I have a SLC-5/04 with a scanner talking to a RIO rack. Both the CPU rack and the RIO rack is a 13 slot rack. I am having trouble getting info on how the Block Transfer works. The AB Tech Support was not much help orther than to say read the manuals, and I have several times. The Vendor sent me a sub-routine that he says should work???? I need to know the why and how it works, and why so much associated logic? Can anyone help me????

 

If you are using intelligent cards (analog cards are a good example) then each slot in the remote rack is going to need more information than the scanner can provide with just slot addressing. This is the primary reason for block transfers

Send me a copy of the logic your distributor sent you, and the I/O config for your remote rack. I'll see if i can help explain what they are doing.

tech_guru

Please don't spam me... payback is a bia'tch

[email protected]

 

Harold---

You describe superficial details that don't help in solving your problem. Block Transfer isn't for racks, it's for modules, and you haven't mentioned one of those. You've clearly used up the patience of AB Tech Support and your vendor. Your lack of experience and training dooms you to failure if you stay on this path.

Please get a qualified integrator involved ASAP. Your Rockwell distributor can help with this.

Hope this helps!

Larry Lawver
Rexel / Central Florida

 

One thing to know about the SLC and block transfers is that most of the examples are written using the M0 and M1 registers, which can be confusing. With the later SLC OS updates(as of about 3-4 YEARS ago) A-B added a BTR and BTW (Block Transfer Read & Block Transfer Write) function blocks that will basically hide the large amount of logic you mentioned. With those function blocks most of the examples for the PLC5 will work. The main thing to remember is that the RIO scanner in the PLC5 will process BTR/BTW messages asynchronously, where the SLC scanner processes these synchronously. Sign up for My Support on the Rockwell website and search for a tech note on this subject. It discusses the limitations of the BTR/BTW functions on the SLC vs. the PLC5.

If you want a more detailed discussion you can e-mail me more info (device mfg. and part no.) or questions and I can provide more specific information if you want.

Darren Ash
[email protected]

 

Block transfers in SLC are about the most difficult thing that to do. They require the different data be sent to the MO file in a certain sequence to trigger the BTW or BTR.

If you have an SLC-5/04 check the version number. If it is OS401 or latter, or a series ‘C’ processor, and you have the latest RS500 software it should support BTR/BTW commands like a PLC-5. This is a much easier way to do things. If the processor firmware is earlier than OS401 then it may be worth upgrading it.

Failing that, publication 1746-6.6 does detail what is required to do BTR/BTW with the 1747-SN card. Remember to specify your remote rack address in octal as Rack/Slot/Group. The largest remote rack address can be 3.

If you can provide an email address I can send you a program that sample that does work with remote analog flex IO.

 

Larry, prior to your reply, I witnessed a number of people attempting to assist Harold in his quest to gain more knowledge about this problem that he is handling. Your remark regarding getting an integrator involved is certainly valid and worth commenting on.
However, your other comments were undeserved and really not necessary.

1. Yes it is modules and everyone that is helping has made that inference.
2. Its quite possible he has not used up the AB vendor and tech helps patience. I and quite a number of people I have worked with have commented on the lack of assistance AB tech support can be (sometimes just depending on who you get on the phone). As for vendors, you have good ones and you have bad ones, sometimes its just the luck of the draw.
3. His lack of training and experience DOES NOT doom him to failure. He is learning like all of us. Will an integrator help him out of this problem...YES. Will he learn anything..good chance NO. He will have to be the one to decide this by asking questions like...does he have the time for the learning curve?....Will he get fired if he screws this up?...etc.

Harold...keep asking those questions, its the only way to learn

 

Steve---

I'll stand by my reply to Harold's original post.

Note that I posted my response right after Harold's post appeared, but mine was the second that was moderated into the thread. The others that have posted are commended for their thoughtful and useful replies. My comments had nothing to do with the other posts. I simply chose a different tack.

Harold described a vague problem without useful details, and indicated that he had been at this long enough to read several manuals, start a Tech Support case, and get "the Vendor" involved. After this much work, Harold should have been able to ask a succinct question for this forum, e.g., "Can anyone help me set up the block transfers to a 17xx-xxxx module from a 5/04 through a 1747-XXX scanner and a 17XX-XXX adapter?" Note that the manuals and the Knowledgebase have examples that will work with most combinations that make sense, and we can presume that Tech Support tried to point him at those. I presume that Tech Support thought they took care of him as best they could, because he wasn't still on the phone with them. They DO have to stay on the phone as long as the client demands, and the client CAN call back in without limit.

Despite so much evidence of heroic sunk effort, Harold wrote, "I need to know the why and how it works, and why so much associated logic? Can anyone help me????" Thus, I responded that he needed to change direction or he was doomed to failure. Would sugar-coating that have improved my answer? It doesn't work with my own paying clients, so I'm not likely to start doing it in a forum where I provide my expertise for free!

Hope this helps!

Larry Lawver Rexel / Central Florida

 

I have noticed over the last year or so an increasing number of questions that appear to be in the following categories:

1. Students trying to get answers to their homework problems, and 2. people who are unwilling to use or unable to understand the manuals and tech support material available.

I for one am tired of seeing this type of thing on the list. It makes for a lot of posts that are really just a waste of my time.

Bob Peterson

 

Bob,

I think that many of your category 2 people may fall into category 3 - people who have been given an assignment with no training and are doing their best to perform to expectations.

My feeling is that increasingly people with a very small amount of what may appear to be relevant knowledge are expected by their employers to be fully expert in the whole of a very broad field.

Bruce.

 

I whole heartedly agree Bob. This is not a forum to get someone else to do your work for you NOR is it a place to get the easy answer. Only after exhausting sources should a 'Can you help?' plea be entered.

While nooone is perfect and all knowing, discretion in questions will certainly guarantee a healthy answer from the distinguished people on this list.

Use it wisely I would suggest.

Cheers from: Jeremy Pollard, CET The Crazy Canuckian! Integration and Automation Training, Consulting, and Software

Control Design Column http://www.linkpath.com/index2gisufrm.php3? _ tempCode=CON&onlineIssue=true&mem_sess= _ d8734688500ceb501ce5610f4a530004&speed=high

On The Web - http://www.tsuonline.com

PLCopen North America - [email protected] http://www.PLCopen.org

Please note Address Change..............
3 Red Pine Court, RR# 2 Shanty Bay, Ontario L0L 2L0 705.739.7155 Cell # 705.725.3579

 

Drifting off topic, but I do have to agree with Jeremy. Although I am not sure about being 'distinguished', I tend to be one of the noisier, anyway, and find that I am much more willing to help someone that appears clueful, and blow past / delete the questions such as "Which PLC should I use to control a relay" type of requests.

I think that the A-List has grown large enough to support the general rules-of-engagement found on the technical newsgroups. One of the "biggies" there is that if you ask a question that is glaringly obvious in the documentation, or ask a question that clearly indicates that you have not done the background work to understand even what you are asking, you will be ignored or flamed. Since this is a moderated list, flaming is usually kept to a low roast ;-)

Sometimes people simply are not going to understand what you are trying to explain. This is not meant to be negative, just indicates a different skill set. I would consider it dangerous to let me do any sort of mechanical design, for example. Likewise, some people are not best suited to understanding obscure protocols, networking issues, and software design problems.

It all comes back to making sure that you are asking intelligent questions if you hope to get help from the list members. If you do not understand you problem enough to ask intelligently, you have more work to do.

Just my $0.02 USD

--Joe Jansen

 

Well said Joe - and you are not any ordinary Joe I might add!!

Cheers from: Jeremy Pollard, CET The Crazy Canuckian!
Integration and Automation Training, Consulting, and Software

On The Web - http://www.tsuonline.com

PLCopen North America - [email protected]
http://www.PLCopen.org

 

Can you help fill in the BTR? On the buffer file I have entered M1:1.100 - it reurns unconfigured M file address. The card sits in rack 1 slot 1 4 channel analog input.
Thanks

 

Hi please cancel last e-mail. The physical lay out is as follows. Rack 0 - SLOT 0 505 CPU, SLOT 1 1747 SN. (REMOTE RACK CONNECTED WITH BELDEN CABLE)RACK 1(?) SLOT 0 ASB 1747, SLOT 1 4 CHANNEL ANALOG INPUT, SLOT 2-12 DI/O CARDS.

I have solved the problem of the M addres not being configured but now keep getting the error bit coming on. On my control block N12:0 reads -11118, N12:1 0, N12:2 -9. Any assistance will be greatly appreciated.