wildswing

MrPLC Member
  • Content count

    121
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About wildswing

  • Rank
    Sparky

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://
  • ICQ 0

Profile Information

  • Location Ontario
  • Country Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

4440 profile views
  1. Thanks for clarifying.  Copying and pasting within RSL5k never even crossed my mind.  I'll give that a shot.  Thanks again.
  2. Thanks Michael.  What do you mean by, "First empty spot in the target..."?  Are you talking about copying and pasting tags or IO config?
  3. Hey fellas, A few years ago, we upgrade a group of VFDs. We decided to install a ControlLogix plc (call it plc2) to run these drives along side the existing PLC5 that runs that area of our facility (call that plc1). Now it's time to convert the plc1 to ControlLogix. Something we're considering is merging plc2 into the newly converted plc1 project. I've already played around with the files, importing plc2 programs and tags/comments into plc1 . I've also gone so far as to edit the L5K files, copying and pasting plc2 IO configuration into plc1. Most things seem to work out ok, except when I import tags/comments, I get a number of warnings telling me it cannot import IO tags. It can only replace. So the imported (copy n pasted) IO configuration from plc2 does not create it's IO tags as if I had manually created them, and I cannot import them. Must I recreate the IO configuration of plc2 in plc1 manually so that it creates the IO tags or can I also copy n paste those from one L5K file to the other? I've talked to Rockwell tech and they're looking into my questions. I'm waiting for a reply. In the meantime, any other tips, tricks or advice you guys have would be very much appreciated. Thanks in advance.
  4. Good morning, Does anyone know if Rockwell has an official stance on whether or not it's a best practice to have IO modules in the local 1756 processor chassis? I recently spoke with someone who insisted that the local 1756 processor chassis should be left for communication and high speed IO modules like counter cards. All other "standard" IO should be in a remote chassis. He also said this is a recommendation from Rockwell and it's on their web site somewhere. Can you confirm or deny this? If it's on RA's website, can you post a link please? What do you guys do? Beyond what Rockwell says, what are your standard practices? Once again, thanks in advance. Your feedback is always very much appreciated.
  5. Hi folks, I'm in the midst of doing my first translation from 5 to 5000 that also includes PID instructions.  I've done a couple that have not.  I'm just looking for any helpful tips or tricks you may have that are PID specific. The L71 logix processor will run the original 1771 IO over RIO via DHRIO modules.  Analog modules are 1771 NIC and NOC. The original PLC5 program contained a 100 msec STI file in which all the PIDs were run.  All have 100 msec update times.  The translated program has them all in an STI file as well.  100 msec timing confirmed. I've looked through some docs in the Rockwell tech KB and I see the phrase "many things do not translate" (or something similar).  Looking through and comparing the first one I found, I think I understand most things that do translate and they look ok. I see, on the scaling page, min/max for cv.  Both are zero.  This is obviously different from low/high cv limits on the config tab.  I assume leaving these zeros is a bad thing and the output would not work if left as is.  Correct? Any other things I should pay close attention to?  Is there a specific Rockwell doc I should be reading? As always, your input and feedback is very much appreciated.  Many thanks in advance.
  6. DDE in Windows 7 - how well does it work?

    Thanks for the feedback Fred. Much appreciated.
  7. Hey fellas, Upgrading my process computers to Windows 7 boxes is on the radar, so I've got to start looking into some concerns. Currently my Wonderware Intouch HMIs (v9.5) and OEM machine boxes (with OEM software) all run on XP boxes. All OEM apps use DDE to talk to Intouch. Only one OEM has clearly said that they have a Win7 compatible upgrade that's OPC compliant. That one gets to sit at the front of the bus. The others look at me like a deer in the headlights when I ask about OPC, so I'm wondering how reliable DDE is in Win7. After googling the subject, I found out that it's still there. Anyone care to share your experiences with DDE in Win7? Many thanks in advance.
  8. I just heard back from the OEM. They're sending another ACNR so I can split the IO. I plan to put all the inputs on one "rack" and outputs on another. I've never done that before. How & where would I start? Can you provide a link to a doc I can read. Always eager to learn new stuff.
  9. Hey fellas, This is my first time working with Point IO and I've run into a snag. It's an OEM setup, so while I wait for their techs to get back to me I figured I try to find out for myself. The project I'm working on is supposed to be "plug & play" (at least the IO side of it). The OEM shipped us an IO cabinet with everything we're supposed to need. We're building the controls, a CLX rack. I spec'd ControlNet. The CLX will have a CNB/A. The IO cabinet includes: 1734 ACNR ControlNet Adapter to which is connected, in this order: 10 IE8C 8ch analog output modulesEP24VDC power supply6 IE8C 8ch analog output modulesEP24VDC power supply12 OE4C 4ch analog input modulesEP24VDC power supply6 IB8 8pt discrete input modules4 OB8 8pt discrete output modulesEP24VDC power supplyPoint IO extension cable22 OEM specific air valves (in groups of 4,4,2,4,4,4) in a custom Point IO chassisI created my IO config offline but I get this error message when I try to download to the processor... Error: MyCnetAdapter: The number of connections configured for this module has exceeded the limit. I then removed modules one by one started at the air valve end. I have to delete 5 of the 6 air valve modules before I can download. I try to schedule, but cannot get all of the modules happy. Lots of yellow warnings. So after doing some digging I see there's limits to how many "connections" the ACNR can have. Analog modules use 1 connection each. I have the ACNR set up with Rack Optimization, as I understand this helps minimize connections for the discrete IO. I assume the answer will be to add another ACNR node (or two), right? What would be the best way to divide this up? Is the limit of 25 connections a reliable limit to how many modules can be on one node, or is it best practice to limit to something less than that? .TXT file attached is renamed RSL5000 .L5K file. I'm running on an L55 v16.2. Any help y'all can provide would be very much appreciated. * On a side note, the air valve modules will configure, but won't schedule. RSNetWorx comes back and says, "Insert address 02, slot ## failed because the device cannot be inserted into the specified slot." I will leave that to their tech guys to resolve. I don't expect you fellas to figure that one out, but just FYI, here's the config for the blocks... The OEM air valve stuff is from Bürkert in Germany. They gave me the connection parameters to use in generic modules. They're stuff takes up 6 slots. Each block of 4 usesInput 139 / 4Output 33 / 1Configuration 120 / 6 [*]The block of 2 uses Input 139 / 4Output 32 / 1Configuration 120 / 6 PLC_C2_IOCONFIG.TXT
  10. Hey fellas, I've got an update. I've been able to set up the comms as suggested, through and existing CLX bridge, so... NewCLX > Ethernet >Existing Bridge > DH+ > PLC5 I set up the write and read in the CLX so that the write is triggered by a timer .dn, then the read goes on the write.dn. For now the timer .pre is set to well beyond what the write/read takes just for testing I watched it for about 20 minutes. No errors. I find that a complete write/read takes a little over 1/2 second (64 intg words each way). Lowering the number of words does not seem to make it much faster, maybe a little. The speed is ok for now, but I did give it a challenge. This bridge is the same we use for programming. It's connected to all of our 8 PLC5s. I intentionally uploaded from both the target PLC5 and another to RSL5. The write/read cycle slowed down a lot during the upload form the target. It peaked a few times around 2 seconds. Not sure if I like that. It only slowed a little when uploading from one of my other 5s. Some of the data I'll be reading from the 5 will be used for a form of cascaded PID. After some math, this will be moved to the .sp of some clx pid loops who's update time will be 500 ms. I wonder if a DHRIO connected to the same DH+ would improve things? I'd still have the issue of uploads interfering. I'd love to get an ethernet sidecar for the 5 but that 1771 rack is full. Lots to move. Would a RIO module be a better bet? My RIO is at 230k as opposed to my 57k DH+. Also, I notice that my IO config is showing a warning. I've read that if both channels of the DHRIO module are set to DH+ then I have to live with the "IO Not Responding" warning. Well, that's what I've got. The second channel is not used. Would disabling or changing CH2 to to RIO or OFF (if possible) get rid of the little yellow warning signs?
  11. Hi Ben, I haven't decided on exactly how we're going to do this yet. I've been sidelined with another project. I'll be coming back with more questions very soon. For everyone else, in the mean time, can anyone comment on one of my original questions please... FYI, I ask because when we first come ahead with this system, all control will be either ON or OFF, so PIDs will be in manual and valves will be either 0% (closed) or 100% (open).
  12. Michael, check your email.
  13. Excellent post Russel. Thanks very much. That's the kind of feedback I'm looking for. Everyone here has become comfortable in our "always done it that way" PLC5 bubble, so I need to push our envelope a little with the programming for this project, but do it in just the right way. Writing something that only I will understand might satisfy my inner geek, but won't do me any good when others refuse of dig into it and would rather call me at 3 am.
  14. v16. Seeing just a basic example of how others (the pros) do it right would go a long way. Thanks.
  15. That's exactly what I'm trying to avoid. I'd like to make it as short & sweet as possible, but still keep it readable & user friendly for the guys at 3 am.