BE

Depending on the specific security requirement, (and if the password needs to be hashed out when entering), you could use a popup screen with a data entry. The entry has to match a variable value in the PLC to enable the ok button, which then takes them to the screen. That method is 'quick and dirty', and I primarily use it to protect screens/settings that the client can access, but they just want something there so people can't 'accidentally' go into the specific screen and start changing things. Pretty much just an elaborate "Are You Sure" before they can get to the screen  If your situation requires proper security, then Crossbow's suggestion is the best way.

I read that as 0 motion control and 4 single position control axes. This thread might help shed some light on it: https://forums.mrplc.com/index.php?/topic/41636-1s-servo-single-axis-position-control-axis-vs-motion-control-axis/

Then I would second what Steve said, and my little speech about parts availability is irrelevant 

I haven't looked at this thoroughly, so apologies if I have misunderstood. But instead of using a For Loop, why not just have a integer variable that is your incrementing counter, and then add an additional condition to your IF statement where that integer must be <=5 (less than or equal to 5) for the statement to proceed. The integer would be set to 1 (or 0, depending on what you need) using a one shot of the start_enabled bit to initiate the process. This way you can incorporate the timer side of things quite easily.

I would second what @Steve Bailey said, however if you have a bit of down time available, ideally I would get the "new" VFD capacitors reformed (assuming it is required) and then install it, solely because it is older. Depending on the exact scenario a firmware upgrade wouldn't hurt either, but if it is just a simple setup this may not be needed. Can't tell if the VFD's are the same make and model, so I am making the assumption that the drives are different. In the next 5-15 years it would be possible that support/parts would become obsolete for the older VFD (or expensive with long lead times), so my thoughts would be to get it in service, so at least it gets some usefulness out of its life cycle. I would assume the 'remanufactured' VFD was new probably in the last 3 years or so, my understanding of these is they are typically refurbished after being replaced under warranty.

I haven't done exactly what you are trying to do, but is there any reason that you are checking every 4 seconds? Can you just delete the first line, and the NO contact on the second line, and just have it run every cycle of the PLC? It just makes the code simpler. You could reduce your 'window' then also (instead of it being 20 seconds). As for the computer vs simulator time, I have always found that the simulator and PLC time are the same the moment I start the simulator. But then the simulator time runs about 1/3 of the speed of the computer time. Not entirely sure why (I calibrated my PC when I was trying to make them the same), but for most stuff I do it doesn't bother me that much. The calibration option is under the Simulation menu in Sysmac Studio, if you haven't done that yet give it a try. I might help a bit.

What version of Sysmac Studio is the trial? Mine is up to 1.56.0.11, but I don't think I have updated it for a while. I suspect it is because the program you have received was created in a later version than what you have. https://automation.omron.com/en/ca/support/resources/software-revision-change-history/change-history-of-sysmac-studio  

You and I both . For me PLC programming is probably only about 5% of my job, so my experience is also rather limited. Thank you for taking the time to type all that up and explain it, it makes sense and I will definitely be referring back to it next time I have a programming job to do, it has given me a few ideas. The main reason I was asking actually relates to a problem I had some time ago, detailed here: https://forums.mrplc.com/index.php?/topic/42220-booleans-getting-stuck-on/ You explanation and description of how you have done things has given me a couple more ideas to try with that old problem for future projects. Don't know if they will work, but that's why we have simulators 

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but couldn't help noticing that @Str8jCkt had a heartbeat setup for the HMI. Would you mind sharing how you do that? I had something a while back that could have used something similar, but never actually managed to make anything work (I was trying to use an incrementing counter system with VBA, but didn't have any success, mainly because the VBA code had to finish before the HMI could do anything else, it couldn't just run in the background).

Kinda off topic, but you can call the 'done' contact "puls1.Q" and it will do the same job as the "done" bit. This is something I find useful, particularly when you are using a timer's output to reset itself, and especially when you are playing around with testing ideas and concepts, as it eliminates another bool variable from your code. There is nothing wrong with having the extra bool, its just personal preference at the end of the day. And sometimes having that extra bool does make things a bit easier to read later on 

Based on your schematic, I would second what Joe said about the timer. Unless there is a reason to use a PLC (ie. future changes to the design that we don't know about), then a timer will work fine, and be the simplest option. I don't have any experience with cheap PLC's as such (all my experience is with Omron), however the job you want to do could be done quite easily with an Arduino microcontroller and a couple of relay modules. Quite cheap, programming software is free and there is a bucket load of sample code for various things available on the internet. The code itself isn't the easiest to learn if you have absolutely no coding experience, but this is offset by the tremendous amount of free resources, videos and forums dedicated to Arduino programming, with plenty of people willing to help you, if you are willing to have a go first. Not sure what costs are in the USA, but for me in Australia, setting up something like you describe would cost me less than $50AUD, depending on exactly which Arduino board I went for - and to the best of my knowledge any Arduino board would do what you want, as you only have 1 input and 2 outputs.

Can you share your PLC code? It sounds like the variable is being overwritten somewhere. That said, I haven't used those functions before, so it could be something else.

Like @photovoltaic said, a bit more information is needed to give specific assistance, but I am going to assume you are doing something like a batch weighing scenario, where you have multiple different weights sent from the scales during the course of a run, and you want to add all these together. I have attached a function block that I wrote for a project some years ago that does this. Basically, it takes the weight from the batch weigher or scales, and adds it to another variable when the trigger is True. In my case, I used the dump signal from the batch weigher. There is also a reset bit, to reset the output weight to 0 when needed. It does have a timer in it (comments explain why), and to be honest if I had to do it again I would do it a bit differently so it didn't need a timer, but for what I needed at the time it worked fine. The function block does have comments in it, so you should be able to have a look at it and get an idea of how it works. It might not be exactly what you need, but might give you the idea to set something up for your own program. Function Block.smc2

I had a project where the operators needed to input minutes and hours for a process. I used integers so they could set the values on the PLC, and then used the MULTIME function to multiply those integers by 1hr, 1min, 1sec etc as applicable. The output of those functions were then used for the relevant timers. A structured datatype and a custom function or function block does make this process a bit more streamlined.

When using Bit Lamps in the NA series HMI, it would be nice if we could have the entire lamp a solid colour, instead of the top right corner fading to white. It isn't a game changer, but just seems a bit odd that a solid colour lamp fades to white in that corner. Image attached. It is a lot more noticeable the larger the lamp is. And the lamps in my current project are of a reasonable size to allow the label text to fit inside them. After spending some time trying to find the setting to disable this, I emailed my Omron technical rep, who advised that after looking into it, they found it was a " built-in visual property of the lamp that cannot be changed unfortunately ". That said, they did send me a workaround using a Toggle Button as a bit lamp instead (with a dummy bit for the actual button variable), just in case.  

Based on your response, you have far more experience with this then I do. I don't have any ideas that would help to be honest. That said, if you do find a way to make it work, please let us know. If they can be programmed over EtherCAT that would be something I would be interested in.

When you say 'programming a Danfoss drive', do you mean controlling it (ie with the control word) or do you mean actually programming it (ie changing drive parameters)? My understanding of Danfoss VSD's (at least the ones I have used) is that they can be programmed (ie. change parameters) over EIP, but cannot be programmed over EtherCAT. That said, I have never programmed them over EIP, as I only have the basic version of MCT10, and my setups have always been EtherCAT, so it was USB based programming for me.

  Out of curiosity, if you just change it to a regular bool (not a structure member), does it do the same thing? (ie. using a test bool you manually turn on and off)

Is it definitely the same instance of that function block? I changed the clamp input to a test bool (so I could turn it on and off easily), and it showed up inside the block fine.

I just tried this on my laptop (Windows 11, Sysmac 1.48), it simulates fine. That said, Sysmac does request admin privileges (UAC dialog box) when I open Sysmac Studio, it does it on both my machines and I have always granted it.

I haven't tried to simulate it, my laptop is windows 11, but I don't have it at work. I can probably give it a crack after work and see how it goes. In the meantime, is 'randomware' a typo? Wondering if it is supposed to be ransomware, in which case it is possibly an anti-virus/windows defender issue........can't be certain, just throwing ideas out there.

If I a customer has an IT department and they want me to have remote access to their PLC (which they always do after I tell them that if I don't, they will be up for a heap of travel and accommodation costs every time there is an issue I need to look at) then I tell them how I would set up the remote access, which invariably the IT department never likes. At this point, I tell them that I am happy to work in with them (ie. install any programs etc that I need for remote access), but they need to work out how I can access the relevant IP addresses remotely, basically putting the responsibility back on them to sort out the VPN. And if the client asks me about the remote access, I just refer them to their own IT department. So far  it has worked for me    The down side is everyone invariably uses a different program for VPN access........so just need to keep it documented so I remember what program is for who.

Unless I have misunderstood, you can set contacts and coils can be set to Diff Up or Diff Down for one shot's.

Ok. I think I know what you are trying to do. Just want to make sure I have understood correctly. There are 2 conveyor lines that send product from silo's to hoppers. Each hopper has a gate on each line to put product into that hopper. When the minimum level switch of a hopper is activated, the one of the conveyor systems needs to prioritise that hopper. If you have 2 hoppers with minimum level switches active, one conveyor system feeds each hopper. If more than 2 hoppers have minimum level switches active, the system needs to prioritise the minimum level switches that were triggered first. Is that what you are trying to do? If none of the minimum level switches are active, do the conveyors still run to keep product feeding into the hoppers?

You will need to give a lot more detail regarding what you are trying to achieve. I can think of several ways to make 5 silos feed 4 hoppers using 8 conveyors (or 4 hoppers feed 5 silos, depending on which way the product goes), but it depends on the setup you have and what the end result needs to be. Do you need all 4 hoppers to be emptying into silos at the same time? Is it just one at a time? Are their any gates or similar that can be installed on the conveyors to re-route product from one conveyor to the next, or can the product only exit a conveyor from the end of the conveyor? Are the conveyors only able to run in one direction or can they run in both? Is the conveyor system already in place or is it being designed from scratch? Does the contractor installing the conveyors have any limitations on what they can do? What are the end user requirements? As you can see, a lot more information is required. That said, 8 conveyors, 5 silos and 4 hoppers isn't a lot of IO, so if you can provide some sort of idea on what you are trying to achieve, I am sure that someone will be able to give you some ideas to get you started.