Re: [Emc-users] Ladder logic documentation [Was: Simple, adjustable timer]

2015-03-25 Thread richshoop
, 23 Mar 2015 21:59:04 -0600 From: Gregg Eshelman g_ala...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [Emc-users] Ladder logic documentation [Was: Simple, adjustable timer] To: emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: 5510e108.2010...@yahoo.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 3/23

Re: [Emc-users] Ladder logic documentation [Was: Simple, adjustable timer]

2015-03-23 Thread Rick
I managed to get lost in this thread, what ladder component is in question here? I rely heavily on Classicladder in my machines, averaging over 200 rungs per machine, and am curious as to what may be possibly wrong. Thanks Rick On 3/23/2015 8:33 AM, Mark Wendt wrote: On Mon, Mar 23,

Re: [Emc-users] Ladder logic documentation [Was: Simple, adjustable timer]

2015-03-23 Thread Mark Wendt
http://www.vdwalle.com/Norte/Classic%20Ladder%20Examples.html Section 1.1 Basic Ladder Basic Concepts On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Rick r...@superiorroll.com wrote: I managed to get lost in this thread, what ladder component is in question here? I rely heavily on Classicladder in my

Re: [Emc-users] Ladder logic documentation [Was: Simple, adjustable timer]

2015-03-23 Thread Erik Christiansen
On 23.03.15 08:33, Mark Wendt wrote: So, following that logic, off is on, and on is off. ;-) Taking such facetiousness at face value, I think the real situation is: OFF is on and off, and ON is on and off where OFF/ON is input, and on/off is output, with no and nc contacts simply being the

[Emc-users] Ladder logic documentation [Was: Simple, adjustable timer]

2015-03-23 Thread Erik Christiansen
On 23.03.15 05:49, Mark Wendt wrote: On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Erik Christiansen wrote: Though I am a logic kinda guy, not a ladder wielder, I interpret the off to refer to the B0 coil, not one of its contacts, which may be NC or NO. That makes a NC contact an inverted output which

Re: [Emc-users] Ladder logic documentation [Was: Simple, adjustable timer]

2015-03-23 Thread Erik Christiansen
On 23.03.15 07:30, Mark Wendt wrote: On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Erik Christiansen wrote: Try it as I describe, and the diagram and text should align without any clashing of mental gears. The logic still doesn't match up with the simple switch diagram. And yet you show yourself that

Re: [Emc-users] Ladder logic documentation [Was: Simple, adjustable timer]

2015-03-23 Thread Mark Wendt
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Erik Christiansen dva...@internode.on.net wrote: On 23.03.15 07:30, Mark Wendt wrote: On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Erik Christiansen wrote: Try it as I describe, and the diagram and text should align without any clashing of mental gears. The

Re: [Emc-users] Ladder logic documentation [Was: Simple, adjustable timer]

2015-03-23 Thread Dave Cole
It can actually be a lot more complicated than that now.The newer PLCs can have multiple outputs in one rung and they don't have to be driven by a singular logical result. They can also have embedded numerical comparisons, one shot / edge instructions, counters and timers. The logic can

Re: [Emc-users] Ladder logic documentation [Was: Simple, adjustable timer]

2015-03-23 Thread Dave Cole
The example is properly described. The example shows a normally closed contact and then two parallel contacts next which are normally open. The output coil drives one of the parallel contacts so the logic line is basically a start/stop logic rung with a seal in contact. In the old PLC

Re: [Emc-users] Ladder logic documentation [Was: Simple, adjustable timer]

2015-03-23 Thread Mark Wendt
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Erik Christiansen dva...@internode.on.net wrote: On 23.03.15 05:49, Mark Wendt wrote: On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Erik Christiansen wrote: Though I am a logic kinda guy, not a ladder wielder, I interpret the off to refer to the B0 coil, not one of

Re: [Emc-users] Ladder logic documentation [Was: Simple, adjustable timer]

2015-03-23 Thread Gregg Eshelman
On 3/23/2015 7:37 AM, Erik Christiansen wrote: On 23.03.15 08:33, Mark Wendt wrote: So, following that logic, off is on, and on is off. ;-) Taking such facetiousness at face value, I think the real situation is: OFF is on and off, and ON is on and off where OFF/ON is input, and on/off is