: 1.160V, 25.438A, 50c] - [TPS1: 1.158V, 18.844A, 49c] - [TPS2: 1.158V, 23.938A, 47c]
Both LV08s here are running at 525 MHz and hashing at 4.2 TH/s.
On LV08_1 (VOUT is actually set to 1.200v), notice TPS0 and TPS1 are around 22.5 Amps. However, TPS2 is only using 17.5 Amps.
On LV08_5, there is over 6.5 Amps difference between TPS0 and TPS1!
I added some code to the "edit.component.html" file to get individual control over the 3 VRMs on the LV08. Here is an image to show what it looks like.
Code:
<div class="field grid p-fluid">
<label htmlFor="coreVoltage" class="col-12 mb-2 md:col-2 md:mb-0">Core Voltage TPS * 3</label>
<div class="col-12 md:col-1">
<div class="field-checkbox">
<p-checkbox name="masterVoltage" formControlName="masterVoltage" inputId="masterVoltage"
[binary]="true"></p-checkbox>
<label for="masterVoltage">Master Lock</label>
</div>
</div>
<p-dropdown class="col-12 md:col-2" [options]="getCoreVoltage()" optionLabel="name"
optionValue="value" formControlName="TPS0voltage"></p-dropdown>
<div class="d-grid gap-2 mx-auto">
<button pButton (click)="set_TPS0_CoreVoltage()" class="btn btn-primary">TPS-0</button>
</div>
<p-dropdown class="col-12 md:col-2" [options]="getCoreVoltage()" optionLabel="name"
optionValue="value" formControlName="TPS1voltage"></p-dropdown>
<div class="d-grid gap-2 mx-auto">
<button pButton (click)="set_TPS1_CoreVoltage()" class="btn btn-primary">TPS-1</button>
</div>
<p-dropdown class="col-12 md:col-2" [options]="getCoreVoltage()" optionLabel="name"
optionValue="value" formControlName="TPS2voltage"></p-dropdown>
<div class="d-grid gap-2 mx-auto">
<button pButton (click)="set_TPS2_CoreVoltage()" class="btn btn-primary">TPS-2</button>
</div>
</div>
<label htmlFor="coreVoltage" class="col-12 mb-2 md:col-2 md:mb-0">Core Voltage TPS * 3</label>
<div class="col-12 md:col-1">
<div class="field-checkbox">
<p-checkbox name="masterVoltage" formControlName="masterVoltage" inputId="masterVoltage"
[binary]="true"></p-checkbox>
<label for="masterVoltage">Master Lock</label>
</div>
</div>
<p-dropdown class="col-12 md:col-2" [options]="getCoreVoltage()" optionLabel="name"
optionValue="value" formControlName="TPS0voltage"></p-dropdown>
<div class="d-grid gap-2 mx-auto">
<button pButton (click)="set_TPS0_CoreVoltage()" class="btn btn-primary">TPS-0</button>
</div>
<p-dropdown class="col-12 md:col-2" [options]="getCoreVoltage()" optionLabel="name"
optionValue="value" formControlName="TPS1voltage"></p-dropdown>
<div class="d-grid gap-2 mx-auto">
<button pButton (click)="set_TPS1_CoreVoltage()" class="btn btn-primary">TPS-1</button>
</div>
<p-dropdown class="col-12 md:col-2" [options]="getCoreVoltage()" optionLabel="name"
optionValue="value" formControlName="TPS2voltage"></p-dropdown>
<div class="d-grid gap-2 mx-auto">
<button pButton (click)="set_TPS2_CoreVoltage()" class="btn btn-primary">TPS-2</button>
</div>
</div>
You can see the 3 functions that are activated corresponding to which TSP button was clicked (see image). These functions have been added to the "edit.components.ts" file.
Code:
public set_TPS0_CoreVoltage()
{
}
public set_TPS1_CoreVoltage()
{
}
public set_TPS2_CoreVoltage()
{
}
{
}
public set_TPS1_CoreVoltage()
{
}
public set_TPS2_CoreVoltage()
{
}
However, these functions are empty for the moment as I have not worked out how to set up the procedure inside the these functions!
Any help would be appreciated...
I've noticed some big differences in current output from the TSP546 VRMs on a couple of my LV08s as seen in these next two lines of log info:
Both LV08s here are running at 525 MHz and hashing at 4.2 TH/s.
On LV08_1 (VOUT is actually set to 1.200v), notice TPS0 and TPS1 are around 22.5 Amps. However, TPS2 is only using 17.5 Amps.
On LV08_5, there is over 6.5 Amps difference between TPS0 and TPS1!
I added some code to the "edit.component.html" file to get individual control over the 3 VRMs on the LV08. Here is an image to show what it looks like.
You can see the 3 functions that are activated corresponding to which TSP button was clicked (see image). These functions have been added to the "edit.components.ts" file.
However, these functions are empty for the moment as I have not worked out how to set up the procedure inside the these functions!
Any help would be appreciated...
Code:
LV08_1: [TPS0: 1.193V, 22.500A, 48c] - [TPS1: 1.195V, 22.469A, 48c] - [TPS2: 1.193V, 17.531A, 45c]
LV08_5: [TPS0: 1.160V, 25.438A, 50c] - [TPS1: 1.158V, 18.844A, 49c] - [TPS2: 1.158V, 23.938A, 47c]
LV08_5: [TPS0: 1.160V, 25.438A, 50c] - [TPS1: 1.158V, 18.844A, 49c] - [TPS2: 1.158V, 23.938A, 47c]
Both LV08s here are running at 525 MHz and hashing at 4.2 TH/s.
On LV08_1 (VOUT is actually set to 1.200v), notice TPS0 and TPS1 are around 22.5 Amps. However, TPS2 is only using 17.5 Amps.
On LV08_5, there is over 6.5 Amps difference between TPS0 and TPS1!
I added some code to the "edit.component.html" file to get individual control over the 3 VRMs on the LV08. Here is an image to show what it looks like.
Code:
<div class="field grid p-fluid">
<label htmlFor="coreVoltage" class="col-12 mb-2 md:col-2 md:mb-0">Core Voltage TPS * 3</label>
<div class="col-12 md:col-1">
<div class="field-checkbox">
<p-checkbox name="masterVoltage" formControlName="masterVoltage" inputId="masterVoltage"
[binary]="true"></p-checkbox>
<label for="masterVoltage">Master Lock</label>
</div>
</div>
<p-dropdown class="col-12 md:col-2" [options]="getCoreVoltage()" optionLabel="name"
optionValue="value" formControlName="TPS0voltage"></p-dropdown>
<div class="d-grid gap-2 mx-auto">
<button pButton (click)="set_TPS0_CoreVoltage()" class="btn btn-primary">TPS-0</button>
</div>
<p-dropdown class="col-12 md:col-2" [options]="getCoreVoltage()" optionLabel="name"
optionValue="value" formControlName="TPS1voltage"></p-dropdown>
<div class="d-grid gap-2 mx-auto">
<button pButton (click)="set_TPS1_CoreVoltage()" class="btn btn-primary">TPS-1</button>
</div>
<p-dropdown class="col-12 md:col-2" [options]="getCoreVoltage()" optionLabel="name"
optionValue="value" formControlName="TPS2voltage"></p-dropdown>
<div class="d-grid gap-2 mx-auto">
<button pButton (click)="set_TPS2_CoreVoltage()" class="btn btn-primary">TPS-2</button>
</div>
</div>
<label htmlFor="coreVoltage" class="col-12 mb-2 md:col-2 md:mb-0">Core Voltage TPS * 3</label>
<div class="col-12 md:col-1">
<div class="field-checkbox">
<p-checkbox name="masterVoltage" formControlName="masterVoltage" inputId="masterVoltage"
[binary]="true"></p-checkbox>
<label for="masterVoltage">Master Lock</label>
</div>
</div>
<p-dropdown class="col-12 md:col-2" [options]="getCoreVoltage()" optionLabel="name"
optionValue="value" formControlName="TPS0voltage"></p-dropdown>
<div class="d-grid gap-2 mx-auto">
<button pButton (click)="set_TPS0_CoreVoltage()" class="btn btn-primary">TPS-0</button>
</div>
<p-dropdown class="col-12 md:col-2" [options]="getCoreVoltage()" optionLabel="name"
optionValue="value" formControlName="TPS1voltage"></p-dropdown>
<div class="d-grid gap-2 mx-auto">
<button pButton (click)="set_TPS1_CoreVoltage()" class="btn btn-primary">TPS-1</button>
</div>
<p-dropdown class="col-12 md:col-2" [options]="getCoreVoltage()" optionLabel="name"
optionValue="value" formControlName="TPS2voltage"></p-dropdown>
<div class="d-grid gap-2 mx-auto">
<button pButton (click)="set_TPS2_CoreVoltage()" class="btn btn-primary">TPS-2</button>
</div>
</div>
You can see the 3 functions that are activated corresponding to which TSP button was clicked (see image). These functions have been added to the "edit.components.ts" file.
Code:
public set_TPS0_CoreVoltage()
{
}
public set_TPS1_CoreVoltage()
{
}
public set_TPS2_CoreVoltage()
{
}
{
}
public set_TPS1_CoreVoltage()
{
}
public set_TPS2_CoreVoltage()
{
}
However, these functions are empty for the moment as I have not worked out how to set up the procedure inside the these functions!
Any help would be appreciated...
I have never looked into saving the settings and don't understand everything straight away.
Good luck!
Yes, I've already looked at all of that code. That code does a complete save of all the settings even if only one thing was changed.
It shouldn't be anymore than just a few lines of code to send a button click to the ESP32 to say update the core voltage from the drop-down list and do nothing else.
Anyway, thanks for getting back to me so quickly, I appreciate it.
FIRMWARE UPDATE
The latest update v2.7.1 is also available for the LV07: https://github.com/un-painted-org/ESP-Miner/releases/tag/v2.7.1-LV07
The latest update v2.7.1 is also available for the LV07: https://github.com/un-painted-org/ESP-Miner/releases/tag/v2.7.1-LV07
Hello unpainted, I have a quick question for you.
I'm still experimenting a lot with my LV07 and LV08 for that matter. I'm worried about excessive writing to the NVS data area of the ESP32 every time I make a minor change and need to press Save to have the change(s) take effect.
For instance when I change only the core voltage a slight amount, I need to press Save which updates the NVS partition with the new settings every time! I don't wish to do a save, just want to change the frequency or core voltage without writing unnecessarily to the NVS partition.
I have already placed buttons at the ends of the drop-down lists for both frequency and core voltage, I just haven't been able to work out the code that goes along with a mouse click. My question is, do you know how to do this?
Any help would be appreciated...
well, hash-rate is not stable it jumps from 4.2 to 5.8. Expected = 4.83 and average (after 15-20 min of monitoring) = 4.9.
https://talkimg.com/images/2025/03/31/lJ2sG.png
https://talkimg.com/images/2025/03/31/lJ2sG.png
I'm running my four LV08 miners at expected hash-rate of 3.42 TH/s (I'm going for efficiency and cooler temps as it's just past summer here so it's still warm) and all four are a little over 3.5 TH/s each. At this hash-rate, all miners are between 70 and 73 watts on the dashboard (a little more at the wall of course).
I'm still running v2.5.1 but I do like some of the added features on v2.6.1. Unfortunately I have a fair bit of other code that I will have to manually add for some extra logging that I like to see. As well as a few data tweaks. It's a bit time consuming to do everytime I update!
Done! Updated via web interface with esp-miner.bin and www.bin. Testing... 600 mhz, 1.2 v, 118.6 w. Asic t° = 55, VRT = 66.
118.6 Watts on Dashboard or from watt meter (at the wall)?
Also, what is the hash-rate when it has leveled out?
I have experienced the same.
And it is mostly 1 of the VR's that stops working but not always the same. eg VR1 stops, VR2&3 keep working. [powercycle] all 3 working, and after a while VR 1&2 working, VR3 no longer produces output power.
I wish someone would include syslog client into bitaxeos so all logfiles could be collected on a syslog server in a LAN so we could see the log files that triggered the event.
That would tell us a lot more probably
And it is mostly 1 of the VR's that stops working but not always the same. eg VR1 stops, VR2&3 keep working. [powercycle] all 3 working, and after a while VR 1&2 working, VR3 no longer produces output power.
I wish someone would include syslog client into bitaxeos so all logfiles could be collected on a syslog server in a LAN so we could see the log files that triggered the event.
That would tell us a lot more probably
Hmm, I’ve had a similar experience before, after I replaced the thermal paste and may have over-tightened the heatsink screws. Loosening them seemed to fix the issue. If you have swapped the thermal paste, you might want to try loosening the screws.
Yes, well after quite a bit of experimentation, it does appear to be an issue with one of the TPS546 regulators as fromport has suggested.
What's interesting though is it does not occur with the original Minerfixes firmware of v1.0.0!
This table shows the minimum settings I could use for a 3TH/s low power usage with firmware v1.0.0:
Notice the iout for the middle regulator.
Code:
Freq: 375
Voltage: 1.085
Watts: 62.3
--------------
₿ (2659126) power_management: 7F vout: 1.08, iout: 14.47
₿ (2659126) power_management: 24 vout: 1.07, iout: 12.45
₿ (2659126) power_management: 14 vout: 1.08, iout: 14.06
₿ (2659136) EMC2302: GET-Fan Speed[0] 989 = 1987 RPM, MSB 0x1E
₿ (2659136) power_management: Board Temp: 40, 44
₿ (2659146) power_management: TMP546_0 Temp: 45
₿ (2659146) power_management: TMP546_1 Temp: 45
₿ (2659156) power_management: TMP546_2 Temp: 44
Voltage: 1.085
Watts: 62.3
--------------
₿ (2659126) power_management: 7F vout: 1.08, iout: 14.47
₿ (2659126) power_management: 24 vout: 1.07, iout: 12.45
₿ (2659126) power_management: 14 vout: 1.08, iout: 14.06
₿ (2659136) EMC2302: GET-Fan Speed[0] 989 = 1987 RPM, MSB 0x1E
₿ (2659136) power_management: Board Temp: 40, 44
₿ (2659146) power_management: TMP546_0 Temp: 45
₿ (2659146) power_management: TMP546_1 Temp: 45
₿ (2659156) power_management: TMP546_2 Temp: 44
Unfortunately using the TCH 2.5.1 firmware this particular LV08 only has 2 of the 3 TPS546 regulators working if it operates below a certain threshold.
And once the problem has occurred, the only way to resolve it (it's not permanent though), is to unplug the LV08 (cold boot if you will) and restart it. But before doing that, the LV08 has to be set to no lower than 425 MHz and a high enough voltage so that all 9 ASIC chips are mining smoothly (around 1.125 to 1.150 volts).
At 425 MHz and 1.150 volts, the LV08 is mining at 3.5 TH/s showing about 79 watts on the dashboard. If I drop the voltage down to 1.125, the hashing rate appears to be stable and the power level drops 4 to 5 watts. But if I drop the the frequency down to 400 MHz, the power level shoots up about 15 watts and even though the middle TSP546 has increased to about 22 amps (from about 15 amps), only 6 out of the 9 ASIC chips are now mining!
The LV08 stays at this higher output level with only 6/9 chips working. But usually within a minute or two, the voltage on the dashboard drops to zero when the middle TPS546 regulator shuts down also bringing down the power usage by a third to about 52 watts.
I'm not sure if it's a parameter than needs to be modified on the TSP546 regulators as I said above, as it does not happen with the original factory firmware. Later this evening I will disassemble the unit so I can apply a better quality thermal paste and check the tightness of the heatsink mounting screws as iambonkerz has suggested...
Hello JohnnyBitGoode,
I had no idea someone was working on the LV08 too… I have a modified version of skot’s firmware working on my LV08.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5530594.0
I had no idea someone was working on the LV08 too… I have a modified version of skot’s firmware working on my LV08.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5530594.0
Hello Bonkerz
Yes, I managed to get my LV08 working fully a couple of days ago on v2.5.1-TCH which is forked from skot as well. While the modifications you made to the TPS546.c file communicate to all 3 TPS546 regulators at the same time, it doesn't allow you to query each regulator independently. I went for this approach:
Code:
static i2c_master_dev_handle_t tps546_dev_handle[3]; // For up to 3 TPS546 devices (LV08)
static uint16_t TPS_I2C_ADDR[3] = {0x7F, 0x24, 0x14}; // [1] (0x24) is only referenced for single TPS546 devices
static uint16_t TPS_I2C_ADDR[3] = {0x7F, 0x24, 0x14}; // [1] (0x24) is only referenced for single TPS546 devices
And so I had to add another variable to all the relevant functions:
TPS_IDX = {0, 1, or 2}
Code:
/* public functions */
int TPS546_init(TPS546_CONFIG, int TPS_IDX);
void TPS546_read_mfr_info(uint8_t *, int TPS_IDX);
void TPS546_set_mfr_info(int TPS_IDX);
void TPS546_write_entire_config(int TPS_IDX);
int TPS546_get_frequency(int TPS_IDX);
void TPS546_set_frequency(int, int TPS_IDX);
int TPS546_get_temperature(int TPS_IDX);
float TPS546_get_vin(int TPS_IDX);
float TPS546_get_iout(int TPS_IDX);
float TPS546_get_vout(int TPS_IDX);
void TPS546_set_vout(float volts, int TPS_IDX);
void TPS546_show_voltage_settings(int TPS_IDX);
void TPS546_print_status(int TPS_IDX);
int TPS546_init(TPS546_CONFIG, int TPS_IDX);
void TPS546_read_mfr_info(uint8_t *, int TPS_IDX);
void TPS546_set_mfr_info(int TPS_IDX);
void TPS546_write_entire_config(int TPS_IDX);
int TPS546_get_frequency(int TPS_IDX);
void TPS546_set_frequency(int, int TPS_IDX);
int TPS546_get_temperature(int TPS_IDX);
float TPS546_get_vin(int TPS_IDX);
float TPS546_get_iout(int TPS_IDX);
float TPS546_get_vout(int TPS_IDX);
void TPS546_set_vout(float volts, int TPS_IDX);
void TPS546_show_voltage_settings(int TPS_IDX);
void TPS546_print_status(int TPS_IDX);
When I need to update the dashboard temperature of the TPS546 devices on the LV08, I query all three but only display the highest temperature. Also power in watts is an accumulation of all 3 TPS546 device's power (voltage * current), with an offset of 18 watts added (6 watts for each regulator). This exactly matches the results I got from the original Lucky Miner v1.0.0 firmware...
Nice work! I like this approach better, I am still trying to implement a similar code to what you have done.
Unfortunately I've just come across an issue that's really bizarre!
Yesterday I received my 4th LV08 and set it up with my details and mined for several hours at 3TH without any problems. Usually I run my miners with the original loaded firmware for a day or so before I open them up, backup the firmware and install my own modded firmware. However, I decided after only a couple of hours to install my modded firmware on this my 4th LV08.
No matter what I've tried, only 6 out of the 9 ASIC chips are mining. I used the same modded esp-miner.bin and www.bin files on this miner as with my other three LV08s but still this 4th LV08 has only 6/9 ASICs working. I have confirmed that all 3 TPS546 regulators are added to the i2c bus and that they have been initialized with the same settings. However, it's the middle voltage regulator that is not supplying power to the middle 3 ASIC chips.
I've even used a full firmware backup (v2.5.1 TCH) from one of my other LV08 miners on this new 4th LV08 but the results are the same, only 6/9 ASICs are mining. When I reinstall the original firmware that I backed up before I installed the updated firmware (luckily), all 9 ASIC chips are mining again!
All four LV08 miners appear identical. Looking at all the serial numbers, my first two LV08s are lower than my 4th LV08. But my 3rd LV08 serial number is higher than my 4th one!
Anyone else experience this issue?
We are talking about output power DC in the above calculations
The 164 watt I talked about is AC power measured of the input.
There is a thing called power factor on the AC side that might make the measured AC numbers higher than what they really are.
Complete new discussion.
Difference between AC power in and DC power output == efficiency of the PSU.
Well fromport, it appears you were right about the power reduction in output operating between 85v to 176v AC input. At the lover AC input the PSU is rated for 100 watts no additional cooling. Or 150 watts fan assisted cooling (which the LV08 does provide). I bought this PSU because soon I'll have 3 * LV08s and I wanted a backup in case one of them died (the power supply that is). It's very tiny!
So yes, I think you're close to your limit at 164 watts from the wall! The PSU is about 90% efficient, which means 150 watts on the DC side will be ~110% of that on the AC side (110% of 150 watts = 165 watts). Close enough. If you try to draw more power than the PSU can deliver, there's a chance it will shut down.
This particular PSU comes in 4 models, (12v, 19v, 24v and 48v).
Plenty of specs on this link below (scroll down):
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005006504788335.html
**update**
Just as a quick test, just pushed it to 615/1250
Asic temp 54C, VR 70C
Gui watts 134.5, AC watts 164
Efficiency in Gui: 25.2 J/Th
Average hashrate: 5.16Th/s
Just as a quick test, just pushed it to 615/1250
Asic temp 54C, VR 70C
Gui watts 134.5, AC watts 164
Efficiency in Gui: 25.2 J/Th
Average hashrate: 5.16Th/s
Code:
₿ (360919) TPS546: Got Vin: 12.125 V
₿ (360919) TPS546: Got Vin: 12.125 V
₿ (360919) TPS546: Got Vin: 12.141 V
₿ (360919) TPS546: Got Vout: 1.242 V
₿ (360929) TPS546: Got Iout: 31.531 A
₿ (360929) TPS546: Got Vout: 1.246 V
₿ (360929) TPS546: Got Iout: 31.406 A
₿ (360939) TPS546: Got Vout: 1.244 V
₿ (360939) TPS546: Got Iout: 30.625 A
₿ (360949) TPS546: TPS546_0 Temp: 68
₿ (360949) TPS546: TPS546_1 Temp: 70
₿ (360959) TPS546: TPS546_2 Temp: 61
₿ (360919) TPS546: Got Vin: 12.125 V
₿ (360919) TPS546: Got Vin: 12.141 V
₿ (360919) TPS546: Got Vout: 1.242 V
₿ (360929) TPS546: Got Iout: 31.531 A
₿ (360929) TPS546: Got Vout: 1.246 V
₿ (360929) TPS546: Got Iout: 31.406 A
₿ (360939) TPS546: Got Vout: 1.244 V
₿ (360939) TPS546: Got Iout: 30.625 A
₿ (360949) TPS546: TPS546_0 Temp: 68
₿ (360949) TPS546: TPS546_1 Temp: 70
₿ (360959) TPS546: TPS546_2 Temp: 61
Hey fromport, I'm still confused about one thing.
If this label: https://www.dth.net/crypto/miners/lucky/lv08/LV08-PSU-label.jpg
de-rates the power supply to 60% of 180 watts (that's only 108 watts), how are you able to draw 164 watts from it?
https://d-central.tech/product/apw3-psu/
With a rated power of 1600W (on 200-240V) and 1200W (on 110-120V)
So 75% available power on 120 volt compared to the max power on 240 volt.
I will follow the labels/specs of the manufacturer.
You can follow the results of some google searches.
With a rated power of 1600W (on 200-240V) and 1200W (on 110-120V)
So 75% available power on 120 volt compared to the max power on 240 volt.
I will follow the labels/specs of the manufacturer.
You can follow the results of some google searches.
Yes, it probably is wise to stick with what the manufacturer states about their own products specifications!
Couldn't agree more...
I don't think that that's what it means.
Going from 240v AC to 120v AC will only make the efficiency of the power supply drop by 1 or 2%.
Assuming the GUI is reasonably accurate, then at those settings your power supply is 82% efficient (134.5 / 164 = 0.82).
Most modern day power supplies are closer to 90% efficient. So I'd say on the DC side of the power supply it's probably closer to 145 to 150 watts.
Going from 240v AC to 120v AC will only make the efficiency of the power supply drop by 1 or 2%.
Assuming the GUI is reasonably accurate, then at those settings your power supply is 82% efficient (134.5 / 164 = 0.82).
Most modern day power supplies are closer to 90% efficient. So I'd say on the DC side of the power supply it's probably closer to 145 to 150 watts.
As you say: I interpret this different.
The label clearly says:
"85-176VAC Load power 60%"
I read this as : with input voltage 85-176 Volt AC the load power should be limited to max 60%
I don't see anything that says 1-2% less efficient on that label like you interpret it.
The WEB GUI uses the amps/volts of the VR x 3 strings to calculate the ASIC power usage.
Then it adds a guessed amount for the ESP32 & the fans to come to a WEB GUI power usage number.
It is not 100% measured.
Take your pick from a quick Google search:
https://www.google.com.au/search?sca_esv=c6b583333c988112&sxsrf=AHTn8zpv35ivkZJIuH2b8zXNelsyFL3F6Q:1739831817974&q=120v+vs+240v+power+supply+efficiency+for+pc&udm=2&fbs=ABzOT_CWdhQLP1FcmU5B0fn3xuWp5u5rQsC2YJafWTbyNSy6GwyMGdsHB0d4chDhHh_xW6AFFIH8LbBL39tQziqwJqn4z-wAXy39LfSETRrBOJ8GjWbzIS3MMwkaSWb2P77hvH2rdMUhD35JUxs42fZWv44Sne4SW2TdYHIbht8G3WYZzUlj7UlD9Q-Ja7AheA4nK4mEgCimfe-hyITZ8b_NRXLstjZCyA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiAwOrL4suLAxUKwzgGHb9CG-IQtKgLegQIDhAB&biw=1280&bih=618&dpr=1.5
But since I am in the USA and only able to feed it with 120volt AC it has to be de-rated with 60% :
I don't think that that's what it means.
Going from 240v AC to 120v AC will only make the efficiency of the power supply drop by 1 or 2%.
This keeps happening to me.
I am currently running V2.6.0-1.0.1 on my LV08
After 2 hours of uptime it suddenly drops hashing like this:
https://imgur.com/a/ouHjJIm
It averaged 5Th/s using 600Mhz at 1205 mV averaging 24.5J/TH for nearly 2 hours and suddenly it drops to 3.1th/s
It did not overheat: 55C asic temp
I was pushing this same hardware with the original LuckyMiner OS to 650/1260 and it averaged 5.35Th/s
Any suggestions ?
I am currently running V2.6.0-1.0.1 on my LV08
After 2 hours of uptime it suddenly drops hashing like this:
https://imgur.com/a/ouHjJIm
It averaged 5Th/s using 600Mhz at 1205 mV averaging 24.5J/TH for nearly 2 hours and suddenly it drops to 3.1th/s
It did not overheat: 55C asic temp
I was pushing this same hardware with the original LuckyMiner OS to 650/1260 and it averaged 5.35Th/s
Any suggestions ?
Use additional cooling to bring the temperature down on both the ASICs and VRMs. The cooler you can get them the more efficiently they will run. My first LV08 is still cracked open with a 120mm PC fan on top of the heatsink. Otherwise, put a fan up against (or close to) the intake vent and you'll see the temps drop.
At 600MHz and 1.25v on the core of the ASICs, my LV08 power is showing 109 watts with the ASICs at 47c and the VRMs at 53c. Power at the wall is 129 watts.
1.200v is too low for the LV08 at 600MHz in my opinion...
Would you be willing to share your 2.5.1 www.bin & esp-miner.bin so I can compare them to Iambonkerz version ?
My LV08 with the luckyminer version runs happy at much higher hash rate then the 2.6.0b4
I am curious how the 2.5.1 will perform.
My LV08 with the luckyminer version runs happy at much higher hash rate then the 2.6.0b4
I am curious how the 2.5.1 will perform.
It's possible my compiled firmware updates won't work on your LV08 if you've installed a different full factory firmware over the Minerfixes Lucky Miner version. My LV08 still thinks it's a supra with boardversion 402!
I've installed my updates using a jTAG and probe so my NVS is un-touched...
Would you be willing to share your 2.5.1 www.bin & esp-miner.bin so I can compare them to Iambonkerz version ?
My LV08 with the luckyminer version runs happy at much higher hash rate then the 2.6.0b4
I am curious how the 2.5.1 will perform.
My LV08 with the luckyminer version runs happy at much higher hash rate then the 2.6.0b4
I am curious how the 2.5.1 will perform.
Yes I can share. I just need to remove some code and re-compile, then I'll upload them.
I can't help you much, but I recommend that you leave the TPS546 voltage settings as they are:
https://github.com/TinyChipHub/ESP-Miner-TCH/blob/master/main/TPS546.h#L26
https://github.com/TinyChipHub/ESP-Miner-TCH/blob/master/main/TPS546.h#L26
It took me a little while to understand some of the TPS546 regulators settings because I didn't have enough information about it. This information is available here but I will explain it below for others to read:
https://www.ti.com/lit/gpn/tps546d24a
IMPORTANT: The TPS546 uses an internal voltage reference between 0.25v and 0.75v
The output voltage of the TPS546 is successfully set if the SCALE_LOOP * VOUT is within this reference voltage.
From the example below:
SCALE_LOOP of 0.50f * VOUT_MIN of 1.0f = 0.50f (this is right in the middle of the reference voltage so it is valid)
SCALE_LOOP of 0.50f * VOUT_MAX of 1.35f = 0.675f (this is also within the reference voltage so it is valid)
The INIT_VOUT_COMMAND sets the voltage of the TPS546 during initialization.
Only these settings should be changed as needed:
Settings I use on the LV08:
Code:
TPS546_INIT_SCALE_LOOP=0.50f,
TPS546_INIT_VOUT_MAX=1.35f,
TPS546_INIT_VOUT_COMMAND=1.2f,
TPS546_INIT_VOUT_MIN=1.0f,
TPS546_INIT_VOUT_MAX=1.35f,
TPS546_INIT_VOUT_COMMAND=1.2f,
TPS546_INIT_VOUT_MIN=1.0f,
The VOUT_MIN and VOUT_MAX set limits on the voltage output. Trying to set the VOUT above VOUT_MAX will result in no change. Trying to set the VOUT below VOUT_MIN will set the voltage to the INIT_VOUT_COMMAND setting.
The SCALE_LOOP and VOUT_COMMAND recommended range is near the bottom of page 26 of the reference data sheet linked above.
SCALE_LOOP can only be 1 of 4 values as far as I know (0.125, 0.25, 0.50 and 1.0).
Hello JohnnyBitGoode,
I had no idea someone was working on the LV08 too… I have a modified version of skot’s firmware working on my LV08.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5530594.0
I had no idea someone was working on the LV08 too… I have a modified version of skot’s firmware working on my LV08.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5530594.0
Hello Bonkerz
Yes, I managed to get my LV08 working fully a couple of days ago on v2.5.1-TCH which is forked from skot as well. While the modifications you made to the TPS546.c file communicate to all 3 TPS546 regulators at the same time, it doesn't allow you to query each regulator independently. I went for this approach:
Code:
static i2c_master_dev_handle_t tps546_dev_handle[3]; // For up to 3 TPS546 devices (LV08)
static uint16_t TPS_I2C_ADDR[3] = {0x7F, 0x24, 0x14}; // [1] (0x24) is only referenced for single TPS546 devices
static uint16_t TPS_I2C_ADDR[3] = {0x7F, 0x24, 0x14}; // [1] (0x24) is only referenced for single TPS546 devices
And so I had to add another variable to all the relevant functions:
TPS_IDX = {0, 1, or 2}
Code:
/* public functions */
int TPS546_init(TPS546_CONFIG, int TPS_IDX);
void TPS546_read_mfr_info(uint8_t *, int TPS_IDX);
void TPS546_set_mfr_info(int TPS_IDX);
void TPS546_write_entire_config(int TPS_IDX);
int TPS546_get_frequency(int TPS_IDX);
void TPS546_set_frequency(int, int TPS_IDX);
int TPS546_get_temperature(int TPS_IDX);
float TPS546_get_vin(int TPS_IDX);
float TPS546_get_iout(int TPS_IDX);
float TPS546_get_vout(int TPS_IDX);
void TPS546_set_vout(float volts, int TPS_IDX);
void TPS546_show_voltage_settings(int TPS_IDX);
void TPS546_print_status(int TPS_IDX);
int TPS546_init(TPS546_CONFIG, int TPS_IDX);
void TPS546_read_mfr_info(uint8_t *, int TPS_IDX);
void TPS546_set_mfr_info(int TPS_IDX);
void TPS546_write_entire_config(int TPS_IDX);
int TPS546_get_frequency(int TPS_IDX);
void TPS546_set_frequency(int, int TPS_IDX);
int TPS546_get_temperature(int TPS_IDX);
float TPS546_get_vin(int TPS_IDX);
float TPS546_get_iout(int TPS_IDX);
float TPS546_get_vout(int TPS_IDX);
void TPS546_set_vout(float volts, int TPS_IDX);
void TPS546_show_voltage_settings(int TPS_IDX);
void TPS546_print_status(int TPS_IDX);
When I need to update the dashboard temperature of the TPS546 devices on the LV08, I query all three but only display the highest temperature. Also power in watts is an accumulation of all 3 TPS546 device's power (voltage * current), with an offset of 18 watts added (6 watts for each regulator). This exactly matches the results I got from the original Lucky Miner v1.0.0 firmware...
It is certainly important that you set the following parameters for the LV08:
Code:
GLOBAL_STATE->asic_count = 9;
GLOBAL_STATE->voltage_domain = 3;
GLOBAL_STATE->voltage_domain = 3;
I don't think the voltage_domain on the LV08 would be set to 3. I think it will be 1 because each TPS546 shows a voltage corresponding to the actual setting:
Code:
₿ (1191167) power_management: 7F vout: 1.09, iout: 13.67
₿ (1191167) power_management: 24 vout: 1.09, iout: 14.00
₿ (1191167) power_management: 14 vout: 1.09, iout: 10.61
₿ (1191167) power_management: 24 vout: 1.09, iout: 14.00
₿ (1191167) power_management: 14 vout: 1.09, iout: 10.61
From what I can work out from the source code, the voltage_domain is used as a multiplier of the requested output voltage. For example on the Hex and Supra Hex, a setting of 1200 millivolts would give an output voltage from the TPS546 of 3.6v. Here I'm also assuming that the Hex and Supra Hex have 3 x BM1366 ASICs connected in series to one TPS546. So with a voltage rail of 3.6 volts, each ASIC chip will get 1.2v as their input (3.6 / 3 = 1.2). In the case of the Hex and Supra Hex, TPS546_INIT_VOUT_MAX=4.5f would supply 1.5v to each chip maximum (4.5 / 3 = 1.5).
And the setting of TPS546_INIT_VOUT_MIN=2.5f would only allow each chip to receive 0.83v as a minimum (2.5 / 3 = 0.8333). Attempting to go higher than 4.5 volts or lower than 2.5 volts would set the output to TPS546_INIT_VOUT_COMMAND=3.6f (3.6 / 3 = 1.2), the default setting.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Hello all happy miners: 
Recently I purchased a Minerfixes Lucky Miner LV08 and I must say I am very impressed with it!
For the first few days I was tweaking it a fair bit to see what TH/s I could get out of it at various frequencies and voltages. As an example, 3.6 TH/s is achievable at 450 MHz and a core voltage of 1.135v (yes stable). Depending on the ambient temperature (I was supplying additional external cooling), the power level at the wall was between 79 and 82 watts. This is almost 1 TH/s higher than my Avalon Nano 3 at a similar power level.
Unfortunately Minerfixes have disabled the ability to update the firmware through the website of the miner itself. That's where a jTAG and probe has come in handy and allowed me to install a customized firmware. I made a backup of the original firmware before I started testing other firmware of course.
Incidentally, the LV08 firmware has it listed as a devicemodel = supra with boardversion = 402.
My goal is to do some tweaking in the code as well as add some additional logging. The current firmware I am testing with the LV08 is this one from the GitHub:
https://github.com/TinyChipHub/ESP-Miner-TCH/releases/tag/v2.5.1
However I have hit upon a snag. With the TCH v2.5.1 firmware installed, only 6 out of 9 of the BM1366 ASICs are actually working according to the Chip Submit logging. With the setting I've listed above, the hashing rate only gets to 2.4 TH/s which is about two thirds of the expected of 3.6 TH/s. But surprisingly the power level at the wall is a little higher than what I've listed above. I should mention that some of the meter readings on the website are wrong as well though.
There are 3 x TPS546 Voltage Regulators on the LV08. All 3 of them have different addresses on the I2C bus. This is a snippet from the Logs of the original Minerfixes firmware:
At this power level the watt meter was showing 63 watts with a hashrate of 3 TH/s. That's 21 watts per TH at the wall!
As you can see from the 3 lines above the I2C addresses are 0x7F, 0x24 and 0x14
But when I install firmware TCH v2.5.1 this is what I get on the regulators:
I have tried sending different configurations to the TPS546 Voltage Regulators such as:
All these configurations yielded the same results above with some small milli-volt changes only.
In the source code of the TCH v2.5.1, I did notice that there is only one TPS546 device that is assigned to the I2C bus and that is with the 0x24 address. So I added some additional code to add all 3 TPS546 Regulators on the I2C bus (with 0x7F, 0x24 and 0x14 addresses) and confirmed all 3 successfully added. I also tried the different voltage configurations above and also verified that they are set. However now, the power at the wall is only 3.5 watts! The only thing that appears to be working is the ESP32 itself as I'm still able to upload new firmwares and try again.
I know the TPS546 can be stacked 2x, 3x and 4x allowing up to 160A of current and be programmed through one address all at the same time. But I'm unfamiliar with how to do this. So some help would be appreciated.
I have sent an email to Minerfixes for some help as well, but I'm not holding my breath.
Recently I purchased a Minerfixes Lucky Miner LV08 and I must say I am very impressed with it!
For the first few days I was tweaking it a fair bit to see what TH/s I could get out of it at various frequencies and voltages. As an example, 3.6 TH/s is achievable at 450 MHz and a core voltage of 1.135v (yes stable). Depending on the ambient temperature (I was supplying additional external cooling), the power level at the wall was between 79 and 82 watts. This is almost 1 TH/s higher than my Avalon Nano 3 at a similar power level.
Unfortunately Minerfixes have disabled the ability to update the firmware through the website of the miner itself. That's where a jTAG and probe has come in handy and allowed me to install a customized firmware. I made a backup of the original firmware before I started testing other firmware of course.
Incidentally, the LV08 firmware has it listed as a devicemodel = supra with boardversion = 402.
My goal is to do some tweaking in the code as well as add some additional logging. The current firmware I am testing with the LV08 is this one from the GitHub:
https://github.com/TinyChipHub/ESP-Miner-TCH/releases/tag/v2.5.1
However I have hit upon a snag. With the TCH v2.5.1 firmware installed, only 6 out of 9 of the BM1366 ASICs are actually working according to the Chip Submit logging. With the setting I've listed above, the hashing rate only gets to 2.4 TH/s which is about two thirds of the expected of 3.6 TH/s. But surprisingly the power level at the wall is a little higher than what I've listed above. I should mention that some of the meter readings on the website are wrong as well though.
There are 3 x TPS546 Voltage Regulators on the LV08. All 3 of them have different addresses on the I2C bus. This is a snippet from the Logs of the original Minerfixes firmware:
- ₿ (1191167) power_management: 7F vout: 1.09, iout: 13.67
₿ (1191167) power_management: 24 vout: 1.09, iout: 14.00
₿ (1191167) power_management: 14 vout: 1.09, iout: 10.61
At this power level the watt meter was showing 63 watts with a hashrate of 3 TH/s. That's 21 watts per TH at the wall!
As you can see from the 3 lines above the I2C addresses are 0x7F, 0x24 and 0x14
But when I install firmware TCH v2.5.1 this is what I get on the regulators:
- ₿ (809655) TPS546: Got Vin: 12.125 V
₿ (809655) TPS546: Got Iout: -0.357 A
₿ (809665) TPS546: Got Vout: 0.049 V
₿ (810305) TPS546: Got Vout: 0.051 V
₿ (810945) TPS546: Got Vout: 0.049 V
I have tried sending different configurations to the TPS546 Voltage Regulators such as:
- .TPS546_INIT_SCALE_LOOP=0.125f,
.TPS546_INIT_VOUT_MAX=4.5f,
.TPS546_INIT_VOUT_COMMAND=3.6f,
.TPS546_INIT_VOUT_MIN=2.5f,
.TPS546_INIT_SCALE_LOOP=0.25f,
.TPS546_INIT_VOUT_MAX=3.0f,
.TPS546_INIT_VOUT_COMMAND=1.2f,
.TPS546_INIT_VOUT_MIN=1.0f,
.TPS546_INIT_SCALE_LOOP=0.5f,
.TPS546_INIT_VOUT_MAX=1.5f,
.TPS546_INIT_VOUT_COMMAND=1.0f,
.TPS546_INIT_VOUT_MIN=0.5f,
.TPS546_INIT_SCALE_LOOP=1.0f,
.TPS546_INIT_VOUT_MAX=0.75f,
.TPS546_INIT_VOUT_COMMAND=0.5f,
.TPS546_INIT_VOUT_MIN=0.25f,
All these configurations yielded the same results above with some small milli-volt changes only.
In the source code of the TCH v2.5.1, I did notice that there is only one TPS546 device that is assigned to the I2C bus and that is with the 0x24 address. So I added some additional code to add all 3 TPS546 Regulators on the I2C bus (with 0x7F, 0x24 and 0x14 addresses) and confirmed all 3 successfully added. I also tried the different voltage configurations above and also verified that they are set. However now, the power at the wall is only 3.5 watts! The only thing that appears to be working is the ESP32 itself as I'm still able to upload new firmwares and try again.
I know the TPS546 can be stacked 2x, 3x and 4x allowing up to 160A of current and be programmed through one address all at the same time. But I'm unfamiliar with how to do this. So some help would be appreciated.
I have sent an email to Minerfixes for some help as well, but I'm not holding my breath.