Jump to content


UniStream & UniLogic Beta
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Damian

  1. A bit of a weird situation with the unit in title. It is installed and working as you would expect (new application, just programmed this week), but I noticed some odd noises coming from it. I disconnected all the connectors and cables except for the 24VDC supply and it still makes the noise. When I cycle power to it, it is quiet up until it completely finished booting and then runs the application. As soon as the application starts running, the unit starts making the crackle sound again. There are not any relay IO, so it can't be a chattering contact. It is hard to tell if it is the spe
  2. And this is a question for Unitronics. Why can we not assign an ML to the encoder count?? Heck, I've used encoders before that have more than 90000 counts in one rev. An MI doesn't get it done.
  3. The question was, what do YOU have them set to? Anyhow ........ MI0 is your encoder count. All MI have a range of -32768 to +32767. That means the largest value you can measure in MI0 is 32767. In your code you multiply that by 0.00293 So, 0.00293 * 32767 = 96.00731 Once it passes 32767 it will jump to -32768, so you immediately jump to negative numbers. So it is NOT counting back down. It is infact counting back up from -96. You need to set the encoder rollover point and then either have it automatically reset, or use the marker pulse on the encoder to reset it. You then need to k
  4. Just to put some numbers to this to give the OP a sense of timing. Using a V570 (fastest CPU) and dedicating connections to a single slave each, I can perform a full read and write cycle to 4 slaves in on average 15ms. That is, I can read and write to all four slaves in under 12.5 to 20ms. It peaks out at 20ms and occasionally I might get one 22.5ms cycle hear or there. Not deterministic of course. Now as an example, and I decide to multiplex one socket and talk to all four slaves that way you will find that it takes about 100ms to establish the connection. And this is for each slave. O
  5. It sounds as though there are some severe isolation issues with with the hardware. It does not sound like ports1 and ports 2 of the v1210 are isolated. I am curious if you just have a defective piece of hardware, or if this is a problem (like Joe suspects) with that entire line of cables.
  6. Keith, Good to know (well, good to be aware anyhow.). Curious, were you using a laptop? If so, were you running off the battery or did you have it plugged in?
  7. Hi Simon, For what it is worth, I think it is a great idea. D
  8. Simon, That is really great information to know. I would not have expected it to affect scan time to that degree. As you pointed out, most projects don't require a super fast scan time, so I hardly ever notice. Thanks for the info! Damian
  9. Hi Simon, One other trick to measure the scan time is to use the Interval function backards. If you Put the Interval End function in a subroutine that is scanned once every PLC update, and the Interval Start function just after that, it will include the entire scan time. If you want it to exclude the time spent executing ladder code, just put the End in the very first network, and the Start as the very last block executed. Have you come up with any numbers regarding the speed of the V570 VS the V1040/V1210? I am curcious if the V1040 or V1210 might in fact run a bit slower than the V5
  10. Hi Emil, You have nothing to appologize for. I like the fact that your direct and blunt and not afraid to speak your mind. I enjoy this forum, and you have played a key role in making it what it is. I think of it almost as a "Hitchhikers Guide to the Unitronics". I very rarely run into a problem that I have to ask for help with, and this is because more often than not the answers lie somewhere here in this or the old forum. You are an asset to the company. Please don't ever feel you need to choose your word's carefully with me. I tend to forget that the EX-A2X exists. Looking back
  11. Hi Emil, I sympathize with you when it comes to people coming to you with their problems. I started out in tech support, and as an integrator that role never really vanishes. The vast majority of the time it was quite simply the customer's fault and rarely a legitimate issue with the equipment. Either they didn't read the documentation, didn't follow instructions, or simply were not qualified to be doing what they were doing. However ...... if everything went perfect and nobody ever did anything wrong......... If customers didn't need help, then your job, as it exists right n
  12. Hi Joe, I agree. If you need a lot of IO at that location, the EX-RC1 makes good sense. If you only need a handful of IO it can sometimes be more cost effective going with the likes of a V120-22-RC6, which is cheaper than getting a EX-RC1 and an IO-DI8-R08 for practically the same IO. Then you get a Bonus screen to boot for displaying status or maybe as a remote HMI as well as bonus comm ports. The fact that the EX_RC1 isn't battery backed might also sway that decision. Not certain why Emil is adamant about using a Unitronics made expansion cable. At the end of the day it is just
  13. Food for thought, You could get another small Uni with CAN and go UniCan between that and the V1040. then use a short expansion cable to you remote I/O, or, if there is enough, jsut use the I/O on the Uni. In this way you could use the Uni as a passthtough with the fringe benefit of having a remote HMI. D
  14. Damian

    FOSS Logic

    TM, I think it is a great idea. Look forward to seeing it! Damian
  15. Why would they make it exclusive to the V230/250? There are Siemens HMI's in the area that I could replace with a V570 if they had profibus.
  16. Could you post a pic of the before and after so we can understand what you mean?
  17. Have you done a cross reference to check if you accidently created a duplicate coil elsewhere?
  18. Phil, Great article. I think this feature is often overlooked because it is assumed that it isn't allowed. Some also look at it unfavorably because if you are not careful with your coding you could create a lot of havoc. From my perspective, that is true no matter what your doing. Hopefully some day Unitronics will address it in the documentation so that users can gain a better level of comfort with it.
  19. Hi Simon, I have used this structure myself several times when it was necessary to complete a series of iterations within one scan. I can say with a large degree of certainty that it in fact does prolong the scan it is on and not simply start back at the jump label. In the old Forum you will see a topic call "Implementation of FOR loop" (or something like that) where I reference having actually made a test program that allowed me to determine the effect on scan time as iterations increased (or complexity of the loop). Although Unitronics does not explicitly state that "jumping back" is al
  • Create New...