ALL posts to that category are moved if there is no clear indication of a bug i.e. yours.
We pointed out the bug in your sketch as a possible cause of your problem.
This is not the correct thread for such a post.
I’m not going to argue with you but I will ignore your posts in future.
And I shan’t report further bugs, as they are clearly not taken seriously.
Still can’t confirm your “bug alerts”…
We call call this topic done then.
But if you do come across any actual issue, unrelated to bad code or environment, please do what we require of Every Single Other User claiming a bug… and show your work.
This topic has now been Gunnered 
, hence the PM. I’ve now been running these two test rigs for over a week without any problems:
As a result I’m going to kill one of the devices and recycle the energy so that I can use it for other things.
I’ll probably leave the one that’s in the loft running for a while longer, depending on what I need the energy and NodeMCU for.
Has anyone else had any issues since switching to the BME sensor?
Pete.
Nice workaround!
I only closed it as it was just a re-occurring reference to non-existing bug, or at least un-substantiated.
One issue that I have noticed in the past and just ran into again, that comes close to this OPs description of the ‘bug’ is that a single reoccurring timer sometimes can build up in background instances until reaching the limit of 16 per named timer. At which ‘time’ 
the timer just stops working… only it, no other timers (if separately declared) or Blynk processes are blocked.
Timer count tested with this command: timer.getNumTimers();
This is usually only due to poor coding when dealing with looping timer calls… so, not a bug 
just a heads up.
