the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 07 Jan 2026
Diagnostic and Recovery Method for Boot Failure in PC/104-Based Geophysical Resistivity Instruments Following CMOS Configuration Loss: On the ABEM Terrameter SAS-1000/4000 Using the PFM-540I Platform
Abstract. Boot failures in embedded geophysical instruments frequently arise from the loss of CMOS-retained BIOS parameters, a condition well documented in legacy computing systems that depend on fixed hardware configurations. The ABEM Terrameter SAS-1000/4000 relies on a PC/104 controller (PFM-540I), CompactFlash (CF) storage, and specialized BIOS settings to load its internal firmware. When the CMOS battery depletes, the BIOS reverts to factory defaults that are incompatible with the Terrameter's required hardware profile, resulting in complete boot failure and a black LCD screen. This paper describes a full diagnostic and recovery procedure involving external VGA/PS-2 interfacing, jumper validation, CMOS clearing and manual BIOS reconstruction. The restored system achieved 100% boot success, persistent CF detection and stable BIOS retention across multiple test cycles. The findings provide a validated engineering method for maintaining legacy PC/104-based scientific instruments vulnerable to CMOS configuration loss.
- Preprint
(825 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-6396', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Feb 2026
-
AC1: 'Authors Response to Referee #1 (RC1)', Gideon Fosu Dwamena, 02 Apr 2026
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive feedback. We appreciate the recommendation for publication after minor revision. All comments have been addressed, and in the revised manuscript the changes will be adhered to accordingly. Detailed responses are provided below.
Comment 1
With the exception of the appendix, Figures and the Table are not referred to in the text. Please include reference to them in the descriptions given in the text.
Response:
We thank the reviewer for this observation. The manuscript has been revised to explicitly reference all figures and the table at appropriate locations within the text to improve clarity and readability.
Changes in manuscript:
- In the Introduction, references to Figure 1 and Figure 2 have been added to describe the observed boot failure and internal hardware configuration.
- In the Methodology section, references to Figure 3 (experimental setup) and Figure 4 (BIOS configuration interface) have been included.
- In the Results section, Figure 6 is now explicitly referenced when describing successful system recovery.
Comment 2
Figure 1 is blurred and Figure 5 has too small annotations. Please provide Figures of good quality so that they are readable.
Response:
We appreciate this comment. The quality of the figures has been improved to ensure clarity and readability.
Changes in manuscript:
- Figure 1 has been replaced with a higher-resolution image.
- Figure 5 has been updated with enlarged annotations and improved labeling for better visibility.
Comment 3
Punctuation and wording should perhaps be:
line 22… line 43… line 47… line 78…Response:
All recommended wording and punctuation corrections have been implemented to improve clarity and readability.
Changes in manuscript:
- Line 22 revised to:
“Many geophysical instruments, particularly legacy ones still widely used for field measurements, depend on…” - Line 43 revised to:
“…the display remained black, an expected result when…” - Line 47 revised to:
“These mirrored failure modes can be seen in…” - Line 78 revised to:
“The testing procedure consists of three stages as described below.”
Comment 4
A sentence should be added to the introduction to answer the question which purpose the specific instrument serves when returned to functionality.
Response:
We agree with the reviewer that this clarification is important and have revised the Introduction accordingly.
Changes in manuscript:
- A sentence has been added to the Introduction explaining that the ABEM Terrameter SAS-1000/4000 is used for subsurface resistivity measurements in applications such as groundwater exploration, geotechnical investigations, and environmental studies.
Comment 5
The text in general is rather concise… sections 2 and 3 should not be formulated in somewhat more detail…
Response:
The manuscript has been revised to improve clarity and accessibility for a broader audience.
Changes in manuscript:
- Sections 2 and 3 have been expanded to include additional explanations of:
- jumper functions (e.g., JP1 and JP3),
- BIOS configuration relevance,
- interaction between hardware settings and system initialization.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6396-AC1
-
AC1: 'Authors Response to Referee #1 (RC1)', Gideon Fosu Dwamena, 02 Apr 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-6396', Anonymous Referee #2, 05 Mar 2026
The boot failure caused by CMOS battery depletion and subsequent loss of BIOS parameters addressed in this paper is a common issue in PC/104-based embedded legacy scientific instruments. As a primary piece of equipment for field geophysical exploration, the ABEM Terrameter SAS-1000/4000 currently relies largely on manufacturer technical support or empirical practices for maintenance. This study effectively resolves practical challenges in industrial operation; however, as an academic paper, it is significantly deficient in core dimensions including theoretical depth, research scope, quantitative analysis, and academic argumentation, thus failing to meet the core requirements of an academic paper.
The research focuses primarily on summarizing methodologies at the engineering and practical operation level, without conducting in-depth analysis of underlying hardware principles (e.g., the specific configuration principles of IDE timing parameters, the storage mechanism of CMOS chips, and the electrical coupling principles between jumpers and BIOS parameters). Nor does it present quantitative analysis of the occurrence probability of CMOS failures or the relationship between battery lifespan and environmental factors, resulting in relatively weak theoretical depth.
A standard academic paper framework should include a comprehensive literature review (e.g., systematically sorting out the research status and gaps in CMOS failure recovery), comparative experiments (e.g., comparing the efficiency and effectiveness of different repair methods), and in-depth reflection in the discussion section (e.g., addressing research limitations and future theoretical exploration directions). In this paper, however, the literature review merely mentions that "CMOS depletion is a common problem" without collating the current research status, and the discussion section only concludes that "the method is effective" with no in-depth academic reflection.
All experiments were conducted under controlled laboratory conditions, yet the core application scenario of this instrument is the complex field environment (e.g., extreme temperatures, high humidity, and lack of mains power). The paper does not explore simplified methods for rapid field diagnosis and recovery (such as portable peripheral interfaces, key points for on-site jumper inspection, and BIOS configuration techniques without laboratory conditions), leading to insufficient integration with actual field application scenarios.
Minor flaws exist in the annotations of some figures and tables, image clarity, and reference formatting, all of which leave room for optimization.
In summary, this manuscript reads more like a concise engineering technical solution, but it lacks core academic elementsm such as in-depth mechanism analysis, generalizability validation, and quantitative analysism required for a qualified academic paper. While the paper has certain practical value, this is an academic journal, and revisions must align with the standards of journal papers. If the manuscript is to be published in an international geophysical (GI) academic journal, extensive revisions are needed, including the addition of experiments, which will likely require a significant amount of time. Therefore, I recommend a decision of Reject and Resubmit, allowing the authors sufficient time to conduct thorough revisions.
The specific revision suggestions are as follows:
(I) Supplement analysis of underlying mechanisms to enhance theoretical depth
- Add a new section entitled Fault Mechanism Analysis. Combining the hardware principles of the PC/104 architecture, IDE interface, and CMOS/BIOS, analyze the electrical coupling mechanism by which the loss of CMOS configuration leads to CF card detection failure, and explain the adaptation logic between BIOS timing parameters and CF cards.
- For the core BIOS configuration parameters, supplement explanations of their adaptation basis. Demonstrate the rationality of parameter selection by integrating the hardware manual of the PFM-540I controller and the firmware requirements of the ABEM Terrameter instrument.
- Combining relevant academic research on embedded system reliability, analyze how the method in this paper supplements and applies existing theories, and clearly define the academic contributions of this study.
(II) Expand research scope and supplement cross-platform validation experiments
- Select 2–3 models of PC/104-based geophysical resistivity instruments (or similar scientific instruments) from different brands, conduct validation experiments for failure recovery, and supplement relevant experimental data and result analysis.
- Summarize the BIOS parameter adaptation rules for different instruments, and establish a Parameter Configuration Table for CMOS Failure Recovery of PC/104-Based Instruments to provide a systematic reference for the repair of similar instruments.
- In the conclusion section, clearly define the scope of application and limitations of the method in this paper to avoid overstating its generalizability.
(III) Add quantitative analysis and supplement academic data support
- Supplement quantitative data related to CMOS failures, such as analyzing the correlation between CMOS battery lifespan and temperature/humidity through investigation and experiments, and counting the occurrence probability of CMOS failures in such instruments.
- Conduct BIOS parameter optimization experiments, set different parameter combinations, and quantitatively compare the CF card detection success rate and instrument boot time to demonstrate the superiority of the parameters selected in this paper.
- Perform statistical analysis on the existing experimental data (e.g., calculating the confidence interval and significance level of the 15 cold boot experiments) to improve the academic reliability of the experimental results.
(IV) Improve the literature review and discussion section to strengthen academic argumentation
- Rewrite the literature review in the introduction section, comprehensively collating the research status of embedded system CMOS failure recovery, PC/104-based instrument maintenance, and geophysical instrument engineering. Identify the gaps in current research and clarify the research significance and academic contributions of this paper.
- Expand the discussion section by adding in-depth analysis of Research Limitations and Future Research Directions; insert a new subsection on Method Comparison to compare the efficiency and success rate of the standardized method in this paper with traditional empirical repair methods, thus proving the superiority of the proposed method.
(V) Supplement research on field adaptability and preventive maintenance to align with practical applications
- Add a new section entitled Optimized Field Operation Protocol, design portable adapter devices, propose a rapid diagnosis and recovery process for complex field environments, and clarify the key points of field jumper inspection and BIOS configuration.
- Add a new section entitled Preventive Maintenance Strategy, conduct quantitative research on CMOS battery lifespan to establish an early warning mechanism for battery replacement; design a backup scheme for CMOS BIOS parameters to realize the upgrade from "post-failure recovery" to the "full-life-cycle maintenance" of the instrument.
(VI) Revise flaws in scholarly norms and minor details
- Conduct a full check of the manuscript to correct spelling and terminology errors, and unify the expression of professional terms.
- Optimize reference formatting in accordance with academic journal standards, supplement missing issue/volume numbers, increase the proportion of academic research literatures published in the past 5 years, and distinguish the citation formats of technical manuals, industry specifications, and academic papers.
- Improve figure and table annotations by adding detailed descriptions of components and experimental scenarios to all figures and tables, and ensure a one-to-one correspondence between figure/table numbers and their citations in the main text.
- Streamline the abstract and conclusion sections by deleting redundant content. The abstract should highly summarize the research background, methods, results, and core contributions; the conclusion should refine the engineering and academic value of the research, and clearly state its generalizability and future research directions.
(VII) Other Requirements
- The authors must provide a point-by-point response to the above revision suggestions, clearly stating the revised content, supplemented experimental data/analyses, and revised positions, with corresponding annotations in the revised manuscript.
- Complete experimental data and raw records for the supplemented cross-platform validation experiments and quantitative analysis experiments must be provided to ensure the reproducibility of the experiments.
- The overall structure of the revised manuscript should be optimized, and I recommend the following structure consistent with the standards of academic papers: Introduction (Research Background + Literature Review + Research Significance) → Fault Mechanism Analysis → Research Methodology → Experimental Validation (Laboratory + Field) → Results and Analysis → Discussion (Method Comparison + Limitations + Future Directions) → Conclusion.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6396-RC2 -
AC2: 'Authors Response to Referee #2 (RC2)', Gideon Fosu Dwamena, 08 Apr 2026
We thank the reviewer for taking the time to give a detailed and constructive evaluation of our manuscript. We appreciate the recognition of the practical value of the work and the comprehensive suggestions for improvement. We have carefully considered all comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. Our point-by-point responses are provided below.
Comment (I): Lack of theoretical depth and mechanism analysis
The manuscript lacks in-depth analysis of underlying hardware principles such as CMOS storage mechanisms, BIOS configuration, and hardware interactions.
Response:
We agree that additional explanation of the underlying mechanisms improves the clarity and academic depth of the manuscript. While the primary aim of this study is to present a practical diagnostic and recovery methodology, we have expanded the discussion to better explain the interaction between CMOS configuration, BIOS parameters, and CompactFlash-based storage detection.
Changes in manuscript:
- Sections 2 and 5 have been expanded to include:
- explanation of CMOS-based BIOS parameter retention,
- discussion of BIOS configuration and its impact on IDE/CompactFlash detection,
- clarification of the role of hardware jumpers (JP1, JP3) in system initialization.
Comment (II): Limited research scope and lack of cross-platform validation
The study should include validation across multiple instruments and establish broader generalization.
Response:
We appreciate this suggestion. However, the present work is intentionally designed as a case-based engineering investigation focused on the ABEM Terrameter SAS-1000/4000 platform. Extending the study to multiple instruments would significantly broaden its scope and require substantial additional experimentation.
Changes in manuscript:
- The scope of the study has been clarified in the Introduction and Conclusion.
- A statement has been added in the Discussion outlining the applicability and limitations of the method to similar PC/104-based systems.
Comment (III): Lack of quantitative analysis
The manuscript does not include statistical or quantitative analysis such as failure probability, environmental effects, or parameter optimization.
Response:
We acknowledge the importance of quantitative analysis. However, the focus of this study is on fault diagnosis and recovery validation rather than large-scale statistical modeling. The experimental design emphasizes repeatability and practical validation.
Changes in manuscript:
- The experimental procedure has been clarified to highlight repeatability (multiple cold-boot cycles).
- A statement has been added in the Discussion identifying quantitative and statistical analysis as a direction for future work.
Comment (IV): Weak literature review and discussion
The literature review is limited, and the discussion lacks depth and academic argumentation.
Response:
We thank the reviewer for this important comment. The manuscript has been revised to improve its academic framing and contextualization within existing research.
Changes in manuscript:
- The Introduction has been revised to better position the work within embedded system reliability and instrument maintenance research.
- The Discussion section has been expanded to include:
- clearer articulation of contributions,
- study limitations,
- and potential future research directions.
Comment (V): Lack of field applicability and preventive maintenance discussion
The study does not sufficiently address field conditions or preventive maintenance strategies.
Response:
We appreciate this suggestion. While the experiments were conducted under controlled conditions, we agree that practical field considerations are important.
Changes in manuscript:
- A discussion has been added addressing field applicability, including constraints and practical considerations for on-site diagnosis and recovery.
- Preventive maintenance considerations (e.g., CMOS battery management) have been briefly introduced as part of future work.
Comment (VI): Issues with scholarly presentation and formatting
Problems with terminology, references, figures, and formatting.
Response:
We thank the reviewer for highlighting these issues. All identified presentation and formatting concerns have been addressed.
Changes in manuscript:
- Spelling and terminology have been corrected throughout the manuscript.
- References have been revised and formatted consistently.
- Figure quality and annotations have been improved.
- All figures and tables are now explicitly referenced in the text.
Comment (VII): Requirement for major restructuring and additional experiments
The manuscript requires major restructuring and additional experimental data to meet academic standards.
Response:
We appreciate the reviewer’s comprehensive suggestions. We agree that the proposed extensions would further strengthen the work. However, implementing all suggested additions would significantly expand the scope of the study beyond its current objective. The present manuscript is intended as an applied instrumentation and engineering contribution, focusing on a reproducible recovery methodology for a specific class of embedded geophysical instruments.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6396-AC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 191 | 104 | 20 | 315 | 18 | 18 |
- HTML: 191
- PDF: 104
- XML: 20
- Total: 315
- BibTeX: 18
- EndNote: 18
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The reviewed ms describes a method for fixing a certain type of boot failure in a legacy device. The diagnostics and recovery method are described clearly and may be applied to other aging geophysical instrumentation. The topic is within the scope of the journal and is actual and relevant.
Criticism is minor and refers mainly to technical issues that should be easy to correct. It is listed below.
1) With the exception of the appendix, Figures and the Table are not referred to in the text. Please include reference to them in the descriptions given in the text.
2) Figure 1 is blurred and Figure 5 has too small annotations. Please provide Figures of good quality so that they are readable.
3) Punctuation and wording should perhaps be:
-line 22 "Many geophysical instruments, particularly legacy ones still widely used for field measurements, depend on ..." (unless you think that this problem applies only to devices for resistivity investigation),
-line 43 "... the display remained black, an expected result when ...",
-line 47 "These mirrored failure modes can be seen in ...",
- line 78 "The testing procedure consists of three stages as descripbed below."
4) A sentence should be added to the introduction to answer the question which purpose the specific instrument you treat (ABEM Terrameter SAS-1000/4000) serves when returned to functionality.
5) The text in general is rather concise and terse and it contains a number of not introduced abbreviations. Since practically all of them are generally known to a reader familiar with IT and computer hardware, this is not incorrect. But I wonder if sections 2 and 3 should not be formulated in somewhat more detail for the sake of better understanding for a wider audience. I leave this question to the discretion of the Editor.
I recommend publication after minor revision.