Jump to content

Jazz, M91 PLCs and U90Ladder

Talk about issues related to Jazz, M91 PLCs, and the U90Ladder software

388 topics in this forum

  1. Flyback diode

    • 11 replies
    • 2,051 views
    • 0 replies
    • 1,358 views
    • 7 replies
    • 105 views
  2. 4-20mA sensor to 0-10V

    • 3 replies
    • 261 views
    • 3 replies
    • 62 views
    • 2 replies
    • 100 views
    • 1 reply
    • 52 views
    • 2 replies
    • 568 views
    • 12 replies
    • 142 views
    • 6 replies
    • 140 views
    • 10 replies
    • 222 views
  3. Mr.

    • 4 replies
    • 96 views
    • 1 reply
    • 88 views
    • 2 replies
    • 109 views
    • 1 reply
    • 102 views
    • 0 replies
    • 74 views
    • 0 replies
    • 64 views
    • 2 replies
    • 97 views
    • 5 replies
    • 314 views
    • 2 replies
    • 111 views
    • 2 replies
    • 147 views
    • 10 replies
    • 276 views
    • 8 replies
    • 354 views
    • 1 reply
    • 143 views
    • 1 reply
    • 163 views
  • Member Statistics

    4,177
    Total Members
    328
    Most Online
    Conny Frank
    Newest Member
    Conny Frank
    Joined
  • Topics

  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Posts

    • Puzzling.  Ensure that the cable is ok....actually try another two. Ensure that the Windows com port settings exactly match those of the plc.  I have had instances where things don't work if Windows isn't told, directly at the com port settings, what it should be doing. Failing that, perhaps Uninstall U90 and all associated drivers and start again. cheers, Aus
    • Joe, that is a great page at B+B, and a great section it is  in.  In all the time I've occasionally used their products I've never even noticed the "learning center". cheers, Aus
    • Dan-  You are really going to be freaked out when you realize Unitronics allows multiple coil stacking and curvy logic joints-   If your primary focus has been the various flavors of RSLogix, I totally understand your irritation with the Unitronics way.    After I originally read your post I considered the packages I've also programmed- AB SLC500 + uLogix, PLC 5, RSLogix 5000, Omron, Mitsubishi, Idec, Siemens, and the Modicon x84 series.  As you state, it seems to be a toss-up as to rung-starting methodology.  None of them were especially difficult to figure out with the exception of Omron, with it's little key-initiated edit/insert mode that's not really explained anywhere.  And no subroutines, just a continuation of segments.  I hated working with that product. In the BeforeTime, when there were only two real PLCs in the US market (AB and Modicon), it's interesting to note that AB always used the rung-and-branch method while Modicon used the 7 x 11 network method.  You could have up to 7 contacts hanging on the rail with interconnecting logic This was the comment that raised my eyebrows- Especially on your first post. This software is free.  All of it.  Always has been.  So is the forum.  And support requests.  It does work, albeit with some quirky nuances.  I was just quoted $950 for an additional FactoryTalk View ME license to allow me to program the $5,000 PanelView Plus I just bought.  Add that to my $800 annual TechConnect contract.  It's one thing to pay for software, it's another thing to get totally bent over for it. Hopefully you can get past the software weirdness and find the product to be a good and cost-effective solution.    Joe T.   
    • ==> dB: Ask around and you will find that there are multiple ways of coding a valid solution.  You will also run into designers who express the opinion that to not do it their way constitutes at least poor if not "extremely poor" programming .  The more extreme the response, the more questionable the advice. => Ausman: Aren't you doing just that? No, I am not.  I said that there are multiple valid solutions to a problem.  At this point I made no comment about anyone's specific code. ==> dB: Your rung 9 example above will work just fine but looks wonky.  I blame that on the software.  A rung should have only a single connection to the left-hand rail, and the software should not allow more that.  For that matter, it should allow only a single connection to the right-hand rail. I said C_R_PLC's code is a valid, if unorthodox, solution. I expressed my opinion that his style is not good practice and indeed should not be allowed by the software. I agreed with Flex727's solution to rewrite the rung using a single connection point with the LH rail. ==> dB: Regarding the need for SB 1 on rung 26 in Flex727's example above, I would say that is is unnecessary.  If it turns out that without it the resulting logic does not perform as intended, that is a serious flaw in the software suite and if not addressed by Unitronics would cause me to look elsewhere for my PLC solutions.  I am confident that that is not necessary. => Ausman: So on one hand you are saying there should only be a single connection to the LH rail allowed by the software, yet when Flex does this the most practical way you complain about it????  And you also say rung 9 will work just fine, going against your advice?  Flex sugggested separating the rungs out but also offered alternatives. => Ausman: Discussion is welcomed on the forum, but nitpicking using conflicting statements within a post is not very helpful to anyone. Your welcome is appreciated, but realize that meaningful discussion necessarily involves diverse opinions. I wasn't nitpicking anything.  I said contact SB 1 was unnecessary; I did not say it was wrong.  This is called discussion. I suggested a different, IMO better, way to code rung 9.  How is it going against my advice to acknowledge that the original method would work?  I am not afraid to say that someone else's style would work. Yes, Flex offered an alternative solution., and I commented on it.  More discussion. As explained above, there is no conflict in my original post. By the way, I checked with seven different PLC programming suites I have used in the past, Unitronics being the latest one.  Three of them would allow a rung to make multiple connections to the left or right rail.  Four of them would allow only a single contact point.  I guess you know my preference.  🙂
    • Yes, i did use it. No solution for now.
  • Blog Entries

×