Stan,
We are using 6 AB Stations rather than Integrator 30s at my plant. I don't
have a basis for comparison, but I can certainly tell you a little about our
AB Stations.
The main reason to go with these for us was to keep setup fairly simple --
setup and continuing work on the stations is exactly like the same work on
CP30s. Response time is (can be anyway) faster as a result of only having
one network for a piece of information to negotiate (we are using DH+ with
our PLC5s, probably would have needed to go to ControlNet if we had used
Integrators).
Disadvantages are fairly serious with the AB Stations. You can't have a
redundant processor in your PLC when you have an AB Station in place. You
must adhere to the Foxboro's maximum data table size limitations when
setting up the PLC5s -- if any data table exceeds Foxboro's size limits it
will not read any of that table. You do not have the option of having
blocks being change driven -- every block evaluates every scheduled cycle.
This can result in limiting the number of blocks you can use on an AB
Station, or can result in needing to run the blocks at slower periods with
phasing implemented.
The above info is accurate to the best of my knowledge, however I work more
with the software than the hardware and I don't use the Integrators at all
currently, so feel free to correct me if I have misstated something.
Hope some of this helps.
Kevin FitzGerrell
Fairbanks Gold Mining, Inc.
----- Original Message -----
From: Stan Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Foxboro List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 3:41 AM
Subject: Integrator 30's vs. AB Stations
> I would like to hear other users options on the ppros & cons of these 2
> different ways of conecting an Allen Bradley PLC (or PLC's) and a
> Foxboro IA system.
>
> Yhe PLC's would be PLC5's, and the IA would be serries 50 stations.
>
> --
> Stan Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
843-745-3154
> Charleston SC.
> --
> Windows 98: n.
> useless extension to a minor patch release for 32-bit extensions and
> a graphical shell for a 16-bit patch to an 8-bit operating system
> originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor, written by a 2-bit
> company that can't stand for 1 bit of competition.
> -
> (c) 2000 Stan Brown. Redistribution via the Microsoft Network is
prohibited.
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by the Foxboro Company. All
postings from this list are the work of list subscribers and no warranty
is made or implied as to the accuracy of any information disseminated
through this medium. By subscribing to this list you agree to hold the
list sponsor(s) blameless for any and all mishaps which might occur due to
your application of information received from this mailing list.
To be removed from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe foxboro" in the Subject. Or, send any mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
