MrPLC Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12 Good


About pop29684

  • Rank
  • Birthday 12/19/56

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Country United States
  1. Need help with Timer Logic

    Do not modify the existing time logic of TON_1 and TON_2. Instead, when BOOL_tag state goes to "1" then move the final value of TON_1 into the active timing register of TON_1. This would be "0" if TON_1 counts from preset value to zero; this might be "100" if TON_1 counts from zero to preset value. You need to verify the operation and final value of TON_1 in order to realize what is the final value of TON_1.
  2. Upload S7-1200 Siemen PLC with TIA Portal v14

    Try performing a "compile hardware & software". If differences still exist you will need to perform a full compare (not the quick compare). De-select all filters then begin re-selecting the filters one by one until the difference returns.
  3. PLC Programming Language

    Where do you plan to do most of your work? As a general rule of thumb, ladder logic is the most common here in the United States. But if you're interested in working in the European market then perhaps function block diagram or structured text would be the better choice.
  4. Knowing length of time PLC was powered down

    Perhaps a good application for a simple heartbeat bit? If the bit isn't seen, track the length of time it is missing. Probably not accurate down to the second but might be worthwhile.
  5. Heidenhain EnDat

    I'm afraid I don't have any answers for those questions. I have never used the encoders you are referencing. I hope someone else on this site would kindly supply an answer.
  6. Heidenhain EnDat

    Have you contacted Heidenhain? Here's a link from StartPage to a PDF: https://www.heidenhain.be/fileadmin/pdb/media/img/587718_08_A_02_Drehgeber_fuer_Aufzugsindustrie_en_01.pdf. I think you might find your answer (or at least get a direction) from page four. Perhaps the ECN 113? Note the shaft differences between it and the model you currently have!

    The efficiency is immediately obvious. The need for VB50 - VB54 is eliminated. The need for the repetitive call of the SEG instruction is eliminated. True, the SEG instruction will conveniently convert a digit on the fly to a segment map but at the expense of, arguably insignificant, longer scan times and more memory usage. Manually mapping the segment values will reap the benefit of using less code, having less module calls - all of which translates to saving a little scan time and memory. But perhaps this is not important in the project with which you are working. Or perhaps you are determined to understand the operation of the STL/SCL code. Or maybe you want to build your own SEG module that, when called, takes the single digit integer and gives the appropriate 7-segment map value. As far as the DWord contents, if you know the 7-segment map value that you expect in the byte, then it is a simple matter to compare that value to the values in the four bytes of the DWord. Then you know exactly which byte contains the data you need. Good luck, my friend!

    Why would there be any data in the other three bytes? The logic only requires one byte to hold the necessary segment map, correct? Is your calculated result being expressed as a signed integer in a DWord?

    Is your output variable addressed as a double word (DWord)? If so, perhaps it should be addressed as a word or even a byte. If not, you may need to convert from a DWord data type to a Byte data type. That discussion is on p109 of the Siemens S7-1200 Easy Book (found here: https://euroec.by/assets/files/siemens/s71200_easy_book_en-US_en-US.pdf).
  10. Replacing MOV with CLR

    Thought I'd share an experience I had earlier today working on a (limited memory) L61 Rockwell processor. I knew there was very little room left in the memory but needed to add some functionality and decided to give it a try anyway. I couldn't take the machine down to make a download so made a number of online edits, successfully accepting and finalizing after each edit. Got down to the last four edits which required zeroing a tag of type REAL. The instructions were on four separate rungs. Hoping to save time (and all previous edits were successful), I added the four MOV instructions (MOV 0 into TAG) and pressed the "finalize" button. I was caught quite off-guard when the process failed: insufficient memory. AAAAGGGGHHHH!!!! So close! I tried to remove some logic to free enough memory to add the required instructions. Nope. Rockwell was not going to negotiate. That left me in a position where I thought I was going to have to take the machine down and do, hopefully, a download that would push the processor memory to the limit but be accepted without any hiccups. But before I did that I had a fortuitous thought. I F1'd the MOV instruction and hoped to find a complete explanation of the instruction, including timing diagrams, execution time, memory requirements, etc. Oh wait - that's Siemens. GROAN. Curious and desperate, I replaced each MOV instruction in my edited code (I'd estimate somewhere around 20 instances or slightly more) with the CLR instruction - including the four additional instances I needed. And finalized the edits with bated breath. To my utter surprise (again!) the edits were finalized without overrunning the memory. A MOV instruction requires memory for both the source and destination. Since I was only clearing a memory I didn't need to reserve memory for the source. Using a CLR instruction implies "0" (zero) for the source but requires no memory for the source value. Hence the efficiency. Obviously, this story would have a different ending if I had been trying to move some value other than zero into a destination tag. I offer my experience as a lesson if you ever need to streamline some code to fit existing memory space. I also would like to know if there are any downsides to what I've done. Have i overlooked any potential pitfalls? Thanks in advance for the advice.
  11. TOT Instruction

    Thanks, Bob.
  12. TOT Instruction

    I have an existing machine that pulls several rolls of film through it and executes a sealing process. The machine has a scaled feedback value (Tag: Velocity, Type: REAL). No one knows for sure what the engineering unit is (inches per second, feet per minute, etc.) of this tag. The supervisor wants to add an accumulative length counter based on this feedback value. The purpose is to have some idea of the total amount of film run through the machine for comparing to the total pieces of product produced. A colleague suggested using the TOT (Totalizer) function block or structured text instruction in a timed task. But the instruction itself has a timebase for execution control. I've searched the forum but cannot find anything related. Anyone have experience doing this or something similar? Or perhaps use a different instruction? The processor is a CompactLogix 5730-L18ERM. I just received the project specifications today and the due date is next week. (Of course!) So there is no time to research, design, purchase, install additional hardware. No pressure here! Haha.
  13. Samsung N-70 PLC software

    From the RS Automation.biz website: This model is discontinued, so please contact Customer Center (1588-5298) for further information. However, if you will go to their "Data" page you will find their customer support, including manuals, software, etc. I downloaded the software .zip file for free. P.S.: the software might be named something other than winfpst.
  14. STL

    Joe, I've also run into these situations. In most of them the logic aggregated into a single rung is usually intentional. This is a poor man's way of keeping logic proprietary. As you have discovered, it can be read and sorted into individual networks which can then be much easier to read and troubleshoot. The NOPs are used as placeholders, which explains why sometimes deleting them works and sometimes not. And you are correct in your final assessment that converting LAD to STL always works but not always the other way around. The rule of thumb is that output instructions used within the same statement will usually convert readily to LAD. The logic below  will convert to LAD without any re-writing: A     I0.0 A     I0.1 =     O5.0 =     O6.1 However, the logic below will not readily convert. to LAD The reason for this is that the two output instructions are not part of the same logic evaluation. A     I0.0 =     O5.0 A     I0.1 =     O6.1 Why write aggregated logic in a single network? Most of the time it is because the programmer A.) has a European programming perspective/background/training or B.) they might be computer programmers rather than PLC programmers. Just my observations. I'm sure there could be other reasons as well. I've worked with both sides of the Atlantic and have come to appreciate the contribution of each side. Another major difference I've noticed is that US programmers writing in STL tend to favor the JP (jump positive) instruction whereas the Europeans tend to like the the JN (jump negative) instruction. It took me a long time to understand the difference. Now that I do, I also tend to favor the JN instruction. But that's a discussion for another day . . . .
  15. Are you asking about the firmware updates? No, this is not widespread in the USA. Are you asking about the use of RedLiion? Yes, they are used frequently here in the USA. Especially when you need to move data between hardware platforms. I don't think there's any equal for this functionality. The translation is automatic. Connect any two hardware platforms and the Red Lion will happily move data bi-directionally all day long without any complaint. Most hardware drivers are included.