Re: Why is the Automation market declining?
Sep 13, 2000 2:15 pm, by Greg Goodman
Text :
> When making comparisons, we must make > sure we distinguish between improvements due to new characteristics of > technology, and improvements due to better *application* of technology > (existing or new). This brings up an interesting question. How do we distinguish between a new technology and a better application of an old technology? Say I improve throughput by replacing a single PLC that's trying to control too much with several autonomous PLCs (of the same make and model), each dedicated to a portion of the task and coordinating activity between them. Have I better applied my old PLC technology, or have I applied a new distributed control technology? If I replace an ancient piece of software with a better-designed one - even one written in the same language, but using more modern design methodologies or algorithms - have I just used my existing Intel PC and 'C' compiler technology better, or have I applied the new software technology of object-orientation? -- Greg Goodman Chiron Consulting chironsw@swbell.net -- http://www.swbell.net/chironsw -- (713) 869-6876
Reply

• Re: Why is the Automation market declining?
  Sep 18, 2000 10:55 am, by Michael Griffin
  At 11:33 13/09/00 -0500, Greg Goodman wrote: >How do we distinguish between a >new technology and a better application of an old technology? >If I replace an ancient piece of >software with a better-designed one - even one written in the same >language, but using more modern design methodologies or algorithms - >have I just used my existing Intel PC and 'C' compiler technology >better, or have I applied the new software technology of >object-orientation? The question is, could you have done the same thing just as effectively with products that were available 5 years ago? The discussion concerned *new technology* from traditional industrial automation suppliers, not something you created yourself. For example, I have increased machine throughput by more than 10 percent just by re-writing the control program to reduce software overhead. I didn't apply any *new technology*, I just carefully applied good, well known software techniques to the problem. >Say I >improve throughput by replacing a single PLC that's trying to control >too much with several autonomous PLCs (of the same make and model), each >dedicated to a portion of the task and coordinating activity between >them. Have I better applied my old PLC technology, or have I applied a >new distributed control technology? As another example, we have recently conducted a retro-fit which did something similar to that. We wanted to improve the reliability and maintainability of certain machines, and the most practical way to implement the changes was to replace the original central PLC with several micro-PLCs installed in what had been the terminal boxes on the machines. We reduced cycle time by about 15% (this was a side effect though, rather than the true intention of the project). This was *not* a benefit of new technology, even though the new PLCs were newer models than the original. We could have accomplished the same thing with hardware of the same era that the original was constructed with. Without dwelling on the details, it can be said the new hardware was in many ways a "lower tech" solution than the original. The new hardware made this project *easier and cheaper* by being so compact that we could fit them in the existing terminal boxes. However, we could still have accomplished it somehow with older hardware. I would define a gain as being due to a *new technology* if the improvement would have been impossible without hardware or software which has recently become available. This was not the case in either of the previous examples. ********************** Michael Griffin London, Ont. Canada mgriffin@odyssey.on.ca **********************
  Reply
  
  
• Re: Why is the Automation market declining?
  Sep 18, 2000 3:12 pm, by Bill Sturm
  At 08:21 PM 9/13/2000 -0400, you wrote: > As another example, we have recently conducted a retro-fit which did >something similar to that. We wanted to improve the reliability and >maintainability of certain machines, and the most practical way to implement >the changes was to replace the original central PLC with several micro-PLCs >installed in what had been the terminal boxes on the machines. > We reduced cycle time by about 15% (this was a side effect though, >rather than the true intention of the project). This was *not* a benefit of >new technology, even though the new PLCs were newer models than the >original. We could have accomplished the same thing with hardware of the >same era that the original was constructed with. Without dwelling on the >details, it can be said the new hardware was in many ways a "lower tech" >solution than the original. > The new hardware made this project *easier and cheaper* by being so >compact that we could fit them in the existing terminal boxes. However, we >could still have accomplished it somehow with older hardware. It could be argued that without the benefit of a small and powerful (new technology) PLC, that you might not have been able to justify the cost for the upgrade. 5 years ago, you might have needed to install larger boxes and a more expensive PLC to do the same job. Many of these new micro PLC's are also equipped with powerful networking capabilities, which they actually benefit from more than a larger PLC. This also makes retrofits more attractive. Bill Sturm
  Reply
  
  
• Re: Why is the Automation market declining?
  Sep 18, 2000 2:56 pm, by Davis Gentry
  >Michael Griffin wrote: > I would define a gain as being due to a *new > technology* if the improvement would have been impossible without > hardware or software which has recently become available. I would disagree to some extent with this definition - rather than the term "impossible" I would substitute the term "economically unfeasible". It is possible that you could have solved the problem you listed at the time using existing technology, but could you have done it for a price tag that made it worth it? One of the most important changes in technology is the current ability to manufacture systems or components for small fractions of what a comparable unit would have cost 15 years ago. This all means that you can put sensors or processors in places you would never have considered doing so in the past. This seems to me to be an important technological advance. Davis Gentry Applications Engineer Delta Tau Data Systems
  Reply