The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: "Kevin Carney"
Subject: Re: Avoiding PLCs
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 07:28:59 -0400
Organization: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont, USA
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Oct 2002 11:24:31 GMT
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700
I am just lurking but here is my $ 2 (adjusted for inflation) . With all
the rapid changes in the P.C. market (operating systems, hardware changes,
etc.), Why would a company want to put a PC as the controller for a machine
they may use for 15 years ? What if the PC poops after 3 years, you won't be
able to get the same interface cards to work with a new operating system ?
My thoughts are that the latest and greatest every 6 months, obsoleting a 3
year old PC has killed the PC market. People aren't going to spend $ 1500
every 2-3 years for the latest & greatest.
My opinion only !!!!!
Unfiltered email = firstname.lastname@example.org
"We ought always to know precisely why a given job
is done in a particular way, and why it is done at
all, and why it can't be done more efficiently,
if it must be done at all."-- T.J.Watson
"Walter Driedger" wrote in message
> When I specify that all PLCs on my project shall be make and model XYZ,
> can be sure I will not accept some customized PC on a board with
> in C.
> Let me put it this way, if your job was to supply vehicles and I insisted
> that all cars be Toyota, I would not accept a GM dump truck as a
> work-around. But I will not be arguing with you. You won't be hearing
> me at all if I get the impression that I am being jerked around in that
> Your suggestion of using a PC with custom programming is EXACTLY why we
> insist on a specific make and model of PLC in the first place. One more
> time, WE DO NOT WANT SPECIALIZED HARDWARE AND WE DO NOT WANT SPECIALIZED
> "Rufus V. Smith" wrote in message
> > "Reed Blake" wrote in message
> > >
> > > "JohnS" wrote in message
> > > news:...
> > > > We have run into a problem, hope someone here can make a helpful
> > > > suggestion! We have a digital control system which is fairly easily
> > > > using a plc. (Lots of interlock logic, timers, 4/20 mA circuits, 4
> > > > display, etc) Unfortunately every customer then seems to insist that
> > > > build using the make of controller already in use by them. In order
> > > avoid
> > > > this I am looking for modular electronic systems that we can program
> in C
> > > or
> > > > whatever so we can avoid using a PLC, but still have the flexibility
> > > add
> > > > I/O etc as required.
> > >
> > > Check out the ICL-4300 from Industrial Control Links. I haven't used
> > > researched it for a project a few years ago.
> > > http://www.iclinks.com/Products/IntelligentRtu/IntelligentRtu.html
> > >
> > > You could also use a National Instruments FieldPoint system, with one
> > > their intelligent controllers.
> > > http://www.ni.com
> > >
> > If you want to go SBC (single board computer) you can check out:
> > http://sourceforge.net/projects/mat/
> > Which is an attempt to create an Open Source PLC-Like system to
> > run on Linux.
> > One interesting commercial system (which may be overkill):
> > www.mnrcan.com
> > Rufus
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup