Jump to content

tmoulder

External Moderators
  • Posts

    194
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

tmoulder last won the day on December 4 2013

tmoulder had the most liked content!

About tmoulder

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

tmoulder's Achievements

UniGuru

UniGuru (4/4)

6

Reputation

  1. Hi Ausman, It is being used as it was meant - operator interface, and I did consider that. There is something there however that also references your second question. There are two weld stations on this machine, let's call them WS1 and WS2. The V570 is positioned in an operator box that is mounted slightly to the right of the entire machine. WS1's welder is only 3-4 feet from the V570, but it never produces this problem. WS2 is about 10 feet from the V570, and it's the one that causes the issue. Granted, that not a lot of range difference, but if the design of the V570 were the suspect, I would think it would error out with either or both welders. But no, it's only the furthest one. That's the reason I've been focusing on mitigating the RF noise. It's frustrating because I feel like the answer is staring me in the face, (the difference between the welders), and somehow I'm missing it.
  2. Hi Kratmel, Thank you for the information. Do you have an example or source for a "standard TIG filtering system"? I've searched google and can't seem to find anything. Is this something that can be added to an existing welding system? It can't be as simple as throwing some ferrite chokes on the wires... can it? Thanks, TM
  3. Hello All, I have a robotic welding application, using a Unitronics V570 with ethernet communications to a motion controller, 2 robots and a camera system, all Modbus TCP. About a year ago, we switched the plasma welder on the line to TIG welders. This was an enormous cost savings over the old ones, which were obsolete anyhow. Buuuuttt... (You knew there was a "but" coming somewhere, didn't you?) Since the conversion we have had an intermittent-but-persistent problem where when one of the welders strikes, it knocks out the ethernet communications. The TIG torch uses a burst of RF to establish the arc, and this is the moment the drop takes place, if it happens at all, which it can go weeks without happening, and then it comes raging back. I've taken a plethora of steps to try and correct this issue: The machine is more heavily grounded than my smart-alec teenage daughters. I've checked the paths to ground for everything on the system, and I cannot find anything I've missed in terms of grounding. Shielded Cat5e cables throughout, then took the additional step of replacing those with fiber optics. The longest single conventional cable is now 2 meters in length, and isolated from the rest of the system. Replaced the V570 and the ethernet card. In terms of troubleshooting, I added some counters to the PLC program, and it appears the the link is being lost. It reconnects automatically, but by then, it's burned a hole in the part. For mitigation, I switched some of the responsiblity for the welding movement from the PLC to the motion controller, so even if communication is lost for 1 second, the welding process continues unabated, and comms are restored before the weld move finishes. The nature of the drop (link lost) makes me think the issue is somewhere with the PLC itself. The fiber optic convertor for it is located in the same operator panel, connected by a 1 meter shielded cable, all contained within a fully grounded enclosure. I'm thinking a different ethernet card may be in order. I've pack-ratted several of these over the years, but can someone explain to me the difference between the V200-19-ET1, the V200-19-ET2, and the V200-ET-E? And is there some version that offers more robust performance for electrically noisy environments? Thanks! TM
  4. After several weeks, I finally got Visilogic working again. I went through the uninstall / reinstall process with a fine-toothed comb, and this time it took. I haven't tried Version Swapper yet, I'm mostly afraid to. Maybe next month
  5. So I tried out an adapter. It seems to work okay with Win7 on bare metal, but was almost completely incompatible with a virtual machine. I guess I'm going to have to learn to live with a serial port... argh...
  6. Thanks guys, My sockets are tied up doing real-time communications to a couple of robots, a camera system, and now a motion controller, all on Modbus TCP. The latency of a juggling scheme would be fatal. And I would give my last remaining tooth for the V700 to be available in a V570 form factor. So I guess I'll pick out an adapter and see how far I get. I'll keep you posted on the results. Thanks again! TM
  7. Just read the Wine (Windows Layer for Linux) is introducing WinePak, a flatpak for running windows applications on linux. I wonder if this could be a possiblity? I hate Windows anyhow...
  8. Greeting all! I am about to start a Visilogic project on an existing machine that will force me to surrender my last available ethernet socket, and it is causing me great emotional anguish. I was considering a serial to wifi adapter to allow me to at least keep my precious wireless connectivity, even if it means sacrificing overall communication speed. Has anybody else done this successfully, and if so, what did you use? Thanks! TM
  9. Hello All, So I've now tried to install Visilogic on 3 laptops in total, one running Windows 7 and 2 running Windows 10. I have three versions I am working with, 9.8.65 (latest) and 9.8.0 and 9.7.0 under Swapper. The Windows 7 laptop, after installing according to directions, including ripping Visilogic out completely and a fresh install, I cannot get 9.8.65 or 9.7.0 to work. Both throw the Runtime Error 9 subscript. Strangely, 9.8.0 loads fine. On the first Windows 10 (an Asus tablet, woefully underpowered), I can get 9.8.65 and 9.8.0 to work, but 9.7.0 throws an error. On the second Windows 10 laptop (an also-underpowered HP) I can get 9.8.0 to work, but neither of the others. So at this point, running any Visilogic reliably means loading up an XP virtual machine and running from in there, with all the performance hit that entails. I normally use Ubuntu linux at home, and I've been running apps in both Flatpak and Snap container formats. Windows doesn't support either of these (naturally) but it does support Docker. I am wondering how feasible it would be to provide Visilogic in a container, and if that would clear away some of the problems we keep having with version changes and OS updates breaking our system? Just an idea. Thanks!
  10. Hi Ausman, The original problem surfaced running on bare-metal Windows 7. I installed Visilogic into a Virtual Machine to mitigate the problem and be able to work on my equipment again. I haven't tried any compatibility mode changes yet, had a terrible experience with that many years ago. Things have probably (?) improved since then, so I may take another shot at it. Thanks for all the help! TM
  11. Thanks for the ideas guys, but it didn't help. It's not a swapper issue, this is all on Visilogic 65. I ripped it out with Revo, rebooted and reinstalled, still throws the error. Currently running Vsilogic under an XP virtual machine.
  12. I'm having the exact same problem, right after a Windows update (Win 7). I am an admin on my local machine, but following the instructions and shutting off the UAC made no difference at all. Help!
  13. Hello Unigurus! A small (hopefully simple) suggestion - give us the option to add a 1-pixel black border to HMI items, such as raised buttons and recessed indicators. Especially on certain color schemes, it gives a much cleaner look.
  14. Hi Cara! Form factor is an issue for me, this is an existing installation, with 30+ complex screens that I don't want to have to redraw. Changing the ladder program to accommodate a different sort of ethernet card would be just fine though. As for market demand, pretty sure folks have been asking for more than 4 sockets since the V280 days Thanks! Edit: On a related note, on this very project of which I speak, I have two robots and a vision system connected on Modbus TCP. I have one socket left (Socket 1) for programming via wireless router. Due to some obsolete servo drives, I are now moving to a different motion scheme, which involves a separate motion controller that connects via - you guessed it - Modbus TCP. Bye-bye convenient wireless programming, hello serial port. So this one is kind of a big deal for me, personally.
×
×
  • Create New...