patb63

Finally got back to this. Thanks for the info.

Reviving this topic!!!</p><p>On previous project, we replaced all the IO, etc. with ControLogix equipment. Now I see that there is a 1769-AENTR that appears to be able to replace the CompactLogic processor and make the 1769 rack a remote rack to a 1756 system. My question for the gurus on here is am I correct in this assumption? Thanks.

Reviving this topic!!! On previous project, we replaced all the IO, etc. with ControLogix equipment. Now I see that there is a 1769-AENTR that appears to be able to replace the CompactLogic processor and make the 1769 rack a remote rack to a 1756 system. My question for the gurus on here is am I correct in this assumption? Thanks.

Whenever I try to go online with a SLC processor, I get a "RSLogix500 Development Environment has experienced an error and must close" error. I have rolled back from version 9.00 to version 8.4 with the same thing happening. I just reinstalled version 9.0 with the same result. I spoke with the Tech Support folks at Rockwell and the best they could do was to tell me to remove Microsoft Office from my laptop. I am running a Windows 7, 64 bit machine. I searched the Rockwell Knowledgebase and tried to find the EV-something file they said could cause this, but it is not found on my hard drive. Strangely enough, since I upgraded to version 9.0, I get the same message on a separate Windows XP laptop when I try to go online. Any and all help would be appreciated. Thanks, PatB

Thanks for the info. I'm really more interested in converting the I/O addresses into Tag aliases instead of the ladder logic anyway.

Once again, I'm seeking the knowledge of folks here. Is there any "easy" way to convert a SoftLogix 5 program to a ControLogix 5000 program? I tried the Translate tool in RSLogix 5000 and it gave me an error saying you could not use a SoftLogix program. Thanks in advance for any help. Pat

EXACTLY what I needed. Thanks. Pat

Once again I come to this fountain of information for help!!! I need to find a drawing, spec. sheet, etc. to give me the dimensions for an Allen-Bradley servo motor. The model number is 1326AB-C4C-11. I've searched the AB website until I'm blue in the face and can't find anything. Thanks.

Well said, paulengr. In our company, we use the periodic task frequently. We are tracking cartons on relatively high speed conveyors and use the periodic task (with a frequency less than our encoder pulsing) to update positions of the cartons so we know precisely when to fire diverts to reroute them.

I agree with Bob on the HMI being best for single point use. My only problem with using an IPC is that you usually have to invest in some type of cabinet (sometimes climate conditioned). You also have a much better selection for your software to display your graphics (RSView32, Wonderware and others), as well as all the added features of just having a PC to use. We use both types of system, usually determined by customer desire, cost and application (single vs. multiple points of access).

We feel it is......we've converted a lot of it to structured text for speed. Our issue seems to occur at a certain speed threshold of the controlled equipment. Most of the systems work fine, but any that run faster than the threshold limit seem to overtax the processor. Our customers are always trying to speed things up, so we can only try to accomodate that.

Thanks for the reply Armadillo, but the problem is in processor capacity/speed, not the I/O.

We tested an L-43 processor and saw no significant improvement; we still had overlaps with our tasks when we ran at the speeds we were hoping to achieve. Also, the L-43 processor saw about 95% CPU usage, whilethe L-61 was at about 35%. We may have to change completely to the ControLogix platform, but we were hoping to lower the cost somewhat by using some of the existing CompactLogix I/O. We had also hoped to use Ethernet/IP, but I hadn't found anything except the DeviceNet setup you mentioned.

We're looking at upgrading a few systems for one of our customers and I wanted to see if this was possible: Replace an L32E-CompactLogix processor with an L61-ControLogix processor and use some of the existing CompactLogix I/O (second rack) as remote I/O from the ControLogix system. The need for faster processing speed is causing the upgrade to ControLogix, but we'd like to salvage as much of the existing I/O system as possible. As always, thanks for any and all help.

Thanks Paul. I'll go check the tech note. I figured it was a timeout error of some sort, but couldn't figure out why we were only getting it intermittently on a system that's been running for quite a while. I'll have the people on site check the cabling again. They sometimes say they have when they really haven't. Sure wish there was a table of error codes from Rockwell to say what these errors are. Pat