patb63

MrPLC Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    66

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by patb63

  2. Posted

    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.

  3. Posted

    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.

  4. Posted

    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

  8. Posted

    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.

  9. Posted

    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.

  10. Posted

    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).

  11. Posted

    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.

  13. Posted

    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.

  14. Posted · Edited by patb63

    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.

  15. Posted

    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

  17. Posted

    Thanks to all for responding. As usual, I guess I haven't made myself clear. We use RSView 32, Wonderware and other software for HMI screens to show our customers what parts of their system is running, etc. What I'm looking for is something that will actually simulate carton flow, conveyor speeds, etc. from the logic that's been written.

  18. Posted

    jimdi4, Thanks for the reply. I'll have to try your suggested method of simulationg the I/O. What we're really interested in doing is simulating the "real world" effect of logic changes by observing speed changes, carton diverting, carton merging, etc. in a graphical environment. pat

  19. Posted

    Let me start off by saying two things: 1) This is a great place to go and get information for dealing with automation and controls. I feel like a mooch because I am always asking questions and am always late getting to answer any. 2) If the following question is not acceptable for this forum, please move it to the appropriate one. My company does control software solutions for warehousing and distribution centers (mostly), including some big-name retail companies. Our products not only control the conveyors themselves, but the interface between the PLC and WMS systems. We are constantly striving to improve our control systems to handle faster and more elaborate sortation and conveying systems. One of the issues we are facing is to realistically simulate some of our control schemes without having to purchase actual conveyor systems, including servos, diverters, etc., to test them on. Does anyone here have any experience with simulation software? We would like to have something set up where we could write our PLC code and graphically test the results of logic changes we make. I know Rockwell has a product called Arena, but I'm not sure whether it is process, or equipment oriented. As always, thanks for any insights you might have. Pat

  20. Posted

    Our customer is pretty forward-thinking at this stage of the game. Their business is good (despite the rest of the economy) and the capital funds are available to the project manager to make the switch now to upgrade their system. We are replacing some PC-based controllers with CompactLogix processors for some sortation equipment, so the project manager is using this opportunity to upgrade the whole facility (unfortunately for us, it's one sorter at a time). Thanks for the reminders on the Step Forward program.

  22. Posted

    Thanks for all the replies. They have been pretty helpful in working on the planning for this changeover. I need to clarify a couple of things and also ask another question. First off, the network for these controls will be a separate network system just for the PLCs and I/O; this customer is planning ahead for their communications network and is investing in the hardware to make it right. BobL, per this quote "Third the SLC 5/04 would be best converted with an ASB as well. You can still connect your new CLGX's by ehternet but use the other network topology for I/O connectivity to your CLGX Cpu.", I take it you think we should stick with the DH for remote I/O connections. My concerns with that are that it doesn't meet the customer's expectations and I thought the DH/RIO was limited to 8 words of addressing. Wouldn't we have to put an ASB in each of the thirteen slot racks? This would cause a lot of re-addressing existing I/O as well, plus adding a third rack for the card replaced by an ASB in the second rack. Ken (Moore & Roach), am I mistaken in my thoughts on the DH/RIO? Will the I/O as laid out in my original post work without having to re-configure and add another rack? Thanks again for your input and sharing of knowledge.

  23. Posted

    We are working on changing out the controls for a customer who is currently using PLC 5 and SLC 5/04 controllers. The customer has requested all new ControLogix processors and for all interconnections to be via Ethernet instead of the current data highway. Currently, one system has a SLC 5/04 processor in a 13 slot rack, with another 13 slot rack connected to it by an expansion cable. We would like to use these two racks as remote I/O from the ControLogix processor, but we are not sure what hardware to use to enable us to effectively use all the I/O points. The problem is in the layout of the current I/O; the first rack has the processor in slot 0, then an input card in slot1, an output card in slot 2, input, output, input, output,.......all the way to slot 12. The second rack has an input card in the first slot, then an ouput card, input, output, input, output....until slot 10 and then it has 2 more input cards. Using an ASB module would be fine for the first rack, but we would have to add another remote rack and reconfigure the I/O for the second rack. Any ideas?

  25. Posted

    Hey All; I am on-site at a project with three 1756 controllers in separate panels. Each controller has an EWEB module doing socket communications to a host system. Is there any way I can use the EWEB modules to use produced/consumed tags, or to see the state of a tag in another processor directly? Or do I need to use some other method to compare tags between the two? Thanks, Pat