Re: [foxboro] AB30 TO FBM231
- From: "Kevin Fitzgerrell" <fitzgerrell@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 09:14:51 +0900
Well,
You can use the FBM224 with AB - just need one of the ProSoft modules
- either inrax if you have a slot open or din rail if not to map the
addresses.
Cheers,
Kevin FitzGerrell
On 5/5/07, Corey R Clingo <corey.clingo@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hmm...I had heard that the FBM23x ran an embedded Windows CE OS. Maybe
> that whole Windows metaphor ("I am Bill Gates, I am smarter than you, you
> don't need to tweak these knobs" - except for when it breaks, and you do
> need to tweak them 'cause ol' Bill is screening his calls) is carrying
> over. Say it ain't so, Invensys!
>
> I really like the FBM224. It's sole weakness is lack of a fully-redundant
> configuration. If they had one for A-B I would de-integrate my Int30s
> from my system faster than you can say "ABSCAN". I hope Foxboro doesn't
> regress with the FBM23x series.
>
>
> Corey Clingo
> BASF Corporation
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Pat Martens" <fox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent by: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 05/03/2007 03:31 PM
> Please respond to
> foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> To
> <foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: [foxboro] AB30 TO FBM231
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ricky,
>
> Roger was one step ahead but I'll post my piece anyhow.
>
>
> We are currently doing a project which involves 6 FBM231 Modbus links.
> (2 Honeywell FSC systems, 4 Siemens PLC systems)
>
> So far we only did an initial test to see if we could get the FBM231 to
> work. Before anything, make sure the switches on the termination boards
> are
> set correctly! (not completely identical to the ones for the COM30
> termination boards). The examples in the documentation are worth trying!
>
> I installed a Modbus protocol analyser in parallel (so, read only but both
> transmit and receive) to see what was actually happening.
>
> These were my initial findings:
>
> As you might have read in some previous articles in this group there are
> some significant differences between handling Modbus through COM30
> integrators (I believe very similar to AB30 gateways) and FBM231.
>
> These differences might or might not cause you problems but if they do,
> you
> will most likely find out only the hard way.
> The documentation lacks (IMHO) a sort of comparison table which pinpoints
> the differences between MDSCAN block type links, FBM224 type links and
> FBM23x type links. This could prevent unpleasant surprises for anybody
> using
> the FBM23x series modules.
>
> Regarding your question on MCIN/PAKIN, MCOUT, PAKOUT:
>
> A one-on-one replacement will not be possible without some
> reconfiguration.
> Depending on your CIO complexity you could used icc scripting to do the
> job
> for you which should make it a reasonable simple task.
>
> We are using FoxCAE to generate all our CIO configurations and had to
> create
> new typicals.
>
> In our case we could replace the MCIN blocks with PAKIN blocks without any
> problems.
> We do not use MCOUT but my guess is that the PAKOUT can replace it.
>
> If you use AIN and you want to keep these (in our case we can't do
> without;
> alarming, display connections etc.) you will have to build a RIN (or IIN)
> to
> feed the AIN.MEAS.
> The RIN block SCI offers you higher flexibility as compared to the AIN SCI
> (keep in mind that the AIN SCI's are different in a COM30 module compare
> to
> a CP!)
> So where we used to have say 50 AIN's we will now need another 50 extra
> RIN's to feed the AIN's.
>
> The same is true for AOUT blocks (you will need a ROUT (or IOUT).
>
> If you use MAIN then that's to bad, there is no substitute in FBM231!
>
> The FBM231 offers you far less control over the Modbus queries; The
> queries
> are automatically derived from the RIN's, IIN's, PAKIN's etc.
> (Example: define one RIN reading register 40001 and a second RIN reading
> register 40020, the resulting query will be to read the full 20 registers
> starting from 40001. If your source device does not have a problem with
> this
> then that's ok. I know however that we have some applications which are
> now
> implemented with the FBM224 which we could not do with the FBM230/231.
>
> With MDSCAN blocks you could define the exact Modbus queries and do things
> like scanning certain modbus registers faster then others. As far as I
> know
> the FBM231 allows only one overall scan-rate which you define with the
> device configurator.
>
> On the positive side (yes, I think there are currently more con's then
> pro's); lot's of options to do bit/byte swapping, signed/unsigned etc.
> which
> eliminates, for some more 'exotic' applications, the need of CALC or IND
> blocks to put things right.
>
> However, if your Modbus link is 'straight forward' then the FBM231 should
> cause you to much headaches
>
>
> Kind regards and success with your AB30 replacements!
>
> Patrick Martens
> Process Automation specialist
> Total Raff. Ned. N.V.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process
> Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at
> your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html
>
> foxboro mailing list: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
> to subscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
> to unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________
This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process
Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at
your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html
foxboro mailing list: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
to unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave
Other related posts:
