Bering C Sparky

You forgot to Thank "Ken" Want to stay on his good side, he is one of the main ones on here that I keep trying to open up his flip-top, propeller head and extract information from. Have a good one. BCS

Hello, I think you may have hit the key word to your question in your title, "Mapping" Since RSLogix5000 is Asynchronous programmers will often "Map" there inputs and outputs in the first Routines of the Main Task. They "Map" the actual (physical) Inputs & Outputs to "Internal Bits" (for lack of a better word). These "Internal Bits" would be the same things as say...B3 bits... in Logix500. (which you are already used to working with). However since RSLogix5000 is "TAG BASED" instead of having a predetermined set of data files, you can just create and name these "Internal Bits" what ever you want. An example would look like this. For inputs: Local:1:I.Data.0********************Internal Bit --------] [----------------------------------------------------( ) For output: Internal Bit*********************Local:2:O.Data.0 --------] [-----------------------------------------------------( ) Of course where I put the word internal bit you would name the tag what ever you want. The reason for doing this is since Logix5000 is Asynchronous it is possible for logic to change state mid scan. By "Mapping" your I/O and placing it at the beginning of your program, all the I/O is scanned first and set to internal bits that you use throughout your program in place of the actual physical I/O instructions. This greatly reduces if not eliminate the chance of your logic changing states mid scan. Any instruction you are having doubts about, simply right click on it, then select cross reference and you should be able to drill down and see where these originate from. Some may be "Mapped" back to physical I/O addresses and others may simply be internal bits that are used just like B3. BCS

Here is a simple little tutorial that may get you headed down the right road using RSLogix5000. Take a look at the steps in this tutorial and hopefully it will help you out. http://www.contactandcoil.com/rslogix-5000-tutorial/ BCS

Yes it will work. We have actually been a bit loose with throwing around incorrect terminology in this thread so I just want to take a moment to clean it up a bit. In your case you are not actually "Latching" your OTE on (you are not using a OTL instruction), you are "Sealing In" the OTE by using its same tag as a XIC on a branch extension that circumvents the normal rung logic and keeps your OTE "True". Also when using the OTU instruction in this case you are not exactly "Unlatching" the OTE in question. By using a OTU with the same tag name as the OTE in question, what happens is when the logic preceding the OTU is true, then the OTU instruction will go and write a "0" in the bit box for this tag, which in turn makes your "Auto Close OTE" False. On the next scan the processor will then see the "Auto Close XIC" on the branch extension as False, so your output will no longer be "Sealed In" BCS

If it is your "Auto Close" bit that is latching itself on then you should have a "Auto Close" OTE on the end of the partial rung that we can't see. Correct??? I see that this is on rung 91 of your main Routine from what your screenshot shows. All you should need to do is insert a new rung at rung 000 in that same main routine which it looks like you already did. Just change the OTE you named "First Scan" to a OTU and use the Drop Down to choose your "Auto Close" tag. The rung should look like this: S:FS---------------------------Auto Close --] [--------------------------------(U) This way on first scan, the first rung of your main program will "Unlatch" your Auto Close bit. (This will unlatch the auto close bit even though it is an OTE and not a OTL.) There is not need to create a First Scan OTE. Again just change the First Scan OTE you created on rung 0 to a OTU and use the drop down to choose your "Auto Close" tag for it. This should work like a champ. EDIT: you will also want to delete the "First Scan" XIC you put on rung 91. BCS

Hello again, I just read what you wrote again and don't want to confuse you. S:FS is used as a TAG name that you will put in yourself over the top of an XIC, you will not find it on a menu like you would the XIC, XIO, OTE, OTU, etc. Just put a XIC and for the TAG NAME you type in S:FS Sorry if my edit on post 4 was deceiving. BCS

You have it half right, use a XIC with S:FS this will pass logic to the output (OTU) on the first scan each time power is applied to your processor. But you need to have the bit you want be unlatched (Not True) as the actual output bit. S:FS------------------Close Enable --] [-------------------------(U) This should insure that your enable bit is unlatched before your logic starts to execute at the machine level. I don't know your exact condition but this is just to give you an Idea. Make sure the instructions are put into your program in a way that is suitable to your application. EDIT: Yes S:FS is an actual instruction (Tag) that you will use with an XIC, it will execute upon the "FIRST SCAN" of the processor. Then this instruction will be ignored until the next time you cycle power, download or switch to program mode and back to run mode. BCS

You can actually see this Bit in the processors tags, I don't have software with me right now but someone who does can give you the steps to see the bit box for this. (Also you might need to start sending Ron Beaufort a royalty fee each time you post for using his signature tag) LOL

Set up a rung at the top of your main routine that on "FIRST SCAN" will unlatch the bits in question. The instruction for "FIRST SCAN" is S:FS S:FS--------------YOUR BIT --] [--------------------(U)

Look in the organizer tree, (upper left) under project settings, then look under the runtime tab and there should be a box to enter the time you want for auto logout. (I don't have my software with me but I think this is correct from memory) BCS

That is a pretty big breaker to throw on and off. I am not an EE but you may want look into something like this. http://www.schneider-electric.com/products/ww/en/4200-power-circuit-breakers-switches/4220-high-current-air-circuit-breakers/1007-masterpact-nw/ This breaker uses a chassis that your distribution line and load buss connects to. Then the breaker can be racked in or out. This is convenient for servicing the breaker or when working on or doing cleaning / maintenance on your buss you can rack the breaker out and be assured that all poles are disconnected and will stay that way. Also this breaker has a spring that can be wound up either manually with the handle on the side of the breaker or electrically by using an optional small motor. Once the spring is wound then you just push the button on the front of the breaker and BAM is snaps closed. You can also use remote open / close pushbuttons on the front of you distribution panel so you dont have to open the cabinet to operate the breaker. BCS

Well you can tell I dont pay for this stuff. Just looked at the price difference, and while I like and we use the breakers I listed above they are a whole lot more money that using something like this. http://www.schneider-electric.com/products/US/en/50300-circuit-breakers/50330-molded-case-circuit-breakers/1855-powerpact-r-frame-molded-case-circuit-breakers/ I think the largest molded case breaker we use is 600 amp, after that we go to the MasterPact rackable breakers I show above Good Luck with you project. BCS

Man, that question is bound to get you 20 different answers. Personally I would say that it depends on the enviroment that you are installing your equipment in. If I am going to be running the cable through tough enviroments, be it possible physical damage, through bad enviroment, or areas that may have a lot of EMF/EMI due to High Voltage lines or VFD cable running near by, then I would use something like this: http://www.lappusa.com/5615description.htm When you go to this link, push the product finder drop down and choose "Etherline" and you can see the full line of product choises. I would terminate both ends of this larger than normal cable onto something like this at each end: https://www.phoenixc...&pdflanguage=en Make sure you get a proper "Punch Down Tool" to land the wires on these patch panels. Or they also make some that have screw lugs instead of punch down. Then just use preassembled patch cables from these punchdown blocks to the Plc/HMI/Switch/etc. If you are making your own patch cords or if you are not running your cable in a bad enviroment and want to just use a standard Cat5 or Cat5e cable then I usually use these to terminate on the end of this type of cable. http://www.platinumt...ucts/100003.php You will need to get the correct crimper, and you can get these in metal (to ground one side if you use "e" cable or the stadard plastic type RJ45 connectors. Others will have their favorites that they use which may work equally as good or better for your application. I am on ship so we tend to TRY and make things pretty bullet proof. BCS

And there are the magic words that may mean you will need to use some sort of message instruction. Hopefully someone a lot smarter than I am will step in here and help you out. Good luck BCS

You can download for free from the Rockwell Automation Site a program called "Integrated Architecture Builder" This software will let you put your system together online virtually. It will also allow you to get the manuals and lots of info for each piece simply by clicking on that pieces icon. This software is a little hard to start using at first until you figure it out, but just give your local A.B. Rep a call and they should be able to walk you through it and get you started. BCS

Generally speaking, yes it will be somthing like that. You should not need Read/Write transfer blocks when switching completely to compact logix. (I dont know your entire layout so you need to consider if there are other factors involved) But it is a bit more complicated than that. First you need to know what Compactlogix you are using. Then look at each module in the PLC5 rack and see if they make a similar module for your compact logix. If they dont then this may throw off your module sequence and logic behind the way you are planning this. Also is the Compactlogix you are planning to use capable of having 10 expansion cards attached to it? Do you need even more than 10? Best to plan what hardware you are going to use to replace each piece of the old PLC5 rack and go from there. For each expansion module you pick you can download a data sheet that will show you how it needs to be addressed. Until you know exactly what you are going to use, it is hard to say how you will address it. You dont want to rewrite and entire program and then figure out "hey this is not going to work". Also if your PLC5 is anything like ours you may want to look at any HMIs that are on the system also. All of ours for the PLC5 system are either DH+ or RIO. The comunication for the RIO HMI also uses Read/Write Transfer Blocks. Since you will be going to an entirely different platform you will likely need to upgrade your HMIs also. BCS

Also as an afterthought, you say that you are rewritting your program in 5000. If you are going to be changing out the entire rack from PLC5 to Control or CompactLogix then you may not need to use any of these instructions as you will be able to write/read directly to/from the analog, hsc, thermocouple, etc modules that you will put in your new system. However if you are going to leave the PLC5 and use it as Remote I/O or something similar, then you may still need to utilize the MSG instruction to communicate with these modules. (I am not even sure if this second option is even possible with the PLC5 but I have heard alot in the forums about doing this with SLC) Again I am only understanding bits and pieces of this myself so, I to look forward to hearing a more indepth explanation. BCS

Hello, I am a novice also and woking on a similar problem messaging between Compact and Micrologix. Anyway from what I understand about the PLC5 system we have is that the specialty modules, Analog, HSC, etc, are not directly addressed in the programing and you have to use read and write Block Transfers to and from these types of modules. Others will be able to explain in more detail. As far as using the messaging instruction here are a couple of links to other threads that talk about messaging, these are more specific to Comapactlogix to the SLC or Micrologix platform, but you can get links to lots of Rockwell literature from these threads that will help point you in the right direction. http://www.plctalk.net/qanda/showthread.php?t=58012 http://www.plctalk.net/qanda/showthread.php?t=82101 http://www.plctalk.net/qanda/showthread.php?t=73533 http://www.plctalk.net/qanda/showthread.php?t=77166 Sorry I could not be of more help, but I will watch your post to see if others give you any info that will help me along also. Have a good one. BCS

I think you are biting off more than the ML 1000 should be chewing on. You could just get by doing this with expansion space using the ML 1100. But honestly If it were me and I wanted to use a Micrologix for this application I would use the 1400. Here is the link to the micrologix selection guide. http://literature.rockwellautomation.com/idc/groups/literature/documents/sg/1761-sg001_-en-p.pdf Also you may want to look at Spectrum Controls for your Analog Expansion Modules they make 8 point Universal Expansion for the Micrologix. The Input Module is 1762sc-IF8u The Output Module is 1762sc-OF8 BCS

I noticed this also when I first started using this printer. So now I get a list of several labels that will be needed and enter them all at one time with 3 spaces between them. Then print out the long run of labels and cut between them with scissors. It is a little more work but saves a ton of money on label stock, and for myself at least I find this method to work rather well and is not terribly awkward. BCS

I use the 3M PL200 and have been very happy with it. The printer itself is only around $120 You can get a wide variety of tape and heat shrink labels in different sizes and colors.

2711p-ap003_-en-p.pdf I have not used the Panelview Plus 6 so just going by what I found doing a Google Search. This attached Document released April 2014 seems to point to the Panelview Plus 6 as a replacement for the model you list in your post. Although it does not directly list the model you show it does cross ref. the 2711P-T10C4D1 over to a repalcement of 2711P-T10C4D8. Also a Goolge search will pull up a model # of 2711P-T7C4D8 so possibly this is a sutable replacement for what you have. Again I have not used this panel so just going by what I found on the internet, please take what I say here with a grain of salt. If I am wrong in this others will correct me shortly. Good Luck BCS

Jeremy, Thanks for setting me straight on this, If you think it is right in your mind then it must be true? NOT!!! Just tried it and of course you are correct. Thanks for the education on this. BCS

After doing what Jeremy sugest, you can also add a "Go to Config Screen" button to your application before downloading it to the PV again, this way it will be easy to get to your config screen anytime you want. Or uncheck the "Run Application at Start-Up" box on the Transfer Utility page, if you uncheck this box the PV will boot to Config Screen each time it starts up. BCS

Mr Automation, Could you please post the part # for the Phoenix part you are talking about. Unfortunately my IT Department Blocks anything YouTube or Streaming Video so I cannot see the part you speek of. (I would like to check it out and see if its something I might be interested in purchasing) Thanks, BCS