RE: PLC Question

[duc . do]

John Metsker experienced some unknown problems posting his message to the
list, so I'm trying to see if I can do it for him. Let's hope the server
doesn't pass all of his postings now, including this one. Anyway, here
goes

Duc


~

From: John Metsker
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 6:28 PM
To: 'Foxboro DCS Mail List'
Subject: RE: PLC Question

List,

I have been meaning to chime in on this topic, but I was "stuck" on the road
when it was first raised and I have struggling to catch up on a lot of
things ever since.

>I have nine overloaded AB30's connected to one PLC-3 that I plan on
updating
>to a ControlLogix 5550.  This is absurd.  I would like to have something
>LIKE an AB30 (with no hard drives, moving parts, configure in ICC, ...) but
with
> a much larger capacity - like a CP60 communicating over Ethernet to
> ControlLogix.

We have been using the AW51 Integrator as a dedicated "Gateway 51's" since
the product was introduced.  The advantages are that it supports Ethernet
communications to AB PLCs and it utilizes Rockwell's API software
(Interchange) so it is not an entirely Foxboro developed integration
solution.  To improve robustness, we try to operate them as dedicated
control stations by limiting other AW functionality performed by the
station. For platform consistency and remote support, we have emphasized the
AW51 Integrator and not the AW70 Int.

Connectivity to Control Logix was achieved by simply loading the latest
version of Interchange (V6.2, not be confused with I/A version) and
configuring the necessary communications daemon.  It is very helpful to have
one Foxboro AB integration device that allows communications to CL, PLC5E,
SLC505, or any legacy DH+ based PLC via a Pyramid Integrator or CL gateway.

Yes, applications using Interchange function calls must utilize "PLC 5
style" addressing when communicating to a CL processor, but this needs only
be done for the data elements that I/A is  accessing.  The full freedom of
native CL addressing can not really be enjoyed since there is no existing
I/A input/output block that supports mixed data types.

>I actually purchased AB Interchange for Solaris and was considering
>installing it
>when I realized how much maintenance and configuration is required.  One of
>our plants does us this method and is not happy with the results.

Interchange runs as a pkgadd on Solaris and it really is just a "C" shared
library that gets linked to cio_cp.csx task that runs in the AW Int. when
the top-level ECB is created.  Configuration of the communications daemon
necessary to communicate to CL is straightforward and well documented by AB.
There is no additional maintenance necessary.

There are 3 layers of ECBs to configure, but straightforward and
understandable none the less.

> 6. AW51 or AW70 through an Ethernet interface with a third party OPC
> software which addresses data in the native ControLogic naming structure.

>This is what I will probably have to end up doing.  AW51 with a third party
>OPC server.  I just wish I didn't have go this way.  It has a hard drive,
has
>to be configured a couple of places instead of one, and I will have to deal
>with finger pointing when something goes wrong.

I would be the first person to agree that the utilizing a host box as a
control station is hardly an idealized solution.  I consider the current
AW51 Integrator product to be a fairly robust one, but having lived through
it's evolution and Foxboro's ability to support network communication to AB
PLCs, I would not consider a hard drive to be the weakest link of the
implementation.  I think that point can easily be balanced by the fact that
an open operating system is available where system and network diagnostics
are available and a fully supported vendor API (Interchange) is able to run.

I would definitely look to reduce product layers/interfaces to reduce the
potential for finger pointing, but I would never implement a system that
would eliminate AB-Rockwell as solution/support provider when the goal is to
communicate to AB PLCs.

Like any other non-fault tolerant control station, it is necessary to manage
the risk that is carried by a single station.  The large capacity AW
Integrator station image has a huge equivalent block capability (15,000),
but I would not recommend utilizing it.

My immediate wish is to have the Invensys I/A marketing people recognize the
use of an AW51 Int. as a dedicated PLC gateway and offer pricing for the
functionality utilized and not be penalized for the additional, full AW
functionality that comes bundled with it that I do not use.

A little commentary on the other solutions listed.

> 1. AB Integrator 30 to AB 1770-KF2 or 1779-KFL DH+ module in single or
> redundant ControLogix configuration.

Eth

RE: PLC Question

[John Miller]

The NEW aspect of David Johnson's comments regarding the alleged new
architecture is what prompted my question.  I remember the fun associated
with the Spectrum-I/A migration (Spectrum Master Gateway).  That's what
prompted my inquiry.  Everything you said was true and valid accurate, Alex,
IF we're not talking about an all new product. 
John Miller
Hunt Refining Company
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: Neil Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 3:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: PLC Question



Alex,

I think the threads concerning NT started when someone picked up on an ARC
note that seemed to be saying Foxboro was migrating towards a new
architecture - essentially Wonderware on I/A NT.  I wonder if some one in
Foxboro Marketing could clarify the issue concerning the future directions
of Foxboro I/A on Unix?


---
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]

RE: PLC Question

[Johnson, Alex (Foxboro)]

It is my understanding that further announcements will be made, but I'm not
sure when. It's beyond my knowledge - ask me something technical. :-)


I replied because I want everyone to understand that the issue of field
proven operation of MS Windows based operator and application stations for
the process industries is not an issue when the topic is an I/A Series
system.


We have product in the field and probably more of it and for a longer time
than anyone.



Regards,


Alex Johnson
10707 Haddington
Houston, TX 77043
713.722.2859 (office)
713.722.2700 (switchboard)
713.932.0222 (fax)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 


-Original Message-
From:   Neil Martin [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent:   Tuesday, September 18, 2001 3:30 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:RE: PLC Question


Alex,

I think the threads concerning NT started when someone picked up on
an ARC
note that seemed to be saying Foxboro was migrating towards a new
architecture - essentially Wonderware on I/A NT.  I wonder if some
one in
Foxboro Marketing could clarify the issue concerning the future
directions
of Foxboro I/A on Unix?






"Johnson, Alex (Foxboro)"

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   To:
Foxboro DCS Mail List
Sent by:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]cc:

oject.org>   Subject:
RE: PLC Question




09/18/01 02:48 PM

Please respond to "Foxboro

DCS Mail List"








Re: I will be able to make the choice of a Windoze based system that
has
logged a few hours running process facilities as opposed to helping
Invensys
with development.

Without trying to address all of the issues being covered by this
thread -
most of which are way beyond my purview, I must comment on this one
sentence. It seems to imply that we have no experience with MS
Windows in
the Process Control market.

My points are:


*  Foxboro/Invensys has been shipping I/A Series systems
with
Microsoft
Windows based WPs and AWs for as long or longer than any of our
competitors
and
*  All of our Microsoft Windows based stations are as
capable of
running a big plant as the corresponding Solaris system.

With regard to the first bullet, I'm pretty sure that our 70-Series
pre-dates Honeywell's GUS on Intel platforms and may be even on the
PowerPC
platform. I know it pre-dates Delta-V by several years.


In any case, while there are differences in the offered OSs and
their
capabilities, please bear in mind that different companies feel
differently
about operating systems and we believe that you should have a
choice.


One last item, I'd like to remind you of two of our guiding
principles. We
are committed:

*  To sell our customers what they want and
*  To support our products as long as they are needed by our
customers.



Thanks for your time. I appreciate the open and honest feedback from
you
folks. After all, you feed my family.



Regards,


Alex Johnson
10707 Haddington
Houston, TX 77043
713.722.2859 (office)
713.722.2700 (switchboard)
713.932.0222 (fax)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>










---
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]

---
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 

RE: PLC Question

[Neil Martin]

Alex,

I think the threads concerning NT started when someone picked up on an ARC
note that seemed to be saying Foxboro was migrating towards a new
architecture - essentially Wonderware on I/A NT.  I wonder if some one in
Foxboro Marketing could clarify the issue concerning the future directions
of Foxboro I/A on Unix?




   
   
"Johnson, Alex (Foxboro)"  
   
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   To: Foxboro DCS Mail List 
   
Sent by: 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]cc:   
   
oject.org>           Subject: RE: PLC Question 
   
   
   
   
   
09/18/01 02:48 PM  
   
Please respond to "Foxboro 
   
DCS Mail List" 
   
   
   
   
   



Re: I will be able to make the choice of a Windoze based system that has
logged a few hours running process facilities as opposed to helping
Invensys
with development.

Without trying to address all of the issues being covered by this thread -
most of which are way beyond my purview, I must comment on this one
sentence. It seems to imply that we have no experience with MS Windows in
the Process Control market.

My points are:


*  Foxboro/Invensys has been shipping I/A Series systems with
Microsoft
Windows based WPs and AWs for as long or longer than any of our competitors
and
*  All of our Microsoft Windows based stations are as capable of
running a big plant as the corresponding Solaris system.

With regard to the first bullet, I'm pretty sure that our 70-Series
pre-dates Honeywell's GUS on Intel platforms and may be even on the PowerPC
platform. I know it pre-dates Delta-V by several years.


In any case, while there are differences in the offered OSs and their
capabilities, please bear in mind that different companies feel differently
about operating systems and we believe that you should have a choice.


One last item, I'd like to remind you of two of our guiding principles. We
are committed:

*  To sell our customers what they want and
*  To support our products as long as they are needed by our
customers.



Thanks for your time. I appreciate the open and honest feedback from you
folks. After all, you feed my family.



Regards,


Alex Johnson
10707 Haddington
Houston, TX 77043
713.722.2859 (office)
713.722.2700 (switchboard)
713.932.0222 (fax)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>









---
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]

RE: PLC Question

[Johnson, Alex (Foxboro)]

Re: I will be able to make the choice of a Windoze based system that has
logged a few hours running process facilities as opposed to helping Invensys
with development.

Without trying to address all of the issues being covered by this thread -
most of which are way beyond my purview, I must comment on this one
sentence. It seems to imply that we have no experience with MS Windows in
the Process Control market.

My points are:


*   Foxboro/Invensys has been shipping I/A Series systems with Microsoft
Windows based WPs and AWs for as long or longer than any of our competitors
and 
*   All of our Microsoft Windows based stations are as capable of
running a big plant as the corresponding Solaris system.

With regard to the first bullet, I'm pretty sure that our 70-Series
pre-dates Honeywell's GUS on Intel platforms and may be even on the PowerPC
platform. I know it pre-dates Delta-V by several years.


In any case, while there are differences in the offered OSs and their
capabilities, please bear in mind that different companies feel differently
about operating systems and we believe that you should have a choice.


One last item, I'd like to remind you of two of our guiding principles. We
are committed:

*   To sell our customers what they want and
*   To support our products as long as they are needed by our customers.



Thanks for your time. I appreciate the open and honest feedback from you
folks. After all, you feed my family.



Regards,


Alex Johnson
10707 Haddington
Houston, TX 77043
713.722.2859 (office)
713.722.2700 (switchboard)
713.932.0222 (fax)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  


---
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]

RE: PLC Question

[Mike_Adams]

I sense the the concerned tone of Steve's reply.  I am not trying to denigrate
Foxboro or the Micro IA product for the sake of being negative.  I merely
relayed what our experience was with the product.

I did not say that the product was not _designed_ to support writes.  I said
that the write functions were sketchy, because they failed to work about 50% of
the time.   This was despite usage of the appropriate special I/O blocks.

If Foxboro tech support themselves A) can't make it work and B) told us as much
and C) could not fix it, perhaps the light of inquiry should be focused on the
product, and not its unsatisfied users.

There is yet one more item of note regarding the experience I described with the
Micro IA-A/B Ethernet interface.  Foxboro was so embarrassed at the product's
failure at our site that they swapped out the Micro IA/AW51/Ethernet system for
a full-on, total nodebus system consisting of AW51-E, full nodebus, 1x8 racks,
fiber optic nodebus extension, AB Station to talk to the A-B, and all required
cables, software, and licenses.   This exchange was done as an even swap at no
additional cost, so in effect we traded in a Ford Escort for a Mercedes Benz...
at the behest of the car dealers themselves.

Had the issue been one of improper implementation, I doubt that Foxboro's sales
department would have approved of the swapout.

As I mentioned in my earlier message, I do not know if Foxboro has fixed the
problem.  They may very well have done so, and thus I did not counsel the
original commentator to avoid Micro IA.

This list is intended for the exchange of experiences and knowledge concerning
Foxboro automation products.  I feel that the information I supplied fits that
intent.

Mike Adams
Mitsubishi Polyester Film, LLC
Greer, SC





From: "Golemme, Stephen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 09/18/2001 05:49 PM GMT

Please respond to "Foxboro DCS Mail List"
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


To:   Foxboro DCS Mail List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:(bcc: Mike USA9192 Adams/MFAP/USA)

Subject:  RE: PLC Question




As a matter of record, please be aware of some facts about Micro IA comm. w/
AB Ethernet:

1.  The station image for Micro IA communicating w/ AB Ethernet has just
been released this month.  Note, any prior release of this SW was either a
Beta image or other.

2.  Micro IA w/AB-Eth supports both reads & writes.

3.  There are specific I/O blocks that must be used to input/output data
across this link.  Reference B0193YQ for a description of these blocks.

Product Testimonial:
I was personally involved w/ an application Micro IA w/AB-EthNet - the Micro
IA had over 2100 blocks installed and running - this resulted in a station
loading of approx. 45% (8mb proc card in Micro)

FYI
Stephen Golemme


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 12:41 PM
To: Foxboro DCS Mail List
Subject: RE: PLC Question




>> 4. Micro I/A with AB Ethernet interface.

>This was actually something I was very interested in until I found out the
>true performance and it isn't much better than the AB30.  I would still end
up
>with many stations.

We tried the Micro I/A w/ AB Ethernet interface about 9 or 10 months ago.
It
handled reads fine, but writes were sketchy at best.  I messed with it for a
long time thinking I was overlooking something.  After some serious
heart-to-heart w/ Foxboro tech personnel, they admitted that the writes
never
worked properly for them either and they had no fixes for it.

I do not know if the problem has been fixed since then.

Mike Adams



---
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]

---
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]

RE: PLC Question

[Golemme, Stephen]

As a matter of record, please be aware of some facts about Micro IA comm. w/
AB Ethernet:

1.  The station image for Micro IA communicating w/ AB Ethernet has just
been released this month.  Note, any prior release of this SW was either a
Beta image or other.

2.  Micro IA w/AB-Eth supports both reads & writes.  

3.  There are specific I/O blocks that must be used to input/output data
across this link.  Reference B0193YQ for a description of these blocks.

Product Testimonial:
I was personally involved w/ an application Micro IA w/AB-EthNet - the Micro
IA had over 2100 blocks installed and running - this resulted in a station
loading of approx. 45% (8mb proc card in Micro)

FYI
Stephen Golemme


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 12:41 PM
To: Foxboro DCS Mail List
Subject: RE: PLC Question




>> 4. Micro I/A with AB Ethernet interface.

>This was actually something I was very interested in until I found out the
>true performance and it isn't much better than the AB30.  I would still end
up
>with many stations.

We tried the Micro I/A w/ AB Ethernet interface about 9 or 10 months ago.
It
handled reads fine, but writes were sketchy at best.  I messed with it for a
long time thinking I was overlooking something.  After some serious
heart-to-heart w/ Foxboro tech personnel, they admitted that the writes
never
worked properly for them either and they had no fixes for it.

I do not know if the problem has been fixed since then.

Mike Adams



---
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]

---
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]

RE: PLC Question

[Corey R Clingo]

One interesting thing is, that with at least two of the vendors you mentioned
(Emerson/Fisher-Rosemount and, at some point in the near future I believe,
Honeywell), their Windoze-based systems aren't just for small/medium size
applications.  They claim scalability from a one-rack SCADA setup to controlling
an entire large plant.  Whether they can stand behind these claims is a topic
for another discussion, but they do have a head start.

I think Invensys will probably want to similarly unify their product lines, to
save money if nothing else.  At least Wonderware has a good amount of Windoze
development experience, but their applications have been mostly smaller-scale,
low-cost stuff.  Unfortunately, I think Invensys is not going to tell us this
untill the last minute, in order to avoid alienating their Solaris I/A installed
base.  I also fear that we will be paying for development, in more ways than
one.  And you are right; if their migration story is akin to the one for
Spectrum->I/A, we will probably be talking to other vendors as well.

Corey





John Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 09/17/2001 01:55:06 PM

Please respond to Foxboro DCS Mail List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:   'Foxboro DCS Mail List' 

RE: PLC Question

[John Miller]

I've been wanting to ask this question for months, but the latest thread
regarding the new architecture makes it all the more relative. But first, is
Invensys abandoning I/A on Solaris? If all we're seeing is a refinement or
rethinking of Invensys' small/medium range product line, then I can continue
to recommend I/A for our new systems, provided that Solaris will still be
available in the future.

On the other hand, if I/A as we know it is going to be phase out, then
please, someone tell me why I shouldn't ask Emerson, Yokogawa or Honeywell
for a quote? I'm thinking that if I buy I/A, then eventually, I'll be pushed
into an advantage upgrade to their Wintel based system. If I go with
something like DeltaV, at least, I will be able to make the choice of a
Windoze based system that has logged a few hours running process facilities
as opposed to helping Invensys with development. Either way, unless someone
can convince me otherwise, I think I'll hold off making any more purchases
until the boys and girls in Foxboro can figure out what they're going to do.

John Miller
Hunt Refining Company
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: Matic.Hank [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 1:09 PM
To: 'Foxboro DCS Mail List'
Subject: RE: PLC Question


We've had I/A running since 1990 , the UNIX based system works quite well ,
I have absolutely no confidence on anything running on Microsoft. As for
Foxboro having problems with new software releases , yes they could do a
better job , when we first got our system there were no problems , seems
that the problems started when Foxboro started working with microsoft NT .
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with "unsubscribe foxboro" in the Subject. Or, send any mail to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

---
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]

RE: PLC Question

[Matic.Hank]

Title: RE: PLC Question





We've had I/A running since 1990 , the UNIX based system works quite well , I have absolutely no confidence on anything running on Microsoft. As for Foxboro having problems with new software releases , yes they could do a better job , when we first got our system there were no problems , seems that the problems started when Foxboro started working with microsoft NT .

-Original Message-
From: Corey R Clingo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 9:58 AM
To: Foxboro DCS Mail List
Subject: RE: PLC Question



Is it just me, or is this ridiculous?  Does their documentation say "writes
don't work well", "this is a read-only device", "good write performance is
option # xxx-yyy, call your account manager for details", or something?  Was
your product a beta version, and did you get a concomitant discount (preferably
free)?


This is about the third time I've heard or dealt with a Foxboro product that
wasn't ready for prime time.  One of these flaws (CP40B) have taken over a year
to fix.  Does Foxboro test anything before it goes out?  I've only been dealing
with I/A for about 10 months, and I like a lot of what it has to offer, but this
kind of thing makes me nervous, not only about my system, but about the company
in general.  And now they want to migrate everything to a new Micro$oft-based
marketecture - one which has been in development for 3 years and is still,
apparently, vapor.  (Oh, Microsoft - there's another outfit with a stellar
reputation for quality control).


I will say this: if I were bidding a system on a grass-roots plant, Invensys
wouldn't even get a call.  It's no wonder they are entertaining buyout offers...


Corey Clingo
Sr. Engineer
BASF Corporation




After some serious heart-to-heart w/ Foxboro tech personnel, they
admitted that the writes never worked properly for them either and
they had no fixes for it.


I do not know if the problem has been fixed since then.


Mike Adams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]








---
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]

RE: PLC Question

[Stan Ruth]

Unfortunately, Invensys is not the only one on the Microsoft bandwagon.
Honeywell, Emerson (Fisher), and the rest of the control system vendors are
all being led down the primrose path to Redmond.  This should scare us all,
given the blue screens of death that I have witnessed on Windows products.
Its one thing on my desktop where I'm doing spreadsheets and e-mail, but
quite another thing for mission critical process control.  Our Unix boxes
can run months or even years without a reboot (of course you have to figure
in software upgrades from Invensys that require a reboot) but I've never
seen a Microsoft operating system be able to claim that type of
reliability.  Well, maybe old MS-DOS at the C:\ prompt

Stan Ruth


   
 
Corey R Clingo 
 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  To: Foxboro DCS Mail List 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
Sent by: cc:   
 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]    Subject: RE: PLC Question 
 
oject.org> 
 
   
 
   
 
09/17/2001 09:57 AM
 
Please respond to "Foxboro 
 
DCS Mail List" 
 
   
 
   
 



Is it just me, or is this ridiculous?  Does their documentation say "writes
don't work well", "this is a read-only device", "good write performance is
option # xxx-yyy, call your account manager for details", or something?
Was
your product a beta version, and did you get a concomitant discount
(preferably
free)?

This is about the third time I've heard or dealt with a Foxboro product
that
wasn't ready for prime time.  One of these flaws (CP40B) have taken over a
year
to fix.  Does Foxboro test anything before it goes out?  I've only been
dealing
with I/A for about 10 months, and I like a lot of what it has to offer, but
this
kind of thing makes me nervous, not only about my system, but about the
company
in general.  And now they want to migrate everything to a new
Micro$oft-based
marketecture - one which has been in development for 3 years and is still,
apparently, vapor.  (Oh, Microsoft - there's another outfit with a stellar
reputation for quality control).

I will say this: if I were bidding a system on a grass-roots plant,
Invensys
wouldn't even get a call.  It's no wonder they are entertaining buyout
offers...

Corey Clingo
Sr. Engineer
BASF Corporation



After some serious heart-to-heart w/ Foxboro tech personnel, they
admitted that the writes never worked properly for them either and
they had no fixes for it.

I do not know if the problem has been fixed since then.

Mike Adams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]







---
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]






---
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 misha

RE: PLC Question

[Corey R Clingo]

Is it just me, or is this ridiculous?  Does their documentation say "writes
don't work well", "this is a read-only device", "good write performance is
option # xxx-yyy, call your account manager for details", or something?  Was
your product a beta version, and did you get a concomitant discount (preferably
free)?

This is about the third time I've heard or dealt with a Foxboro product that
wasn't ready for prime time.  One of these flaws (CP40B) have taken over a year
to fix.  Does Foxboro test anything before it goes out?  I've only been dealing
with I/A for about 10 months, and I like a lot of what it has to offer, but this
kind of thing makes me nervous, not only about my system, but about the company
in general.  And now they want to migrate everything to a new Micro$oft-based
marketecture - one which has been in development for 3 years and is still,
apparently, vapor.  (Oh, Microsoft - there's another outfit with a stellar
reputation for quality control).

I will say this: if I were bidding a system on a grass-roots plant, Invensys
wouldn't even get a call.  It's no wonder they are entertaining buyout offers...

Corey Clingo
Sr. Engineer
BASF Corporation



After some serious heart-to-heart w/ Foxboro tech personnel, they
admitted that the writes never worked properly for them either and
they had no fixes for it.

I do not know if the problem has been fixed since then.

Mike Adams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]







---
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]

RE: PLC Question

[Mike_Adams]

>> 4. Micro I/A with AB Ethernet interface.

>This was actually something I was very interested in until I found out the
>true performance and it isn't much better than the AB30.  I would still end up
>with many stations.

We tried the Micro I/A w/ AB Ethernet interface about 9 or 10 months ago.  It
handled reads fine, but writes were sketchy at best.  I messed with it for a
long time thinking I was overlooking something.  After some serious
heart-to-heart w/ Foxboro tech personnel, they admitted that the writes never
worked properly for them either and they had no fixes for it.

I do not know if the problem has been fixed since then.

Mike Adams



---
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]

RE: PLC Question

[Corey R Clingo]

We second that emotion (I'll be 70 before I buy a '70 :-)

We are currently in a similar situation trying to integrate some devices via an
OPC server, and looking at the 3rd-party approach as well.  I like the
"super-integrator" (CP60 with Ethernet comms) idea as well, although one of
those will probably never work for OPC.

We had I/O scan overruns on all 3 of our AB Integrator 30s.  I backed off the
scanning of most ABSCAN blocks on them to 2 secs or slower, which fixed the
problem on 2 of them, but not on the third.  I tried phasing out the points on
the third, but changing the phase caused the ABSCAN blocks to smurf, so we had
to punt on that (we sent a saveall to TAC and they were able to change phases
with no problem...sigh).  I can't understand the nature of the scan overruns, as
we are not scanning that many points.

It's too bad, really, because I like the transparency the Integrator provides.
The points appear to the operator just like a CP, so you don't have any training
issues - as you might, say,  with an all-HPM Honeywell TDC system with a PLC
Gateway.  But our crusty old PLC Gateways can scan hundreds of points per second
- to the bandwidth limit on the A-B DH+ - without problems.  Alas, I cannot say
that about Integrator 30s.

Corey Clingo
Sr. Engineer
BASF Corporation





"Stear, Bo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 09/14/2001 09:21:38 AM

Please respond to Foxboro DCS Mail List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:   'Foxboro DCS Mail List' 

RE: PLC Question

[Stear, Bo]

Hear Hear on the "70" bit...

-Original Message-
From: Glen Bounds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 9:15 AM
To: Foxboro DCS Mail List
Subject: Re: PLC Question


First, thanks for all the responses.

Second, I have issues with all of the listed methods of communication
from ControlLogix to I/A because of the following reasons:

> 1. AB Integrator 30 to AB 1770-KF2 or 1779-KFL DH+ module in single or
> redundant ControLogix configuration.

I have nine overloaded AB30's connected to one PLC-3 that I plan on updating
to a ControlLogix 5550.  This is absurd.  I would like to have something
LIKE
an AB30 (with no hard drives, moving parts, configure in ICC, ...) but with
a
much larger capacity - like a CP60 communicating over Ethernet to
ControlLogix.

> 2. AW51 or AW70 with Ethernet interface, FoxBlocks and AB Interchange or
> RSLinx software.

I actually purchased AB Interchange for Solaris and was considering
installing it
when I realized how much maintenance and configuration is required.  One of
our plants does us this method and is not happy with the results.

> 3. AW70 with DH+ interface, FoxBlocks and AB RSLinx software.

If it has a "70" anywhere in the model number, it will not reside in my
control
system.  (Sorry, Foxboro!)

> 4. Micro I/A with AB Ethernet interface.

This was actually something I was very interested in until I found out the
true
performance and it isn't much better than the AB30.  I would still end up
with
many stations.

> 5. AW70 with FoxBlocks and DDE I/O Gate through a serial or Ethernet
> interface which addresses data in the native ControLogic naming structure.

See answer for #3.

> 6. AW51 or AW70 through an Ethernet interface with a third party OPC
> software which addresses data in the native ControLogic naming structure.

This is what I will probably have to end up doing.  AW51 with a third party
OPC server.  I just wish I didn't have go this way.  It has a hard drive,
has
to be configured a couple of places instead of one, and I will have to deal
with finger pointing when something goes wrong.

So, in conclusion, I want a "CP60" like performance and form factor, with
the ability to configure C:B.P directly in ICC or FoxCAE communicating
over fast Ethernet.  We have many plants around the world that could use
this technology today.  Is that too much to ask?


Glen Bounds
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Corn Products International



- Original Message -
From: "Jason Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: PLC Question


> Glen,
>
> I don't think there is a real good answer, but I've seen it done. I have
> copied some old information I found below for reference (from Foxboro
tech).
> There are several options depending on the amount of data and type of
> communications. From the Foxboro perspective, the easiest way would be to
> communicate to the ControlLogix as a PLC-5. This would require a little
bit
> of configuration on the Rockwell side. I hope this is helpful.
>
> Regards,
> Jason
> ___
> Jason Wright
> Regional Technical Specialist
> ControlSoft
> (216) 397-3900 x201
>
>
> A-B ControlLogix PLC's
>
> Many Foxboro customers are purchasing the new Allen Bradley ControLogix
PLC
> and asking how would we interface it to I/A Series. The ControLogix
product
> is designed around their new ControlNet data highway and uses an object
> oriented data naming structure. Fortunately, Allen Bradley also supports
> Ethernet and DH+ with PLC5 data table structure so that all of our
> traditional interfaces can be used. When a data object (up to 40
characters
> in length) is created, a pull-down menu is available to assign the data
> object to a PLC5 data table. In addition, Allen Bradley will be
introducing
> a fault-tolerant ControLogix configuration with two processors and shared
> I/O. As a result, we can interface via the following methods:
>
> 1. AB Integrator 30 to AB 1770-KF2 or 1779-KFL DH+ module in single or
> redundant ControLogix configuration.
> 2. AW51 or AW70 with Ethernet interface, FoxBlocks and AB Interchange or
> RSLinx software.
> 3. AW70 with DH+ interface, FoxBlocks and AB RSLinx software.
> 4. Micro I/A with AB Ethernet interface.
> 5. AW70 with FoxBlocks and DDE I/O Gate through a serial or Ethernet
> interface which addresses data in the native ControLogic naming structure.
> 6. AW51 or AW70 through an Ethernet interface with a third party OPC
> software which addresses data in the native ControLogic naming structure.
>
> -Original Message-
> Subject: Re: PLC Question
>
>
> I for one would be interested in some more detailed information.
>
> I have asked Foxboro about this for a couple of years now with
> no results.
>
> Glen Bounds
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> C

Re: PLC Question

[Glen Bounds]

First, thanks for all the responses.

Second, I have issues with all of the listed methods of communication
from ControlLogix to I/A because of the following reasons:

> 1. AB Integrator 30 to AB 1770-KF2 or 1779-KFL DH+ module in single or
> redundant ControLogix configuration.

I have nine overloaded AB30's connected to one PLC-3 that I plan on updating
to a ControlLogix 5550.  This is absurd.  I would like to have something
LIKE
an AB30 (with no hard drives, moving parts, configure in ICC, ...) but with
a
much larger capacity - like a CP60 communicating over Ethernet to
ControlLogix.

> 2. AW51 or AW70 with Ethernet interface, FoxBlocks and AB Interchange or
> RSLinx software.

I actually purchased AB Interchange for Solaris and was considering
installing it
when I realized how much maintenance and configuration is required.  One of
our plants does us this method and is not happy with the results.

> 3. AW70 with DH+ interface, FoxBlocks and AB RSLinx software.

If it has a "70" anywhere in the model number, it will not reside in my
control
system.  (Sorry, Foxboro!)

> 4. Micro I/A with AB Ethernet interface.

This was actually something I was very interested in until I found out the
true
performance and it isn't much better than the AB30.  I would still end up
with
many stations.

> 5. AW70 with FoxBlocks and DDE I/O Gate through a serial or Ethernet
> interface which addresses data in the native ControLogic naming structure.

See answer for #3.

> 6. AW51 or AW70 through an Ethernet interface with a third party OPC
> software which addresses data in the native ControLogic naming structure.

This is what I will probably have to end up doing.  AW51 with a third party
OPC server.  I just wish I didn't have go this way.  It has a hard drive,
has
to be configured a couple of places instead of one, and I will have to deal
with finger pointing when something goes wrong.

So, in conclusion, I want a "CP60" like performance and form factor, with
the ability to configure C:B.P directly in ICC or FoxCAE communicating
over fast Ethernet.  We have many plants around the world that could use
this technology today.  Is that too much to ask?


Glen Bounds
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Corn Products International



- Original Message -
From: "Jason Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: PLC Question


> Glen,
>
> I don't think there is a real good answer, but I've seen it done. I have
> copied some old information I found below for reference (from Foxboro
tech).
> There are several options depending on the amount of data and type of
> communications. From the Foxboro perspective, the easiest way would be to
> communicate to the ControlLogix as a PLC-5. This would require a little
bit
> of configuration on the Rockwell side. I hope this is helpful.
>
> Regards,
> Jason
> ___
> Jason Wright
> Regional Technical Specialist
> ControlSoft
> (216) 397-3900 x201
>
>
> A-B ControlLogix PLC's
>
> Many Foxboro customers are purchasing the new Allen Bradley ControLogix
PLC
> and asking how would we interface it to I/A Series. The ControLogix
product
> is designed around their new ControlNet data highway and uses an object
> oriented data naming structure. Fortunately, Allen Bradley also supports
> Ethernet and DH+ with PLC5 data table structure so that all of our
> traditional interfaces can be used. When a data object (up to 40
characters
> in length) is created, a pull-down menu is available to assign the data
> object to a PLC5 data table. In addition, Allen Bradley will be
introducing
> a fault-tolerant ControLogix configuration with two processors and shared
> I/O. As a result, we can interface via the following methods:
>
> 1. AB Integrator 30 to AB 1770-KF2 or 1779-KFL DH+ module in single or
> redundant ControLogix configuration.
> 2. AW51 or AW70 with Ethernet interface, FoxBlocks and AB Interchange or
> RSLinx software.
> 3. AW70 with DH+ interface, FoxBlocks and AB RSLinx software.
> 4. Micro I/A with AB Ethernet interface.
> 5. AW70 with FoxBlocks and DDE I/O Gate through a serial or Ethernet
> interface which addresses data in the native ControLogic naming structure.
> 6. AW51 or AW70 through an Ethernet interface with a third party OPC
> software which addresses data in the native ControLogic naming structure.
>
> -Original Message-
> Subject: Re: PLC Question
>
>
> I for one would be interested in some more detailed information.
>
> I have asked Foxboro about this for a couple of years now with
> no results.
>
> Glen Bounds
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Corn Products International
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > Foxboro does not yet endorse connectivity to ControlLogix.
> >
> > We (FeedForward, a Foxboro Systems Integr

RE: PLC Question

[Stephen T. Woodworth]

Contact Gary Camfield at (918)258-2639 or [EMAIL PROTECTED]  He has
successfully installed ControlLogix on the AB30 Gateway.



---
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]

RE: PLC Question

[Golemme, Stephen]

Tie the ControlLogix into pc and send to the IA system via OPC over
ethernet.

We used the RS Linx OPC server & the IA OPC client running in an AW70x. 

Note: Invensys has just released an OPC server

-Original Message-
From: Jason Wright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 4:03 PM
To: Foxboro DCS Mail List
Subject: RE: PLC Question


Glen,

I don't think there is a real good answer, but I've seen it done. I have
copied some old information I found below for reference (from Foxboro tech).
There are several options depending on the amount of data and type of
communications. From the Foxboro perspective, the easiest way would be to
communicate to the ControlLogix as a PLC-5. This would require a little bit
of configuration on the Rockwell side. I hope this is helpful.

Regards,
Jason
___
Jason Wright
Regional Technical Specialist
ControlSoft
(216) 397-3900 x201


A-B ControlLogix PLC's

Many Foxboro customers are purchasing the new Allen Bradley ControLogix PLC
and asking how would we interface it to I/A Series. The ControLogix product
is designed around their new ControlNet data highway and uses an object
oriented data naming structure. Fortunately, Allen Bradley also supports
Ethernet and DH+ with PLC5 data table structure so that all of our
traditional interfaces can be used. When a data object (up to 40 characters
in length) is created, a pull-down menu is available to assign the data
object to a PLC5 data table. In addition, Allen Bradley will be introducing
a fault-tolerant ControLogix configuration with two processors and shared
I/O. As a result, we can interface via the following methods:

1. AB Integrator 30 to AB 1770-KF2 or 1779-KFL DH+ module in single or
redundant ControLogix configuration.
2. AW51 or AW70 with Ethernet interface, FoxBlocks and AB Interchange or
RSLinx software.
3. AW70 with DH+ interface, FoxBlocks and AB RSLinx software.
4. Micro I/A with AB Ethernet interface.
5. AW70 with FoxBlocks and DDE I/O Gate through a serial or Ethernet
interface which addresses data in the native ControLogic naming structure.
6. AW51 or AW70 through an Ethernet interface with a third party OPC
software which addresses data in the native ControLogic naming structure.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Glen Bounds
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 2:46 PM
To: Foxboro DCS Mail List
Subject: Re: PLC Question


I for one would be interested in some more detailed information.

I have asked Foxboro about this for a couple of years now with
no results.

Glen Bounds
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Corn Products International



- Original Message -
> Foxboro does not yet endorse connectivity to ControlLogix.
>
> We (FeedForward, a Foxboro Systems Integrator) have, however, successfully
> integrated the two for one of our customers.
> I was not directly involved with this project, but from my understanding,
it
> requires no more than entering the correct (but not intuitively obvious)
> parameters in the ABSCAN blocks, and also requires the setup of aliases in
> the ControlLogix processor.
>
> If you are interested, let me know and I can get you more detailed
> information by prodding a couple of co-workers.
>
>
> Mark Dumond
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Senior Applications Engineer
> FeedForward, Inc.
> 1341 Canton Road, Suite H1
> Marietta, GA  30066
>
>
> -Original Message-
> We have the 51A series of APs and WPs running 6.1.1 I/A software.  We have
> installed several AB30 Gateways that use KF2 modules for the AB interface
to
> PLC5s.  Now, we are considering to install a ControLogix PLC.  Does anyone
> have experience with this type of set up?




---
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]



---
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 li

RE: PLC Question

[Jason Wright]

Glen,

I don't think there is a real good answer, but I've seen it done. I have
copied some old information I found below for reference (from Foxboro tech).
There are several options depending on the amount of data and type of
communications. From the Foxboro perspective, the easiest way would be to
communicate to the ControlLogix as a PLC-5. This would require a little bit
of configuration on the Rockwell side. I hope this is helpful.

Regards,
Jason
___
Jason Wright
Regional Technical Specialist
ControlSoft
(216) 397-3900 x201


A-B ControlLogix PLC's

Many Foxboro customers are purchasing the new Allen Bradley ControLogix PLC
and asking how would we interface it to I/A Series. The ControLogix product
is designed around their new ControlNet data highway and uses an object
oriented data naming structure. Fortunately, Allen Bradley also supports
Ethernet and DH+ with PLC5 data table structure so that all of our
traditional interfaces can be used. When a data object (up to 40 characters
in length) is created, a pull-down menu is available to assign the data
object to a PLC5 data table. In addition, Allen Bradley will be introducing
a fault-tolerant ControLogix configuration with two processors and shared
I/O. As a result, we can interface via the following methods:

1. AB Integrator 30 to AB 1770-KF2 or 1779-KFL DH+ module in single or
redundant ControLogix configuration.
2. AW51 or AW70 with Ethernet interface, FoxBlocks and AB Interchange or
RSLinx software.
3. AW70 with DH+ interface, FoxBlocks and AB RSLinx software.
4. Micro I/A with AB Ethernet interface.
5. AW70 with FoxBlocks and DDE I/O Gate through a serial or Ethernet
interface which addresses data in the native ControLogic naming structure.
6. AW51 or AW70 through an Ethernet interface with a third party OPC
software which addresses data in the native ControLogic naming structure.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Glen Bounds
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 2:46 PM
To: Foxboro DCS Mail List
Subject: Re: PLC Question


I for one would be interested in some more detailed information.

I have asked Foxboro about this for a couple of years now with
no results.

Glen Bounds
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Corn Products International



- Original Message -
> Foxboro does not yet endorse connectivity to ControlLogix.
>
> We (FeedForward, a Foxboro Systems Integrator) have, however, successfully
> integrated the two for one of our customers.
> I was not directly involved with this project, but from my understanding,
it
> requires no more than entering the correct (but not intuitively obvious)
> parameters in the ABSCAN blocks, and also requires the setup of aliases in
> the ControlLogix processor.
>
> If you are interested, let me know and I can get you more detailed
> information by prodding a couple of co-workers.
>
>
> Mark Dumond
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Senior Applications Engineer
> FeedForward, Inc.
> 1341 Canton Road, Suite H1
> Marietta, GA  30066
>
>
> -Original Message-
> We have the 51A series of APs and WPs running 6.1.1 I/A software.  We have
> installed several AB30 Gateways that use KF2 modules for the AB interface
to
> PLC5s.  Now, we are considering to install a ControLogix PLC.  Does anyone
> have experience with this type of set up?




---
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]



---
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]

RE: PLC Question

[Mark Dumond]

Give me a couple of days, and I'll post the pertinent information.
Unfortunately, the engineer who worked on this is "stuck" at the ISA show in
Houston.


Mark Dumond
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Applications Engineer
FeedForward, Inc.
1341 Canton Road, Suite H1
Marietta, GA  30066



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Glen Bounds
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 2:46 PM
To: Foxboro DCS Mail List
Subject: Re: PLC Question


I for one would be interested in some more detailed information.

I have asked Foxboro about this for a couple of years now with
no results.

Glen Bounds
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Corn Products International



- Original Message -
> Foxboro does not yet endorse connectivity to ControlLogix.
>
> We (FeedForward, a Foxboro Systems Integrator) have, however, successfully
> integrated the two for one of our customers.
> I was not directly involved with this project, but from my understanding,
it
> requires no more than entering the correct (but not intuitively obvious)
> parameters in the ABSCAN blocks, and also requires the setup of aliases in
> the ControlLogix processor.
>
> If you are interested, let me know and I can get you more detailed
> information by prodding a couple of co-workers.
>
>
> Mark Dumond
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Senior Applications Engineer
> FeedForward, Inc.
> 1341 Canton Road, Suite H1
> Marietta, GA  30066
>
>
> -Original Message-
> We have the 51A series of APs and WPs running 6.1.1 I/A software.  We have
> installed several AB30 Gateways that use KF2 modules for the AB interface
to
> PLC5s.  Now, we are considering to install a ControLogix PLC.  Does anyone
> have experience with this type of set up?




---
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]


---
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]

RE: PLC Question

[Nadeau, Sylvain]

An AW70x with the OPC IOgate can connect to the AB RSLINX OPC Server.


Sylvain Nadeau
Systems Integration  & IT
Invensys Process Systems 
Foxboro Canada Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
514-421-8107
Fax:514-421-8054



-Original Message-
From: Jones, Charles R. (Chuck) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 12:26 PM
To: 'Foxboro DCS Mail List'
Subject: PLC Question


We have the 51A series of APs and WPs running 6.1.1 I/A software.  We have
installed several AB30 Gateways that use KF2 modules for the AB interface to
PLC5s.  Now, we are considering to install a ControLogix PLC.  Does anyone
have experience with this type of set up?  
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for
delivering the email to the intended recipient, be advised that you have
received this email in error that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this email in error please notify the sender immediately.

---
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]

---
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]

Re: PLC Question

[Glen Bounds]

I for one would be interested in some more detailed information.

I have asked Foxboro about this for a couple of years now with
no results.

Glen Bounds
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Corn Products International



- Original Message -
> Foxboro does not yet endorse connectivity to ControlLogix.
>
> We (FeedForward, a Foxboro Systems Integrator) have, however, successfully
> integrated the two for one of our customers.
> I was not directly involved with this project, but from my understanding,
it
> requires no more than entering the correct (but not intuitively obvious)
> parameters in the ABSCAN blocks, and also requires the setup of aliases in
> the ControlLogix processor.
>
> If you are interested, let me know and I can get you more detailed
> information by prodding a couple of co-workers.
>
>
> Mark Dumond
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Senior Applications Engineer
> FeedForward, Inc.
> 1341 Canton Road, Suite H1
> Marietta, GA  30066
>
>
> -Original Message-
> We have the 51A series of APs and WPs running 6.1.1 I/A software.  We have
> installed several AB30 Gateways that use KF2 modules for the AB interface
to
> PLC5s.  Now, we are considering to install a ControLogix PLC.  Does anyone
> have experience with this type of set up?




---
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]

Re: PLC Question

[Bakke, Richard A]

Chuck,
We have a 50-Series installation at ver. 6.3 (originally 6.2) running an
AB30FT with an A cable direct connect to the RS232 port on the front of a CL5550
PLC.  This is working well.  Since the CL5550 is all tag-based, we pass data by
setting up "n7" and "n9" arrays in the PLC simulating the PLC5 appearance to
I/A.  We are planning at least two more installations using this arrangement.  I
can send you ECB and ABScan Block details if you want.

My understanding is that you should alternatively be able to communicate
through the KF2 modules via Data Highway + modules in the CL5550 racks.  This
would allow multidropping to several PLC's.


Rich Bakke
Longview Fibre Co.



"Jones, Charles R. (Chuck)" wrote:

> We have the 51A series of APs and WPs running 6.1.1 I/A software.  We have
> installed several AB30 Gateways that use KF2 modules for the AB interface to
> PLC5s.  Now, we are considering to install a ControLogix PLC.  Does anyone
> have experience with this type of set up?
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
> solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
> If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for
> delivering the email to the intended recipient, be advised that you have
> received this email in error that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
> printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this email in error please notify the sender immediately.
>
> ---
> 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]


---
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]

RE: PLC Question

[Mark Dumond]

Foxboro does not yet endorse connectivity to ControlLogix.

We (FeedForward, a Foxboro Systems Integrator) have, however, successfully
integrated the two for one of our customers.
I was not directly involved with this project, but from my understanding, it
requires no more than entering the correct (but not intuitively obvious)
parameters in the ABSCAN blocks, and also requires the setup of aliases in
the ControlLogix processor.

If you are interested, let me know and I can get you more detailed
information by prodding a couple of co-workers.


Mark Dumond
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Applications Engineer
FeedForward, Inc.
1341 Canton Road, Suite H1
Marietta, GA  30066


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jones,
Charles R. (Chuck)
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 12:26 PM
To: 'Foxboro DCS Mail List'
Subject: PLC Question


We have the 51A series of APs and WPs running 6.1.1 I/A software.  We have
installed several AB30 Gateways that use KF2 modules for the AB interface to
PLC5s.  Now, we are considering to install a ControLogix PLC.  Does anyone
have experience with this type of set up?
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for
delivering the email to the intended recipient, be advised that you have
received this email in error that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this email in error please notify the sender immediately.

---
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]


---
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]