Controls Engineers In Over Their Heads?

Here's a poll. Seems like there are more and more controls guys in over their heads. Maybe it is just locally, or regionally. A lot of mechanical guys have been programming. Not that this is wrong. One of the people I respect most is a mechanical engineer in Milwaukee, who is one of the sharpest guys I've ever seen on controls and plc's.

Just seems like between the new guys, and some that have been around a while, that there are a lot of basics that they don't understand. Granted, not every one has seen or needs a PID. Or a drum sequencer. Or complicated Math logic.

Basic ladder, timers, latches, and the like. So many controls guys just don't get it.

What have you noticed?

regards.....casey

What annoys me are the PLC programmers who don't program for 'real world' situations. They live in a fantasy world where switches, sensors, etc. never fail, and where operators ALWAYS push the correct button. They see no need to program for things that could NEVER happen (in THEIR world)...

The program knows EXACTLY why the machine won't run. Is it that hard to pass along this information to the operator?...

I'd say that more than 50% of the logic in my programs is only there to cover the 'what ifs' that COULD happen.



-Eric

I'll say this. I know the basics of PLC control very well, but there is ALOT I don't understand about electrical controls. But because I have performed well with the tasks I have been given, I have been assigned to bigger & more complex projects that I might not understand at first glance.

People don't understand physics.

You can't believe arguments we have had on the hydraulics forums.

Too many don't know enough math to understand the physics.

PLCs, motion controllers, PIDs, and drums are just tools.



Newton's laws and the laws of thermodynamics are so simple. Net forces moving masses and energy balance are common tools.

kamenges said:

This is the term that really controls the energy transfer.

Click to expand...

Keith understands that it takes time for the energy to transfer from one form to another, even when during a nuclear explosion.

I have had problems with PHDs that burry their heads in the sand when it comes to energy flow.

My pet peeve is companys that use "universial" programs for their machines and then customize it on site without much thought of troubleshooting after the tech has left the site. Like leaving rungs in the program that do nothing (not even AFIed) and programing 5-6 rungs to accomplish what 2-3 rungs could have done. Im not talking about making the rungs longer, I mean using latching bits instead of making them yourself or creating bits once instead of over and over for example. This can be very time consuming for the person troubleshooting the program in a production enviroment.

Lets clean these programs before leaving so a stranger can follow the program without pulling his hair out.

The bald Electrician

I would say yes and that I am one of them.

But I get closer to the surface every day

Some people seem to think that the machine is there so they can program their controls and not the other way around.

It's amazing the number of people who don't know how to apply a prox switch or even a mechanical switch correctly.

Perhaps it's yet another race to the bottom with employer's looking for "cheap" labor. Like the guy says, "You gets whats yous pays for".

I find that I get in over my head because once a customer sees what I can do, they think that I can program/troubleshoot/repair *anything* that has a keyboard and/or a screen - or even somthing that has neither.
"Great, you found the PLC problem! Now can you rewire that messy panel, teach my robot paths, program those servos, and set up that vision system?"

I have done all of the above, but sometimes have taken on too much and had to search for help. (hair pull)

My biggest pet peve is that 90% of my time spent trouble shooting a machine is finding everyone else's problems. The mechanical group blames the electricians, then the electricians blames the programmer/engineer. I gess it would just be nice if people had pride in their work and actualy worked through the problem instead of playing the blame game.
I have a few costomers that wen they have a problem they dont even look at the machine, they call me because the program "Went Bad".
Anyway thats enough of that.

Situation normal

I think it's pretty much the same as it's always been. People who are successful will eventually run into a task that is over their heads. The difference is how they respond to the situation.

Some people are willing to say "I don't know how to do this" and ask for help and learn. These people thrive in this situation and wonder why others don't.

Some people are more concerned with avoiding saying "I don't know" at all costs.

And some people foul up horribly and get promoted to management. <G>

A new mechanical engineer was fascinated watching one of our maintenance technicians tapping a freshly drilled hole. He asked "That thing makes threads, huh?". How can you be a mechanical engineer and not know what a tap is?

An electrical engineer replaced an obsolete 50hp contactor with a 460v coil with a new contactor with a 120v coil. He added a control transformer to the panel and wired the simple start stop station using 120v for control. His control transformer was physically smaller than the coil of the contactor but he never did figure out why the new contactor wouldn't pull in.

A mechanical engineer had a thirty minute argument with one of our maintenance techs about a compound pulley system. She did not understand and refused to believe that making multiple wraps around the two drums with wire stock made the load lighter.

I could go on for days. We need more common sense average joes in the field.

Mellis and Eric,


You articulated exactly what I am feeling, so I do not need to add.

It is so true that I find many Controls guys that really do not have a clue. My replacement at my previous employer is one. One of the competing engineering firms where I am located is another. I suppose they will get there, but it sure is annoying when I have to clean up all their messes.

David

Eric Nelson said:

What annoys me are the PLC programmers who don't program for 'real world' situations. They live in a fantasy world where switches, sensors, etc. never fail, and where operators ALWAYS push the correct button. They see no need to program for things that could NEVER happen (in THEIR world)...

The program knows EXACTLY why the machine won't run. Is it that hard to pass along this information to the operator?...

I'd say that more than 50% of the logic in my programs is only there to cover the 'what ifs' that COULD happen.



-Eric

Click to expand...

Here here!

I've always known that a lot of my code is directly related test and maintenance items along with communicating why things don't work to the operator. After reading your post I decided to do some quick digging into one of my programs... Turns out that just over 61% of my code has nothing to do with operation, but diagnostics, etc...

I find I'm constantly "in over my head", but I pride myself with enough common sense to ask the right questions of the right people to enable me to surface long enough to finish a project before starting my next submersion into the murky depths of despair .

I'm constantly trying to improve and understand, if I ever beleive that a project is easy, then I KNOW I've overlooked something fundamental!

As for writing code for the 'what if' situation, I would say that any decent programmer would know that at least 60% of what they write would be for this purpose. It's a jungle out there and unfortuantely there are plenty of 'animals' willing to fiddle with machines they have no business fiddling with, but know this..........you'll never stop them! that is why code must be as foolproof and self correcting as possible.

Ok enough preaching from me for one day

Mart