PLCMentor.com

Never used this myself, but a quick look at the help dialog indicates that this information is used to interface with external programs such as wiring logistics. Wiring logistics is a program that creates wiring diagrams automatically. If you look at the selections in the dialog (switch types, input vs. output, etc) then it becomes clearer. If you dont have an external package that uses this info I would just ignore that part of the database.

It doesnt look like any of the built in lists boxes will do the trick. Have you looked at trying to use an ActiveX control?

Yes you can use the ethernet I/P port for programming, HMI or messaging. Just cant drop I/O off of it like the logix. rw

The one thing you will do without in the 5000 is advanced diagnostics. I wish they had left that in the 5000. Due to this we generally segregate our programs into smaller modules than we used to. The compare has a different look that you will be used to, but the functionality is there.

Ok, now I have to put my 2 cents in also (again). My disgust with device net has nothing to do with whether it is possible to make it work. Most of the experienced people here that I have seen post would be able to put together a device net app that, if left alone, will just plain work. The problem is when you are in a situation of an integrator or engineer. What you install is never left alone. Generally with device net, there are enough gotchas to make sure that any changes performed by someone with less experience will screw the system up. Sometimes it doesn't even take changes to the system, just someone doing troubleshooting. Twice I have had a plant electrician trying to track down a problem blow out a bunch of cards because - oops - you mean the 24VDC doesnt go there? Crap like that happens if it can. Anyone blown a bunch of ethernet cards similarly? It's had a shorter time to present problems, but I have not had any gotchas like that turn up with ethernetip. Maybe if device net had a specialized connector like the ends on an ethernet cable that would limit things. To some people, if there are terminals then the wires are meant to be messed with. I just dont think device net was well thought out as an industrial hardened system. Secondly is the install/setup time. I have never put together a device net system of any significance and not had to struggle through an issue or two to get everything working right. Maybe thats me, but I have never had that with ethernetip. Finally I have not seen it work in crazy installations - well maybe it did for a while. Usually when I see the crazy installations, I am on a service call and that is where the problem is. It's not like RIO or DH+ where the manual said this but just about anything would work. Now those systems would provide some head shakers... How in the heck??? Like I said before, the idea of device net is a wonderful one. Perhaps that is why I kept using it as long as I did. I finally realized that experience had shown that the idea was not reality. And yes Chris, if I had to sit down today with my million dollar project (maybe they are returning) I would choose distributed I/O with EthernetIP. Drives, weigh scales, etc on it also with minimal I/O in the plc cabinets. I might spend some time looking at control net if applicable, but I would try to give the owner a system with one network to maintain.

Devicenet is the network that sounds great in theory, but doesnt ever quite cut it. I know there are a lot of people out there that say once it's working its great, but wow what did it take to get you there. Let's not even talk about having to make a change in the system. Or if an electrician makes a small oops you may just be replacing the whole network. Kind of fragile for an industrial network. Ethernet I/P is so much easier to deal with. Buy the right switches and I dont see where you can get yourself in too much trouble. It's not really meant for the same type of installs, but I never really thought there was much cost benefit in dropping to the individual devices anyway. I like the idea of the devicenet MCC setup, but I have never had the chance to use one (except for one quick troubleshooting call). My only fear is going back to the device net sounds like a great idea mode - then you have to make it work.

No you misunderstood me. You dont need DH+ at every processor. You can, but you dont need it. You can install DH/RIO module in one Logix and any other logix connected via ethernetip will also be able to get on to the dh+ network through the gateway processor. You need to look at your network and see if this setup is robust enough for your operation (ie, the gateway logix goes down and your link is down). You can still RIO to the remote racks or use controlnet. If you are upgrading then it makes sense to upgrade your netwoks also. I have also used ethernetip for remote i/o with success. Ethernetip seems to be the easiest network to setup, install and maintain. You do have the 300ft limitation on distance. Fiber is an option, but the industrial wireless world has also matured enough where industrial wireless options are worth looking into. If you use controlnet, make sure your installer knows how to make proper connections. AB actually has a video on making connections you can aquire. Bad installation will make your life miserable - think intermittent. Russell

Logix is a fantastic gateway so you can have your cake and eat it too. Plan your new netword with ethernetip and install your first logix with a dh+ card also. You can pass data via this station between the two networks. Definitely managed switches.

I cant really comment on the EC-60's as I dont have any experience with them. I think you mentioned a modbus link - that should be fairly easy to bring into a SCADA. Another network that I have not used much is Profibus. In the few times I have used it, it worked great. Similar to RIO in that it has been around a long time and is solid if maybe not the newest thing on the market. I have used 3rd party cards that worked with the SLC. The nice thing about the profibus is that you can drop some point I/O and talk with certain devices that have profibus interfaces. I am not sure how far you can go with it, but you are going to have problems with 1000m with most options - not to mention cost (I think I do remember RIO being able to go around 3000m at the slowest speed). Now Im writing in circles... Either of those two busses will have learning curves with the SLC, but you should be able to drop some flex or point I/O in your rooms and network to them. For your next project you may want to check out the Banner wireless I/O. We have had good luck with it and it will go some long distances. Come to think of it, you might want to check that out for this project. They have IP67 modules that you can just install into the area with a few points. The remote blocks can talk back to a gateway which interfaces with your PLC and leaves you the capability to expand. Sorry to ramble, but I get the feeling you are looking for options.

Ok first I think you want to go ahead and hit the IT guy if you can get away with it... You may not get another chance. Yes I am kidding - kinda. AB is notorious for flooding the network. I would assume since there is an IT guy involved, you are using managed switches. That is a must - or at least an advanced switch that mangages some of the AB flood for you. I like to setup virtual lans (VLANs) that allow my networked I/O, drives, etc only to talk to the processor. That insures those devices cant mess with other components on the network. I just saw your last post. You may want to try setting up a VLAN to make sure that no other connections are possible than the ones you mention as required.

Device net is not what i would pick for my first distributed network. In fact I usually avoid it like the plague (that may not be fair to the plague). I'm not sure I understand how this is a distributed application. You have two rooms with a few prox sensors in each room. They are only 10m from the room 2 plc why not just wire them direct to that plc? The costs of all the networking cards and remote I/O and time would be more than just pulling some wire. I think I am missing something. Are you wanting to put the valve panels on a network? How about explaining the rooms a bit more. As for networks, the 5/03 doesn't give a lot of flexibility. Of all the networks you listed, I think I would use RIO over the others. It's fairly simple - old, but simple and reliable. Any network with a SLC is going to take some time to come up to speed. If you have a chance to move up to the Compact Logix here then networking is its strength. Much easier and much more flexible, but I understand if you have equipment on hand or Ebay is involved with procurement. Lets not even get into the expense of getting a new software package if you dont have 5000. I also need to show my ignorance about the Ec3-60. What't that?

PLCMentor.com offers PLC, SCADA, and HMI training online for reasonable prices. We have recently introduced our online Webinar training and I would like to invite you to visit our PLCMentor.com website to see what we have to offer. Currently we are offering our Stage 3 multi-user training to our corporate customers. This allows two users access to all of our training opportunities for a price that is less than it costs to train a single technician at most schools. Surprisingly, our training is also designed to actually teach you over time – not just cram methods in your head that are forgotten within a month. Our price includes a full year’s access to videos, webinars, and courses that are designed to educate you in a way that allows you retain and refresh your knowledge. Our video library includes training for Allen Bradley and GE PLC’s; Wonderware; Proficy; HMI configuration and more. In addition the webinars allow interaction with experienced professionals allowing you to ask questions and bring up concerns that affect your actual control system issues. I invite you to visit our site and view some of the sample videos available.

My biggest complaint is the lack of online programming in the 1500. I can handle working through the serial port. I don't want to work on any program of significance without the ability to make changes online. russell

OK I can agree with the M as a motor or motor starter designation. I dont think I have seen it in a bubble like that tho. No no, dont get me wrong. There are probably more processes out there without documentation than with. The poor guys left holding the bag sometimes dont have a clue how the system runs. Becomes like a secret club with the controls guy and the process guy that designed it having it all in their heads (if the process guy actually knows all the small details). I was trying to describe how a system should be put together. It's too bad it doesnt happen more often. So controls is your second language... lol I've seen your posts and I'd say you must speak both fluently. You are right. Generally the best way is to offer up the func spec and work from there.

Well thats a little different... I dont know if they are way behind or way off track, but they definately have some work to do. Ok a lot of work to do. russell

Ok, I will disagree. I think AB processors are ahead of the competition. Frankly I think the rest of the PLC world is scrambling to catch up with the logix. Now prelogix processors you may have a point, but they still had some things that they did well such as not having a flat memory space for their data types. The way they handle data types was always better than the flat memory structure. On the other question, I think I had heard from my rep that their market share was somewhere in the 60-70% range. Siemens is second and all the others I believe have pretty small market share. They claim that they are making strides in the international market share area. Who really knows?

Whoa! I actually had to power up my laptop at home when I saw this come across. I need to start with your last question first. The P&ID is one of several documents necessary to put together a control system. It gives all involved an overview of the process, but does not define how the process should run. Some people will try, but it is simply impossible. You need to generate or someone needs to generate a functional specification that defines how the process should run, interlocks, automatic and manual system actions, etc. Just as the P&ID lets all involved understand an overview of the process, the functional spec lets everyone understand the details of how the system will run even for those that do not understand programming. Ask for the FS or the ability to generate one. Now let me look at your first questions. The way that ts51 is shown is confusing to me. I would guess it is some type of temperature switch. If it is the temp switch on the motor then I would expect it to be in closer proximity to the motor on the drawing. I really dont understand the S/D(F). somehow that is interlocked with the TS and they are both interlocked with the function of the motor. You will have to have more discussions on this operation with whoever is defining the system functionality. Once again make sure it is written down (FS) when you understand it so it can be passed around for agreement. For attachment 2 I couldnt tell you. I could guess, but that is all anyone can do with this information. Once again you need to sit down and discuss the operation of these control loops. It looks like you have a modulating valve controlling temperature and maybe some mass control? I dont have my chart with me and I cant ever remember using an M for the first letter on a P&ID. Either way you cant really determine the operation for this system without a discussion with someone who knows. Of course then write it down. Ok the third diagram adds a little more info. It looks like your control loops are split control. one set operates off of temperature setpoint. Under temp setpoint your heating valve is controlled. above setpoint your cooling valve is controlled. On the other you are monitoring humidity and your cooling valve is controlled above the setpoint - your humidity? valve is controlled below setpoint. Once again sit down and talk with whoever understands the system operation. All kinds of other stuff is going to come out when you start examining the actual control. OK, I just looked up the M variable and it is user defined. I would assume from the other information that this is being used for humidity. Just too many assumptions having to be made here.

FYI - to find the 2's complement of a number: in the binary format invert all bits (0s to 1s and 1s to 0s) then add 1. The leftmost bit will always be the sign bit thus you only really have 15 bits of resolution with a 16 bit integer. (As a side note the initial inversion is actually called 1's complement). Ex: Decimal 5 => Binary 0000000000000101 > 1's complement 1111111111111010 > 2's complement 1111111111111011 (this is how -5 is stored in the PLC5) Ahh brings me back to teaching at CPCC...

Ok, let me clear a few things up. The PLC5 uses 2s complement format when storing negative numbers in integers and it is also expected when doing integer math and comparisons. No reason to bark up that tree. It is more likely that the value of the integer location at the time and place that the instruction is executed in your logic is different than what you think it is. Keep in mind that just becuase you see -1 when you look at that instruction online that is not necessarily the value of that integer when the rung is executed. That value may be loaded into the integer location later in the logic scan. I know this was brought up and shot down, but that seems to be the most likely scenario to me. So for instance say you have an instruction that moves 12 into N10:7 right before your comparison rung and then you have a rung that moves -1 into N10:7 right after your comparison rung. If my memory proves right, you will see a -1 on your comparison instruction for the value of N10:7 but that value at the time the instruction is executed is actually 12. Try this. Add a rung immediately before your rung with the GRT instruction that does nothing but move the 10:7 register to an unused register. That should tell you the value that the comparison instruction is actually working on.

I think your assumption is correct. The 13 word BTW is to send all the initial config stuff to the smart card. After that the programmer is just sending the actual output values to the card (the fifth word has the sign information). I have seen this done before. I guess it is more efficient on the traffic, but I am with you - I doubt it is necessary. I prefer boring logic that is easy to follow and works. Russell

Hi, first you need to give the make and model number of the HMI you are using. As a guess, I would say the node number is the address of the SLC. If using RS232, then it should not be necessary - usually set to 1 if it has to be filled in. For the timers, you are on the right track. You will need to convert the operator input into seconds to be loaded into the preset. Loading values such as that from the HMI to an intermediate location is a good idea anyway. You will need to do some checks on the values entered to insure they are valid. Make sure when you multiply your integer input times 60 to convert from minutes to seconds that the value does not overflow (> 32767) and result in a negative number. If you are not familiar with this then play with it a bit to see what I mean. You will need two integers to cover your minutes and seconds.

I am not sure I fully understand your question, but you do not need to have System platform to use Historian with Intouch. You can import Intouch tags to historian and configure as necessary.

I must say that I think I like the int compare, or just using the bits. Simplicity is always a good thing.

You might try using the automatically created wonderware backup files. You might be able to recover to the last save otherwise it doesnt look good. Make sure you backup the current files you have to make sure that if something goes wrong you can go back to where you started. Also, can you perform a dbdump on your files? If so you might fix it with a dbdump and dbload. I dont have WW on this computer so I am working from memory on this one.

Paul, The issues with training are exactly why I started our PLCMentor training web site (unfortunately we dont do Mitsubishi). It seems that all training is now days is a quick cram of information (some useful) and a pretty certificate pumped out at the end. Two weeks after leaving the training most of the attendees are hazy on what they learned. Dont even try to calculate the costs of the course, travel, lodging, etc. Training has to be ongoing and it has to be applied. I used to teach at a community college and I found that half of my students that worked in area facilities were not allowed to touch a PLC at work and their company was the one that wanted them to attend! I can count the number of training classes I attended over the last 20 years on one hand. Grab a book, the internet, and best yet - as you mentioned - the equipment and you are on your way. I will also add that what you have done is usually more important to a prospective employer than what classes you have taken. Russell