Facebook
Google
GitHub
Linkedin
U
I just wanna know how reliable the GE FANUC PLC is when compared to AB, Siemens & Mitsubushi. Could anyone just help me out?
D
DAVE FERGUSON
That is like answering which kind of vehicle is best Ford, Chevy, Dodge, you will get varied OPINIONS.
How much experience do you have? How many spare parts? What is the skill set of your technicians/engineers?
They are all easy if you like them and use them enough.
Can someone out there tell me, should I vacation in Cancun, Cozumel, Ixtapa, Puerto Vallarta or Hawaii?
Sorry, you will get nothing but opinions when it comes to the big 3 or 4 players...
Dave Ferguson
How much experience do you have? How many spare parts? What is the skill set of your technicians/engineers?
They are all easy if you like them and use them enough.
Can someone out there tell me, should I vacation in Cancun, Cozumel, Ixtapa, Puerto Vallarta or Hawaii?
Sorry, you will get nothing but opinions when it comes to the big 3 or 4 players...
Dave Ferguson
C
Curt Wuollet
Seems comparable from all that I've seen.
Regards
cww
Regards
cww
B
Bob Peterson
I suspect they are all similar in reliability.
A
A PLC Programmer
All are Good...
-->Check your Budget and look which fits best according to your budget.
-->Check which company has good local in-person support available in your area since last 10-20 years & likely to continue their business in your area.
Regards,
A PLC Programmer
-->Check your Budget and look which fits best according to your budget.
-->Check which company has good local in-person support available in your area since last 10-20 years & likely to continue their business in your area.
Regards,
A PLC Programmer
C
CSA
All of the major manufacturers, and most of the lesser manfucturers, all have great quality.
You will likely be buying your purchase from a system integrator, so that's where you should be looking for value. It's been said before here: It's about the service, knowledge, and experience of the provider. You won't go wrong with hardware, or even sofware, from any of the manufacturers you named. The unknown is the experience of the programmer, and ther knowledge they have of your application and needs, as well as the service they will provide.
You'd do much better spending your time and effort investigating the references of those you will be buying your PLC from, especially if they will performing any of the application/programming. It's not an easy or fun thing to do, but you'll have a much better idea of how your system will perform, and how your supplier will perform.
Think about the whole project: not just the hardware.
And, don't forget about the operator interface. Many a great application has been ruined by a poor HMI; and many a less than stellar application has overcome initial problems because of a robust and user-friendly operator interface application.
Consider the whole, not just individual pieces.
Now, if you've had problems of a quality nature from one PLC manufacturer or another, that could be due to problems with the hardware, or, more likely, it's due to installation, configuration or application problems.
You will likely be buying your purchase from a system integrator, so that's where you should be looking for value. It's been said before here: It's about the service, knowledge, and experience of the provider. You won't go wrong with hardware, or even sofware, from any of the manufacturers you named. The unknown is the experience of the programmer, and ther knowledge they have of your application and needs, as well as the service they will provide.
You'd do much better spending your time and effort investigating the references of those you will be buying your PLC from, especially if they will performing any of the application/programming. It's not an easy or fun thing to do, but you'll have a much better idea of how your system will perform, and how your supplier will perform.
Think about the whole project: not just the hardware.
And, don't forget about the operator interface. Many a great application has been ruined by a poor HMI; and many a less than stellar application has overcome initial problems because of a robust and user-friendly operator interface application.
Consider the whole, not just individual pieces.
Now, if you've had problems of a quality nature from one PLC manufacturer or another, that could be due to problems with the hardware, or, more likely, it's due to installation, configuration or application problems.
M
Matt
As with most control equipment the general rule of thumb is you get what you pay for, so depending on the reliability you require and the availability of technical support/spare parts should determine the brand of PLC you require.
That said, the GE FANUC configuration program is well documented and with some research and practice can be user friendly. In my experience it hasn't had any more reliability issues than an AB, etc. PLC so once again the issue comes back to availability of spares in the event of a module failure, etc.
That said, the GE FANUC configuration program is well documented and with some research and practice can be user friendly. In my experience it hasn't had any more reliability issues than an AB, etc. PLC so once again the issue comes back to availability of spares in the event of a module failure, etc.
B
Bob Peterson
I am not sure that the same distributor having a line for 10 or 20 years is all that meaningful anymore. A lot of distributors have had their lines taken away by the PLC manufacturers of late. It does seem like both Siemens and GE are going in the direction of AB's highly successful distribution/support model, which should make things rather stable.
J
Jay Andrew
I am tasked with researching a PLC automation and control system for a marine application.
The main problem I am having is what happens 5-10 years after the installation is up and running.
The main PLC hardware items seem to become obsolete in 3-6 years and may not be supported by the PLC manufacturers--they point you to a 3rd party who has agreed to repair or replace the obsolete items.
I also agree with several of the recent posts that the integrator is the main link in this chain especially for adding to the installed application with updates.
Should I be considering a standalone solution other than PLC or perhaps have the customer purchase several complements of spares to support a planned 10-20 year lifetime for the application?
It certainly seems confusing.
The main problem I am having is what happens 5-10 years after the installation is up and running.
The main PLC hardware items seem to become obsolete in 3-6 years and may not be supported by the PLC manufacturers--they point you to a 3rd party who has agreed to repair or replace the obsolete items.
I also agree with several of the recent posts that the integrator is the main link in this chain especially for adding to the installed application with updates.
Should I be considering a standalone solution other than PLC or perhaps have the customer purchase several complements of spares to support a planned 10-20 year lifetime for the application?
It certainly seems confusing.
W
William Sturm
Koyo, thru Automation Direct, still sells and supports PLC lines from 25 years ago. AB SLC 500's have been around for 20 years. You may want to call the vendors and ask about thier obsolesence policies.
M
Michael Griffin
It's difficult to make a reasonable answer without knowing your application in detail. If you want to guaranty long term support over decades, then pretty much the only solution is to create a fully custom solution, support it yourself, and regularly develop upgrade paths for the customer.
For an off the shelf PLC, 5 to 10 years should be no problem, as long as you don't select a product which is already near it's end of life. 20 years however is in the realm of the unknowable. Your biggest problem will likely be with programming software that won't run on computers which are available 10 years from now (which is a big problem that people have today).
If you can't (or don't wish to ) do your own development and support, then the best answer involves sticking with products that are very common and use genuinely open standards for everything (and not the proprietary but with an "open" sticker on it that we see so often in this industry). The more "special" some manufacturer's product is, the more likely it is to eventually disappear without a trace.
For an off the shelf PLC, 5 to 10 years should be no problem, as long as you don't select a product which is already near it's end of life. 20 years however is in the realm of the unknowable. Your biggest problem will likely be with programming software that won't run on computers which are available 10 years from now (which is a big problem that people have today).
If you can't (or don't wish to ) do your own development and support, then the best answer involves sticking with products that are very common and use genuinely open standards for everything (and not the proprietary but with an "open" sticker on it that we see so often in this industry). The more "special" some manufacturer's product is, the more likely it is to eventually disappear without a trace.
C
Curt Wuollet
You should pick very popular PLCs for your application and look at the vendor's support for it's older products. For example, parts for AB SLC5s seem to be in good supply and that line is older than 6 years.
A long planned lifetime almost goes without saying for PLCs _because_ the machines and systems will be used for many years. Whose components have you seen go obsolete that quickly? Another strategy is to keep things as generic as possible so that you can use _any_ PLC if replacement is needed.
This interests me because I am responsible for a lot of older machines and have had to simply redo some because the old PLC was impractical to work with. The ones I've had the most trouble with are the old Omron bricks which were apparently really popular at one time. To get set up to work with those was extremely expensive and the doodads and whatsits were impossible to find.
The software was DOS only and a PITA to work with. In the end it cost less to simply throw them away and reimplement the machine from scratch on a current brick, either AB or AD.
Speaking of the Koyo/AD units, I've been able to use some of them as new direct replacements for "obsolete" GE and Siemens units. That's about the best continuity in the business, but what's going to happen going forward? The latest, highly hyped processor families seem much more feature driven and likely to be victims of forced obsolescence to keep moving forward.
Regards
cww
A long planned lifetime almost goes without saying for PLCs _because_ the machines and systems will be used for many years. Whose components have you seen go obsolete that quickly? Another strategy is to keep things as generic as possible so that you can use _any_ PLC if replacement is needed.
This interests me because I am responsible for a lot of older machines and have had to simply redo some because the old PLC was impractical to work with. The ones I've had the most trouble with are the old Omron bricks which were apparently really popular at one time. To get set up to work with those was extremely expensive and the doodads and whatsits were impossible to find.
The software was DOS only and a PITA to work with. In the end it cost less to simply throw them away and reimplement the machine from scratch on a current brick, either AB or AD.
Speaking of the Koyo/AD units, I've been able to use some of them as new direct replacements for "obsolete" GE and Siemens units. That's about the best continuity in the business, but what's going to happen going forward? The latest, highly hyped processor families seem much more feature driven and likely to be victims of forced obsolescence to keep moving forward.
Regards
cww
M
Michael Griffin
An additional point to consider for PLCs is the long term maintainability of the PLC programming software. If the PLC CPU fails in a rack style PLC, or if one of the I/O fails in a brick style PLC, you will usually need the programming software to reload the software in the replacement hardware.
Look for a PLC that uses a programming package that doesn't use copy protection. If the software doesn't get used on a regular basis, I can pretty much guaranty that nobody will know where the copy protection key is when you need it. Also, it is very likely that any software that requires a copy protection key won't be able to be loaded onto a typical computer 10 years from now.
Look for a PLC that uses a programming package that doesn't use copy protection. If the software doesn't get used on a regular basis, I can pretty much guaranty that nobody will know where the copy protection key is when you need it. Also, it is very likely that any software that requires a copy protection key won't be able to be loaded onto a typical computer 10 years from now.
L
Luca Gallina
Interesting point.
Minor PLC manufacturers do not guarantee spare parts availability through the years, while major PLC manufacturers use to protect their developing software using protection schemes which may become obsolete in short time.
So, are we stuck? Let's say that major PLC manufacturers offer also a rather higher degree of compatibility of their programming software with future operating systems and PC hardware. It will probably (surely) come at a cost, but at least it will save production nightmares.
A further analysis may lead to the conclusion that for an "expendable" control system (intended as a system which might be completely replaced with other solutions without a sensible effort), any PLC is good. In case, just replace the controller and some cabling and you're quickly on the way again.
On the contrary, high-pricey machinery (or plants) have to rely on major brands controllers, despite of initial cost. I agree that major brands prices are outrageously high but, given the choice, I wouldn't jeopardize an important project just because of its *initial* cost.
Regards,
Luca Gallina
Minor PLC manufacturers do not guarantee spare parts availability through the years, while major PLC manufacturers use to protect their developing software using protection schemes which may become obsolete in short time.
So, are we stuck? Let's say that major PLC manufacturers offer also a rather higher degree of compatibility of their programming software with future operating systems and PC hardware. It will probably (surely) come at a cost, but at least it will save production nightmares.
A further analysis may lead to the conclusion that for an "expendable" control system (intended as a system which might be completely replaced with other solutions without a sensible effort), any PLC is good. In case, just replace the controller and some cabling and you're quickly on the way again.
On the contrary, high-pricey machinery (or plants) have to rely on major brands controllers, despite of initial cost. I agree that major brands prices are outrageously high but, given the choice, I wouldn't jeopardize an important project just because of its *initial* cost.
Regards,
Luca Gallina
M
Michael Griffin
In reply to Luca Gallina: A "typical" customer for a PLC vendor will use the programming software regularly. They will find out reasonably soon if it doesn't work anymore. If you want to put the package away and forget about it for 10 years though, it's a different story.
Of course the lack of copy protection doesn't mean the software *will* work 10 years later. It's just that copy protection is a major source of system failure because the copy protection systems usually work by exploiting loopholes in the operating system that later get closed. Copy protection systems and computer viruses are very similar in a lot of ways, so a computer that is genuinely secure from viruses is difficult to implement copy protection for.
Of course if IEC-61131-3 actually meant anything, then none of this would be a problem. You would just replace the old PLC with a new one that accepted the same program. As it is now, replacing a PLC with a different model normally means rewriting the program.
Of course the lack of copy protection doesn't mean the software *will* work 10 years later. It's just that copy protection is a major source of system failure because the copy protection systems usually work by exploiting loopholes in the operating system that later get closed. Copy protection systems and computer viruses are very similar in a lot of ways, so a computer that is genuinely secure from viruses is difficult to implement copy protection for.
Of course if IEC-61131-3 actually meant anything, then none of this would be a problem. You would just replace the old PLC with a new one that accepted the same program. As it is now, replacing a PLC with a different model normally means rewriting the program.
D
DAVE FERGUSON
Where's Curt and what have you done with him ?
Dave Ferguson
Dave Ferguson
D
DAVE FERGUSON
Stick to the major vendors..........I am on my 25th year and been using Allen-Bradley for all of them. I still have (many) 25 year old racks running out there with their original IO and PLC - 5 processors.
One note, ALL of the vendors new stuff is being made with "low bidder" parts and we are all in for a "paradigm shift" in asset management.
Dave Ferguson
One note, ALL of the vendors new stuff is being made with "low bidder" parts and we are all in for a "paradigm shift" in asset management.
Dave Ferguson
B
Bob Peterson
stick to name brands and you will be OK.
Keep in mind there is no such a thing as a clean upgrade path from one brand to another, and often not even from one series to another within the same brand.
Having done a fair number of conversions from one brand to another, I can say most went pretty cleanly except where the original programmer used
obscure coding techniques and chose not to document them.
the major brands are pretty good at supporting the older stuff, but after awhile it gets expensive.
often it is cheaper at some point to upgrade to something else rather than try and fix what you have. not much different than anything else that is 20+ years old.
Keep in mind there is no such a thing as a clean upgrade path from one brand to another, and often not even from one series to another within the same brand.
Having done a fair number of conversions from one brand to another, I can say most went pretty cleanly except where the original programmer used
obscure coding techniques and chose not to document them.
the major brands are pretty good at supporting the older stuff, but after awhile it gets expensive.
often it is cheaper at some point to upgrade to something else rather than try and fix what you have. not much different than anything else that is 20+ years old.
C
Curt Wuollet
Hi Dave
He's still alive and well. but imprisoned in a land of proprietary drek and avarice inspired BS. You have again assumed that I speak from a position of not knowing how this business and the products thereof work. Sadly, this is not the case. I'm not inspired simply to protest and want things different.
It is because I understand the status quo from the semiconductors to the crappy supporting operating systems, to the one sided business models, that I want and am willing to work towards something better. I know how to make a living with these things and the better points of doing things that way. There is a case to be made for the status quo, just as there is a case to be made for freezing progress in many areas. I have spend a lifetime with my knowledge and skillsets being obsoleted by change, so I can completely empathize with people who cling to the status quo, even to their detriment.
But, the comfortable, vendor provides everything, concentrate on the problem, one stop shopping, world of automation as we know it will simply be superceded in it's entirety because it doesn't operate in the best interests of it's practitioners or customers and the model is inadequate for how the world needs to work. The IBMs and ATTs of yesterday are furiously playing catch up after being leapfrogged by people who better served these interests. Open and interoperable, a world that works together, nearly laid these behemoths in their grave. The trends toward lean manufacturing and the expectations that are not being met may well hand the business of factory automation to a completely new class of enterprise if they will promise reasonable costs, the end of ridiculous barriers and extensibility with out lock-in for a world where change is the only constant.
If, Dave, you were to consider for a while, how to provide that mutability and meet those expectations, we would agree far more often. It shouldn't be a shock that our approach, severely constrained to the tools of the status quo, should happen to coincide. :^)
Regards
cww
He's still alive and well. but imprisoned in a land of proprietary drek and avarice inspired BS. You have again assumed that I speak from a position of not knowing how this business and the products thereof work. Sadly, this is not the case. I'm not inspired simply to protest and want things different.
It is because I understand the status quo from the semiconductors to the crappy supporting operating systems, to the one sided business models, that I want and am willing to work towards something better. I know how to make a living with these things and the better points of doing things that way. There is a case to be made for the status quo, just as there is a case to be made for freezing progress in many areas. I have spend a lifetime with my knowledge and skillsets being obsoleted by change, so I can completely empathize with people who cling to the status quo, even to their detriment.
But, the comfortable, vendor provides everything, concentrate on the problem, one stop shopping, world of automation as we know it will simply be superceded in it's entirety because it doesn't operate in the best interests of it's practitioners or customers and the model is inadequate for how the world needs to work. The IBMs and ATTs of yesterday are furiously playing catch up after being leapfrogged by people who better served these interests. Open and interoperable, a world that works together, nearly laid these behemoths in their grave. The trends toward lean manufacturing and the expectations that are not being met may well hand the business of factory automation to a completely new class of enterprise if they will promise reasonable costs, the end of ridiculous barriers and extensibility with out lock-in for a world where change is the only constant.
If, Dave, you were to consider for a while, how to provide that mutability and meet those expectations, we would agree far more often. It shouldn't be a shock that our approach, severely constrained to the tools of the status quo, should happen to coincide. :^)
Regards
cww
D
Dave Ferguson
Two things...
Trust me, I am well aware of your position after 10-12 years of it.
Why don't you give your services away for free. In order to make this a better world and a better model. We could all go to a system of collective wealth (oh wait that is socialism).
You do what you do to make money rather than save the world from software oppression. I agree with you on many items including many open source theories (shocking). But unfortunately when it comes to ANY intellectual property, there will be protection of that property.
I have learned over the years to try to control the things I can control. The system is the system, affect it where I can and make it work for me where I cannot.
As repeated on this list 1,000,000 times.................."I am a tool user, not a tool maker...I use the tools of business to make money", If the tools cost more, I charge more. unfortunately if we make the tools cheaper, then we also must charge less. If the tools are free, it is not very long before I am asked why should they pay me, why not just hire an "Open Engineer", who will do it for us for free.
But once again, and again, and again....I do know your opinion..........very well.
Dave
Trust me, I am well aware of your position after 10-12 years of it.
Why don't you give your services away for free. In order to make this a better world and a better model. We could all go to a system of collective wealth (oh wait that is socialism).
You do what you do to make money rather than save the world from software oppression. I agree with you on many items including many open source theories (shocking). But unfortunately when it comes to ANY intellectual property, there will be protection of that property.
I have learned over the years to try to control the things I can control. The system is the system, affect it where I can and make it work for me where I cannot.
As repeated on this list 1,000,000 times.................."I am a tool user, not a tool maker...I use the tools of business to make money", If the tools cost more, I charge more. unfortunately if we make the tools cheaper, then we also must charge less. If the tools are free, it is not very long before I am asked why should they pay me, why not just hire an "Open Engineer", who will do it for us for free.
But once again, and again, and again....I do know your opinion..........very well.
Dave
