<x-html><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2651.75">
<TITLE>RE: RE: Integrator 30's vs. AB Stations</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Alex,</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>You are correct about the PLC integration blocks. Oops, I did
intended to incorporate that thought into my reply to Neil.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>We do have a beta of V6.2.1. where they become "officially"
released though they have existed in the AB station for a couple of releases
now. A little rebuttal.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>1. The native addressing is a feature of the AB station and
direct data table access. It is necessary to create ECB's on the AW-I', but
those can be create/named to reflect the native AB address.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>2. The "shadow" block effect of write once upon
change, read otherwise is a great advantage. It does allow the mixing of read
and writes from the same AB data file. Huge advantage if Panel Views exists as
an alternate operator interface.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>3. I don't believe that the original mixed data type made the
final since this functionality couldn't work across the other AB platforms.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>4. Possibly, though with the relative high processor performance
of the AW-I's the communication to/from the PLC's will always use a greater % of the
BPC that the actually block crunching will.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I am definitely an advocate of building AB integration strategies that
utilize the PLC integration blocks.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>John </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>From: Johnson,Alex [<A
HREF="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 4:08 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>To: Foxboro DCS Mail List</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Subject: RE: RE: Integrator 30's vs. AB Stations</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>John,</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Have you used the PLC Integration blocks? I'm no expert by any stretch
of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>the imagination, but they do seem to have features that help. For
instance,</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>1. The PLC integration blocks can use
the native AB address to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>reference the data they read/write, e.g. B01:12:15 This makes
it easier to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>track the connections</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>2. The PLC integration blocks are
specifically designed to pass</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>operator commands through the I/A station to the PLC and to see
status</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>coming back. They will "write once" the command upon
receipt from the WP,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>rather than writing to the PLC every cycle. This should eliminate a
number</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>of problems with multiple interfaces changing the same value, e.g.,
the use</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>of PanelView and I/A Series WPs to change the same register.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>3. There are some combined PLC
integration data structures that allow a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>mix and match of different input and output point types, so that the
same</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>block name can serve as the tie point for an operator graphic.
This also</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>helps eliminate multiple blocks for a single function.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>4. The PLC integration blocks are far
simpler, few parameters, almost</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>no algorithm - so they can enable things like running faster
BPCs.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Do you find them to be useful. They are in V6.2.1 for AW50-I, AW70-I,
and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Micro I/A.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Regards,</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Alex Johnson</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>The Foxboro Company</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>10707 Haddington</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Houston, TX 77043</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>713.722.2859 (v)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>713.722.2700 (sb)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>713.932.0222 (f)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>[EMAIL PROTECTED] <<A
HREF="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>> </FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>-----Original
Message-----</FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>From: John
Metsker [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]</FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>Sent: Tuesday,
May 09, 2000 1:34 PM</FONT>
<BR> <FONT
SIZE=2>To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]';</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'</FONT>
<BR> <FONT
SIZE=2>Subject: RE: RE: Integrator 30's vs.
AB Stations</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>Neil, </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>Some thoughts on your
questions </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>>From reading the AB
emails, it sounds like some of our future</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>directions should </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>>be: </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>>1. Work towards
installing AB PLCs with an Ethernet interface. </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>>2. Use the
Foxboro Micro I/A or an AW to provide desired</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>interfaces to Foxboro </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>systems. We do not
need PLC redundancy. </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT
SIZE=2> 1. The world is definitely gone
Ethernet. It is hard to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>believe that any control/automation equipment that be installed in
2000</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>would not provide an Ethernet port as a physical connection.</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT
SIZE=2> 2. The AW-I's (51 or 70) now and
Micro I/A as part of a late</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>release to 6.2.1 are Foxboro products that provide Ethernet
connectivity to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>AB PLCs. I am not a fan of Micro I/A solution. It is a
Foxboro proprietary</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>interface to AB. The AW-I's are products that use 100%
unadulterated</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Interchange or RSLinx from Rockwell. Yes, Foxboro has still
developed the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>ECB application to talk to the PLCs, but the framework of that
application</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>and the underlying communications is provided by the AB software that
is</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>used. You sound like you have quite a mix of AB products to
deal with. You</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>will probably have to entertain using Ethernet integration devices
such as a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Pyramid Integrator (PI) (old) or a Control Logix gateway (new)
to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>communicate to your DH+ based PLC's and the DH485 based SLC's.
I don't</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>believe (I haven't seen it advertised) that the Micro I/A solution
supports</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>communication through a PI since Foxboro ported just the low level
portions</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>of Interchange to VRTX. I know it won't support communication
to Control</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Logix since a different protocol stack is required. (EPIC)
These are</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>features that the AW-I's do provide. I can't stress it more,
however, it a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>station is performing 'control' (and I consider the communication
back and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>forth to PLCs to be control), keep this functionality isolated.</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>>1. What is the
best way to provide process operators and engineers</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>a view of </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>what is happening in the
PLC in an easy to understand manner with</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>minimal </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>upkeep. </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT
SIZE=2> Allow the PLC to do what is best at,
discrete control, and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>allow the DCS to do what it is best at, analog control. Make
sure this</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>division/sharing of control is understood by your process operators
and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>maintenance technicians.</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>>2. We would like
to implement some software that makes Allen</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Bradley PLC </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>programming as easy as
possible and also that provides logic</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>documentation that </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>is very easy for non relay
logic experts to follow. Any</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>suggestions? </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT
SIZE=2> Keep a consistent bit packing scheme
for all your discrete</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>devices, e.g. motors, valves between I/A and the PLC. We use a
MCIN (2</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>words, 32 bits) for each device as inputs from the PLC and an MCOUT
(1 word,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>16 bits) as outputs to the PLC.</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT
SIZE=2>
MCIN</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>MCOUT </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>1st bit A/M
status
A/M command </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>2nd bit Status 1 (Hold
contact
1)
Start/Open command </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>3rd bit Status 2 (Hold 2
on 2 pos. device) Stop/Close command </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>4th bit General
Fault
Fwd/Rev command </FONT>
<BR> <FONT
SIZE=2>...
...
....</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>The inputs from the PLC are
packed in one file (e.g. N110) and the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>outputs to the PLC in another (e.g. N120) Assign the starting
word of for</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>each device to be the same in both the input and output files.
Inputs from</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>valve XV22007 begins at word 20 in N110 and outputs to the valve
begin at</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>word 20. Yes, 1 output word would go unused, but the consistent
device</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>addressing is more important. Use standard overlays for the
devices</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>illustrating your standard data pack scheme so the majority of the
PLC</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>troubleshooting can be done right from the I/A screen. Make
sure the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>address scheme documents itself within the overlay.</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>>3. The purpose of
most of our PLCs is for external shutdowns</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>(SIS). Will </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>Control Logix provide any
real benefit? Is Control Logix considered</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>to be </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>robust enough for SIS, or
should it be used in conjunction with the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>PLCs? </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>The Control Logix platform
is Rockwell's new PLC product that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>integrates sequential/discrete, motion, and process control (with
the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Process Logix module) on the same backplane. They certainly
wouldn't claim</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>that is any less robust than a PLC5. A couple years ago when it
was first</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>introduced, however, AB was pretty good at saying that it wasn't
ready to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>move the PLC5 aside just yet. Like anything else, it is the
programming</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>tools such as RSLogix 5000 that are taking a little longer to
mature.</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>>4. If we network
our PLCs together in some manner, will it keep us</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>from also </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>using Micro I/A or an AW
to somehow interface designated PLCs to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>designated </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>Foxboro systems? </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>Create dedicated
"control LAN segments" to handle the communications</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>between Foxboro and your PLCs. A huge amount of bandwidth is
not required,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>but remember you are expected to provide near real-time response so
keeping</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>these segments as lightly loaded as possible and isolated from other
network</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>garbage (X protocol, print jobs, ftp's, etc..) is important.
Join these</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>segments to your corporate network to do network device management
(hubs,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>switches) and create a data path if you are performing remote
programming or</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>PLC backups (MDT Mass).</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>>5. Besides the
purchase of the AW, what all do we need to purchase</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>to use an AW </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>for the interface?
Does it matter whether we use a Unix or NT AW? </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>The AW-I's would require
Interchange for Unix or RSLinx for NT. At</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>this point, there is no functional difference between the AW51I and
the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>AW70I in regard to the AB capabilities. Stay with what you are
comfortable</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>with. Either is fine for now. We are staying with the
51's since that is</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>consistent with our install base. Since Rockwell is so NT
dominant, the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>AW70 may give you more future growth potential in regard to Control
Logix,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>but it would be up to Foxboro exploit this capability through new
ECB's and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>block types.</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>Hope this begins to address
your questions. </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>John </FONT>
<BR> <FONT
SIZE=2>
</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2> </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>-----Original Message-----
</FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [ <A
HREF="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2><<A
HREF="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>> ]
</FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000
2:35 PM </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>To: John Metsker; 'Foxboro
DCS Mail List' </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>Subject: Re:RE: Integrator
30's vs. AB Stations </FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>John, </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>Thank you for taking the
time to provide the information concerning</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Allen </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>Bradley PLCs. I
thought it was very informative. </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>As of last week, my group
will start to take on our facility's AB</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>PLC </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>responsibilities in
addition to our current Foxboro I/A support. I</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>know little </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>about the Allen Bradley
product so I have a steep learning curve</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>ahead of me. </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>My goals are to some how
network the PLCs together for information</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>transfer and </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>remote support purposes,
and to implement some software that makes</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>the PLC </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>programming much easier
(than the relay logic look) to implement and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>documents </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>the logic for non-experts
to easily follow. I would appreciate any</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>tips that </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>you and others can provide
to me. </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>I do not even know what
Allen Bradley product we have yet, but I</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>think some of </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>them are SLC150, SLC5/04,
PLC5/11, PLC5/20, and a Panel View (??)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>station. The </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>PLCs are scattered around
the facility on process equipment that is</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>controlled </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>various independent
Foxboro systems and few, if any of them, are</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>currently </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>networked together.
We will want some of the Foxboro systems to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>somehow get </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>information from PLCs that
are installed in their area, but we also</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>want to be </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>able to access all of the
PLCs from common designated locations (say</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>designated </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>Office PCs with the
correct security). One of the reasons to link</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>the PLCs to </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>the Foxboro systems will
be to provide PLC trip alarms,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>historization of the </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>contact states in PI, and
a better means for the process operators</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>and engineers </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>to somehow view the states
of the PLC logic. </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>From reading the AB emails,
it sounds like some of our future</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>directions should </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>be: </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>1. Work towards
installing AB PLCs with an ethernet interface. </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>2. Use the Foxboro
Micro I/A or an AW to provide desired interfaces</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>to Foxboro </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>systems. We do not
need PLC redundancy. </FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>Some of my questions are:
</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>1. What is the best
way to provide process operators and engineers</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>a view of </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>what is happening in the
PLC in an easy to understand manner with</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>minimal </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>upkeep. </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>2. We would like to
implement some software that makes Allen</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Bradley PLC </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>programming as easy as
possible and also that provides logic</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>documentation that </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>is very easy for non relay
logic experts to follow. Any</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>suggestions? </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>3. The purpose of
most of our PLCs is for external shutdowns (SIS).</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Will </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>Control Logix provide any
real benefit? Is Control Logix considered</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>to be </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>robust enough for SIS, or
should it be used in conjunction with the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>PLCs? </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>4. If we network our
PLCs together in some manner, will it keep us</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>from also </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>using Micro I/A or an AW
to somehow interface designated PLCs to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>designated </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>Foxboro systems? </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>5. Besides the
purchase of the AW, what all do we need to purchase</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>to use an AW </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>for the interface?
Does it matter whether we use a Unix or NT AW? </FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>Regards, </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>Neil Martin </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>Huntsman Petrochemical
</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2> </FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>____________________Reply
Separator____________________ </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>Subject:
RE: Integrator 30's vs. AB Stations </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>Author: John Metsker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> </FONT>
<BR> <FONT
SIZE=2>Date: 05/08/2000 1:05 PM </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>Sorry for being late to the
mix and continuing to drag out this</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>issue. This </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>discussion should be
linked to the e-mail flurry about AB Control</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Logix and </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>Ethernet connectivity from
a month or so ago. (I would assume that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>your AB </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>connectivity strategies
need to include support for the new AB</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>product </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>directions.) </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>At General Mills, we are
using AW51 Integrators to provide AB</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>gateway </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>functionality. Yes,
the Foxboro software bundling says that it is</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>an AW and </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>it can act as an all in
one machine, but they are being deployed as </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>"dedicated"
Integrators. (Basic premise of distributed control;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>keep </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>"control"
separate from everything else. We may be a food company,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>but </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>we're not stupid.) </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>How come? Seems like
overkill doesn't it. </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>AB Interchange from
Rockwell Software and Ethernet connectivity.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>(The AW 70 </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>Integrator cousin uses
RSLinx.) </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>Why would anybody want AB
connectivity that doesn't utilize the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>standard </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>communication libraries
that are developed and tested by Rockwell</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>software? </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>Every other major software
vendor (Wonderware, Intelluion, MDT, SAP,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>etc..) </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>that communicates with AB
equipment develops applications that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>utilize </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>RSLinx or
Interchange. Why should Foxboro be different? Foxboro is</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>no </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>great lover of PLCs and
Allen Bradley/Rockwell in particular. Their</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>products should have a
headstart and take advantage of the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>connectivity that </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>is provided by Rockwell
themselves. </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>Why not any of the other AB
connectivity products from Foxboro? </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>ABGW or the ABGW30?
The serial interfaces are too much of a bottle</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>neck. </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>The food industry is
largely a discrete industry, we need to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>communicate a </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>lot of data at Ethernet
bandwidth to/from the PLCs. The ABGW and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>ABGW30 </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>hardly allows a lot of PLC
words to be communicated at high speed.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>(Don't </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>have redundant PLCs, don't
need a redundant PLC interface.) </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>AB Station? The 1 to
1 coupling of AB stations to PLCs tends to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>promote use </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>of "data
concentrators" that add complexity to PLC troubleshooting.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>The </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>sideport on the PLC
provides about 1/2 the throughput that the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>integrated </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>Ethernet port on
PLC5E. (Ask to your knowledgeable AB rep to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>compare </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>Ethernet performance on an
integrated PLC5E to an Ethernet sidecar.)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>The AB </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>coprocessor is has a
Motorola 68030 chip in it. That is it for that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>product </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>from AB. They assume
everybody utilizing host computers with RSLinx</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>or </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>Interchange to accomplish
the jobs once handled by the co-pro</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>module. </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>How 'bout Micro I/A with AB
Ethernet? The product is now going to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>be a </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>'late release' item with
V6.2.1. Foxboro developed this product by </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>licensing source code from
Rockwell and porting the low-level parts</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>of it to </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>the VRTX O.S. that runs in
Micro I/A. It is now a Foxboro</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>proprietary </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>product. Also, be
aware that Control Logix uses a different network</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>protocol stack than
PLC5s. Foxboro's VRTX port of Interchange was</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>prior to </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>a version that supported
Control Logix. Foxboro is going to have to</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>completely start over with
this product in order to work with CL.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>(The </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>forthcoming Micro I/A AB
Ethernet interface for PLC5/SLC500 has now</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>been in </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>the works for over 3
years.) </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>AW51 Integrator? It
is able to support Control Logix with the </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>installation/configuration
of the proper, underlying version of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Interchange </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>(V6.2) It provides a
1 to many Ethernet interface to PLCs. Sure it</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>has </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>draw backs, like a hard
drive and not being redundant. The Ethernet</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>connectivity hopefully
allows the box to sit in as decent an</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>environment as </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>possible and as the
prevailing chat on the email list would</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>indicate, it is </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>not the stability of the
hardware, but the stability of the software</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>that is </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>afflicting the Foxboro
User community. Redundant hardware can't</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>help there, </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>but deploying the machine
as simply an "Integrator 51" and reducing</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>the </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>functionality of it
improves it's stability greatly. </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>Oh yea, the price.
Well, let me be the first one to tell you that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>the price </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>of cereal will be going
up. Foxboro marketing needs to be involved.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>A full </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>AW station license should
not be charged if a 51 series machine if</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>is going </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>to be utilized as an
"Integrator 51". A Gateway software bundle for</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>the 51 </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>was in the works as part
of V6.2, but that was dropped like so many</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>other </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>things have been.
The hardware part of it will forever perplex me.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Why can </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>Foxboro
develop/manufacture there own proprietary DIN rail computer</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>and sell </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>it at a somewhat desirable
price, but they have to sell a Sun box at</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>double </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>or more of the street
price. </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>Anyway sorry for being long
winded. I hope this provides some</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>different </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>perspective on Foxboro/AB
integration strategies. Your feedback is </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>appreciated. </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>Thanks, </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>John Metsker </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>General Mills,
Inc </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>-----Original Message-----
</FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>From: Johnson,Alex [ <A
HREF="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2><<A
HREF="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>> ] </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>Sent: Thursday, May 04,
2000 10:17 AM </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>To: Foxboro DCS Mail List
</FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>Subject: RE: Integrator
30's vs. AB Stations </FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>Re: PSS </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>Check with your account rep
or, you can get if from</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>www.csc.foxboro.com </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>< <A
HREF="http://www.csc.foxboro.com"; TARGET="_blank">http://www.csc.foxboro.com</A>
<<A HREF="http://www.csc.foxboro.com";
TARGET="_blank">http://www.csc.foxboro.com</A>> > . I just</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>checked and if you search for "PSS </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>21H-6C6 B4" on the
CSC page it will take you to a list and this</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>document was </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>the second one on the
list. </FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>Re: Redundancy </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>The Micro I/A solution is
not redundant that I am aware of, but you</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>can </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>always go point to point
just like with the DI30 and have only one</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>PLC per </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>Micro I/A. </FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>Regards, </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>Alex Johnson </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>The Foxboro Company </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>10707 Haddington </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>Houston, TX 77043 </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>713.722.2859 (v) </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>713.722.2700 (sb) </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>713.932.0222 (f) </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>[EMAIL PROTECTED] <
<A HREF="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2><<A
HREF="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>> > </FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P> <FONT
SIZE=2> -----Original Message----- </FONT>
<BR> <FONT
SIZE=2> From: Stan Brown
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] </FONT>
<BR> <FONT
SIZE=2> Sent: Thursday, May 04,
2000 8:40 AM </FONT>
<BR> <FONT
SIZE=2> To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] </FONT>
<BR> <FONT
SIZE=2>
Subject: Re: Integrator 30's vs. AB Stations
</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT
SIZE=2> On Wed May 3 17:20:05 2000
Johnson,Alex wrote... </FONT>
<BR> <FONT
SIZE=2> > </FONT>
<BR> <FONT
SIZE=2> >To learn about Micro I/A check
out the following PSSs or</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>contact </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>your </FONT>
<BR> <FONT
SIZE=2> >Account Rep. I really think that
Micro I/A is a good way to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>go for </FONT>
<BR> <FONT
SIZE=2> >integrating the devices that it
supports. </FONT>
<BR> <FONT
SIZE=2> > </FONT>
<BR> <FONT
SIZE=2> >PSS 21H-6C6
B4: Micro-I/A Allen-Bradley PLC5/E</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Remote I/O </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>Interface </FONT>
<BR> <FONT
SIZE=2> > </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT
SIZE=2>
Alex, I am having a hard time finding this PSS. Have</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>you got </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>a link, or </FONT>
<BR> <FONT
SIZE=2>
something for it? </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT
SIZE=2>
And a question, if we were to go with the Micro-IA</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>PLC -> </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>Ethernet </FONT>
<BR> <FONT
SIZE=2>
solution what redunandcny could we incorporate? </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT
SIZE=2> -- </FONT>
<BR> <FONT
SIZE=2> Stan Brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED] </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>843-745-3154 </FONT>
<BR> <FONT
SIZE=2> Charleston SC. </FONT>
<BR> <FONT
SIZE=2> -- </FONT>
<BR> <FONT
SIZE=2> Windows 98: n. </FONT>
<BR> <FONT
SIZE=2>
useless extension to a minor patch release for</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>32-bit </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>extensions and </FONT>
<BR> <FONT
SIZE=2>
a graphical shell for a 16-bit patch to an 8-bit</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>operating </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>system </FONT>
<BR> <FONT
SIZE=2>
originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor, written</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>by a </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>2-bit </FONT>
<BR> <FONT
SIZE=2>
company that can't stand for 1 bit of competition. </FONT>
<BR> <FONT
SIZE=2> - </FONT>
<BR> <FONT
SIZE=2> (c) 2000 Stan Brown.
Redistribution via the Microsoft</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Network is </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>prohibited. </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT
SIZE=2> </FONT>
<BR>
</P>
<P><FONT
SIZE=2>-----------------------------------------------------------------------</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>This list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by the Foxboro Company.
All </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>postings from this list are the work of list subscribers and no
warranty </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>is made or implied as to the accuracy of any information disseminated
</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>through this medium. By subscribing to this list you agree to hold
the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>list sponsor(s) blameless for any and all mishaps which might occur
due to </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>your application of information received from this mailing
list.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>To be removed from this list, send mail to </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>[EMAIL PROTECTED] </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>with "unsubscribe foxboro" in the Subject. Or, send any
mail to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>[EMAIL PROTECTED]</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML></x-html>
