Poll: Other Do-more PLC Platforms

[KB1GNI]

I'll cast a "Larger than 205" vote for the red-headed stepchild, the 305 series. 

I like them - too bad more people don't.

[PLCGuy]

I am surprised you guys like the size of the 405 and 305 series. The only reason we used the 405 series was the modules could handle a larger current for outputs. Since most air valves and such use less wattage these days, I have been sticking with the 205. I love the 205 series for size and flexibility. The bricks not so much, if an output goes in the brick you have to replace the whole unit. Adding I/O is hard to do for the stack-able especially if you did not leave space to add. The 205 rack is there and you can add I/O if needed. Now for really small machines then the bricks or click type units are fine.

[Controls Guy]

Hey -- don't be lumping me in there with that 305 lover!  

As far as why I like the 405 size, I'm a big guy with big hands.  Plus I like old-fashioned open barrier wiring arms where I can see the wire go under the saddle, but I don't want to have to use low density modules to get them.

And I'm not saying I DON'T like the 205.  I once did a study on alternatives to use as Modbus remote I/O (to a SLC no less), and compared the candidates on the basis of points per unit panel area, points per unit volume, cost per point, and points per module.  I chose the 205 as the best fit for that design (against everything from 405's to Wago style terminal block I/O).  But in larger machines where space isn't so much of an issue, I think something in the 405/P3K/SLC form factor is sometimes the best answer.

Remember, "SLC" already stands for SMALL logic controller, down from the form factor of PLC-2/3/5's, TI5x0 and 5x5's, 984's, S5-115's, Omron C500's etc, and those were all like a foot tall!

[PLCGuy]

Sorry Controls Guy, did not mean to make you lumpy. The 205 is very cost effective indeed. It seems technology can make things smaller and smaller, but where do you stop. Too small and it is hard to wire or even read the labels. Good example is the cell phones, how small can you go until they are useless. I need the bigger screen. So I do not see cell phones getting to small where they become a pain to read the screen. Thinner yes, smaller no. Technology is also allowing more features in these smaller PLC's. In our smaller machines we still use the 205. Lots of air flow!

[Controls Guy]

It's cool, I wasn't really offended!   

The 205's a good machine, no doubt about it.  I use a lot of them.  But as an example of the point you were making -- I won't go below about 18AWG in some cases or 22AWG in others even though the wire is grossly oversized current-wise, just because it becomes a pain to work with and to label.

A development I find amusing (and I realize this isn't what YOU were saying, you just reminded me about it) is when they want to sell you something, a servo or a PLC, let's say.  They say "Yay, it's so much smaller and cheaper than the old version!  Think of all the money and panel space you'll save!" and you look at it and say, "Yeah, but where do the wires go?  All I see is this bazillion-pin Fujitsu connector with pins the size of human hair?"  "Oh, well you have to buy this remote wiring block and cable."  You:  "Hmmm....won't that leave me paying MORE and using MORE panel space than originally plus adding in connection points that didn't used to be there?"  Them:  "Look over there!" or "What are you, some kind of guy that hates puppies and grandmas?"

[Vernon Leeper]

I like and am partial to the 05-06 line right now, only because I have yet to use anything else. The DO-More, from I have seen other than simulator, which I wish you had for EVERYTHING, seems pretty much the same as the DS5 coding and that I could adapt to pretty easy. The DO-More CPU, drop in replacement for any 05-205 CPU, or it's more like the 06 and you add I/O's as needed, I thnk I missed that from the presintasion.

[deep6ixed]

Now that the click has analog support, I'm adding that back into the vote i'd make.

[BobO]

Now that the click has analog support, I'm adding that back into the vote i'd make.

We are definitely pursuing a platform similar to Click. Click itself has far too low backplane performance for a high performance engine like Do-more, but we definitely see the need for a low cost expandable brick platform. Stay tuned.

[LWgreys]

Here something off-the-shelf!
Why not expand the DMD Simulator to actually run I/O as an option. Let say to run Field I/O devices through ethernet or plug-in PC based I/O boards, say from National Instruments which provides a large number of I/O products.

[BobO]

Here something off-the-shelf!
Why not expand the DMD Simulator to actually run I/O as an option. Let say to run Field I/O devices through ethernet or plug-in PC based I/O boards, say from National Instruments which provides a large number of I/O products.

It is not our intention that the sim be used for actual processes, and it is time limited specifically top prevent that. That said, you can already talk to our I/O through the Ethernet port, using either the Ethernet I/O master or Modbus/TCP.

[tonybach]

Have a test lab full of 405s w/ 450 CPUs that I would gradually convert over to the do-more if available.  Please build the Do-more for a 405 chassis!?!?

[deep6ixed]

If the Do-more and this http://www.automationdirect.com/adc/Overview/Catalog/Field_I-z-O/Protos_X_I-z-O had a baby, id buy it.

Honestly this would be a dream, small form factor, simple wiring.  (Not jam packed like the 205) and easy to work with.  We have a Beckhoff PC and they use what looks to be identical to the ProtosX and they are easy to wire and diagnose.

[ATU]

They need to add an EIP version.

[Controls Guy]

Use a Do-More to control Protos X I/O, deep6ixed.  Not as clean as all in one piece, but it gives you a lot of what you want.

[Controls Guy]

They need to add an EIP version.

Hear, hear.