Re: [foxboro] a simple challenge
- From: kevin.fitzgerrell@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 07:07:44 +1200
Michael,
As you surmised, step 10 should have been a branch to step 10.
Additionally, I'd probably replace in ~bo0x in steps 16, 19 and 22 with a
"NOT". Your reasoning for the GDEV blocks sounds good. Depending on the
reasons the CALC block would be put in manual, you could instead (or also)
implement a pause function to branch around the increment operator (stoping
the counter but letting an in progress purge cycle finish) and a "cycle
now" function to branch to the initialize step (step 10 below). These may
let you secure the block in auto (which is usually my preference).
Regards,
Kevin FitzGerrell
Systems Engineer
Foxboro New Zealand
------------------------------------
Tel: +64 (9) 573 7690
Fax: +64 (9) 573 7691
mvandenberg@xxxxxx
Sent by: To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
foxboro-bounce@fre cc:
elists.org Subject: Re: [foxboro] a
simple challenge
11/22/01 10:19 PM
Please respond to
foxboro
Kevin,
You did understand it correctly. This is exactly what I wanted. Although I
had already figured out the OSP and inverting the output part, the first
lines were just the ones I needed.
You probably made a typing error in line 7 because, I think, it should
branch to line 10 instead of 11.
I'm still going to use the GDEV blocks for the solenoids because whenever
the CALC block is switched to MANL there is a (big) possibility that one of
the BO's is activated and will remain activated. By connecting the MA.~
parameter from the CALC block to the INTLCK parameter of the GDEV blocks
this can be prevented.
Many thanks for the quick response and a fine working solution.
Regards,
Michel
Michel van den Berg
PFW Aroma Chemicals B.V.
PO Box 415
3770 AK Barneveld
the Netherlands
Phone : (31)342 - 407 791
Fax : (31)342 - 407 789
email : mvandenberg@xxxxxx
FedEx : Nijverheidsweg 60
3771 ME Barneveld
the Netherlands
kevin.fitzgerrell@in
vensys.com To:
foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent by: cc:
foxboro-bounce@freel Subject: Re: [foxboro]
a simple challenge
ists.org
21-11-2001 22:36
Please respond to
foxboro
Michael,
If I understand correctly you want to trigger a series of solenoid valves
in sequence every X seconds. Each solenoid valve to stay open for Y
seconds, with the next solenoid valve in sequence to open as the prior one
closes.
I'd probably do the logic in a CALCA or CALC block. Something like this
ought to work. BO01 - 4 are outputs to drive solenoids. I'd just use COUT
blocks or an MCOUT connected to BO01-4 to drive simple solenoids.
type = CALCA
period = 2 (execute each second)
ii01 = seconds between cycle repeats
ii02 = seconds for each solenoid
timini = 1 (so OSPs don't trigger on initialize)
1 in ii02
2 stm m01 ; store SV on time in mem for osp
3 inc io01
4 in io01 ;
5 in ii01 ;
6 sub
7 bip 11 ; on new cycle go to init
8 clr bo05 ; otherwise clear cycle flag
9 gto 13 ; and skip initialize
10 clr io01 ; initialize second counter
11 set bo05 ; set in cycle flag
12
13 in bo05 ; on bo01 to 1
14 osp m01 ; generate signal for SV 1
15 out bo01
16 in ~bo01 ; on SV1 finish
17 osp m01 ; generate signal for SV 2
18 out bo02 ;
19 in ~bo02 ; on SV2 finish
20 osp m01 ; generate signal for SV 3
21 out bo03 ;
22 in ~bo03 ; on SV3 finish
23 osp m01 ; generate signal for SV 4
24 out bo04
25 end
27
Regards,
Kevin FitzGerrell
Systems Engineer
Foxboro New Zealand
------------------------------------
Tel: +64 (9) 573 7690
Fax: +64 (9) 573 7691
mvandenberg@xxxxxx
Sent by: To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
foxboro-bounce@fre cc:
elists.org Subject: [foxboro] a
simple challenge
11/21/01 08:24 PM
Please respond to
foxboro
Hi list,
We are going to replace a local relay / timer driven filter cleaning
sequence by "something" in I/A.
We therefore need to separately activate 4 solenoids, one after the oth=
er,
for a variable number of seconds (most likely 2). The interval between
activating the solenoids should also be variable.
I have already made something with a Calc block that generates seconds =
( 0
to 62) connected to a AIN block. On the four boolean alarm limits I
connected the solenoids using a GDEV with the pulse option on. But ther=
e
must be something more brilliant than this, without the use of a DEP bl=
ock.
The solenoids will be connected (2?wire) to FBM41C/42C, therefore a PLB=
solution is an option.
All suggestions are more than welcome.
thanks,
Michel
Michel van den Berg
PFW Aroma Chemicals B.V.
PO Box 415
3770 AK Barneveld
the Netherlands
Phone : (31)342 - 407 791
Fax : (31)342 - 407 789
email : mvandenberg@xxxxxx
FedEx : Nijverheidsweg 60
3771 ME Barneveld
the Netherlands
___________________________________________________________________
This list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by The Foxboro Company.
Use the information obtained here at your own risk. For disclaimer,
see http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html#maillist
list info: http://www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
subscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave
___________________________________________________________________
This list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by The Foxboro Company.
Use the information obtained here at your own risk. For disclaimer,
see http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html#maillist
list info: http://www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
subscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave
___________________________________________________________________
This list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by The Foxboro Company.
Use the information obtained here at your own risk. For disclaimer,
see http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html#maillist
list info: http://www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
subscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave
Other related posts: