Welcome to Control.com
User Guest
Log in
Join
Link to the Puffin Projects site
The Puffin Projects
Link to the PLCArchive site
PLC Archive

Links
Topics
About Us
Poetry
Home


Applications - Automation Business - Communications - Engineering Practices - HMI - Information Resources - LinuxPLC Project - Motion Control - Open Control - PCs in Automation - Plant Networking - PLCs - Programming Languages - Process Control - Sensors - Software
Return to Home Return to parent Return to main thread

Re: Why is the Automation market declining?
Sep 18, 2000 10:55 am, by Michael Griffin
Text :
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


The man who sets out to carry a cat by its tail learns something that will always be useful and which never will grow dim or doubtful. - Mark Twain
Your use of this site is subject to the terms and conditions set forth under Legal Notices and the Privacy Policy. Please read those terms and conditions carefully. Subject to the rights expressly reserved to others under Legal Notices, the content of this site and the compilation thereof is ©1999-2006 Control Technology Corporation. Powered by Python, Zope, and Squishdot, inspiration by Slashdot. (Vers.ZSQ1.0) -va-
[ Bull! | Crater | Morley | Pinto | Vandoren | Worthington | Links | Topics | Post Article | Home ]