If you were doing it again - BRX with distributed I/O

[stoic-one]

Greetings folks

Since I'm basically lazy, and not very creative, I thought I'd see if anyone besides myself had learned from previous projects and seen the light. 

I'm trying to determine the most efficient/easiest way to implement multi-control panel distributed I/O using the BRX.
In the past, pre-BRX, I've used  T1H-DM1E processors with T1H-EBC100's to extend reach and I/O capacity in various systems. I might have a hundred or so I/O points local to the processor, and another hundred or so I/O points in a remote panel inside the same MCC.

I'm not averse to doing something similar with the BRX, which can accept up 8 cards, and using T1H-EBC100 or D2 style I/O using an H2-EBC100/BX-EBC100/BX-DMIO, to add I/O remote from the panel where the processor is located. Preference between DMIO vs EBC?

Anyone have good or bad experiences using the above method, or have a preferred setup? Help save me from myself 

[ADC Product Engineer]

Why not use BX-DMIO and keep the whole thing BRX?   Going to be a lot cheaper than Terminator or DirectLogic for expansion.

[stoic-one]

Well that's kind of my question too, because the BX-EBC100 also uses BRX I/O as well.

I mean, what's the real difference here?

[franji1]

BX-EBC100 can be a slave to anything that talks EBC100 or Modbus/TCP, in addition to Do-more, e.g. H2-ERM100 with a DL 260 CPU can master a BX-EBC100.  a Modbus/TCP Master can master a BX-EBC100 w/a bunch of BX I/O.  And, of course, it can be a Do-more Ethernet I/O slave to any Do-more Ethernet CPU (H2-DM1E, T1H-DM1E, or BX-DM1E, even the Simulator running on your PC).

BX-DMIO is JUST for Do-more.  It does NOT do Modbus/TCP.  It does NOT do EBC100 protocol.  Hence, it can only be a slave to BX-DM1E, H2-DM1E, T1H-DM1E, or the Simulator.

They both support the same set of I/O modules (like you stated).  Just BX-EBC100 has more possibilities to work with other Master types.  If you are looking to have different type systems, some with H2-ERM100, and some with Do-more Ethernet I/O, but you want to standardize all your Ethernet I/O as BRX, you may want to choose the BX-EBC100 since it could work with either type Master.  However, if you are going straight Do-more Ethernet I/O Master, use the BX-DMIO.

[stoic-one]

Fair, if I "needed" to mix them, are there any performance differences?

[franji1]

Fair, if I "needed" to mix them, are there any performance differences?

That's more of a function of the Master than the Slave.  If the Master is doing Modbus/TCP on an BX-EBC100 vs. a Do-more doing Do-more Ethernet I/O to a BX-DMIO, the Do-more is optimized - it also knows about the scaling, ranges, etc.  You would have to do any scaling by hand w/Modbus/TCP.

If both Masters are Do-more Ethernet I/O, then BX-EBC100 and BX-DMIO should be identical.

[brucek]

If i was going to start over I would use BRX everything, we still have a few dl260's out there. I use the bx-DMIO for all my remote bases because i use Do more for everything now and that is cheaper then the ebc100 and does what i want it to.

 I also have had some trouble with with the Terminator I/O 120v input cards but we didn't have coil suppression on the coils but the rating of the bx over the t1h is a big difference. even without suppression i haven;t lost a bx input yet. The best part of the T1H stuff is you just have to keep adding a power supply and you can go on forever, i just don't find it as robust as the bx.

[stoic-one]

I appreciate the input brucek.

I don't think I've had too many issues with the Terminator I/O, but for some problems associated with platform/panel vibration shaking them apart... 

[www.SystemsIntegrator.mobi]

BX-DMIO works good for running servos for me which I translate as theres not alot of EMF kinda stuff disturbing your wires