Question for "Old" People Only...

Yes, I haven't posted much lately. You know, me being busy and all...

I'm upgrading yet another blow molding machine to a new DL-405 series PLC. The four I've done already had old Fuji processors. Tim helped me out tremendously with understanding the program (Thanks again, Tim!). This time the machine has a Koyo processor. With a name like Koyo you'd think it should be easy. Not so, this is an old Koyo Kostac processor, and not the Kostac that's the same as a DL-305 series. It's an even older SR-256 model. Here's a picture...



There's also a second rack with the remaining output modules.

I actually HAVE a printout of the program, so I DON'T need a cable or software! Not like I'd find them anyway...

What I need help with is the I/O addressing. Based on the documentation I have, it appeared that the four 16-point input modules were addresses 100-115, 200-215, 300-315, and 400-415, and the 16-point output modules were 500-515, 600-615, and 700-715. This doesn't seem to correlate with the program listing though. Here's a picture of one of the program pages...



Notice that some of the output coils are labeled 100, 101, 102, etc...

I know you CAN use input addresses as output coils, but I really doubt that this was done. I think I just have the I/O addressing wrong.

Also notice that someone had previously gone through the program and written X and Y values in pencil over the instructions. This DOES match my mapping method, but I still think it's wrong. When I plug in the actual I/O list to these addresses, it just doesn't make sense...

I'm hoping someone here is familiar with these old Kostac processors and can help me with the I/O addressing. This machine is basically identical to the ones I've done with the Fuji processors, so I'm quite confident that the program I wrote for the others will work fine in this machine. I'd just like to figure this out for my own curiosity...



-Eric

I don't know this PLC at all but just looking at the pictures you posted reminds me of something else I've seen in the past somewhere (must be the 'old guy' in me talking).

I would imagine that the coils WITHOUT the two lines in are internal coils or memory bits and the coils WITH the two extra lines in are external outputs or real world outputs.

Again, I do not know this PLC or it's programming language structure, I am just guessing but maybe it will point you in the right direction.
If it doesn't help then I'm sorry for wasting your time.

Good thinking, Mart!

I immediately thought that the double lined contacts/coils were simply showing the on/off status (IOW, printed from 'online' mode), but now that I look at it again, this can't be true. The rung beginning with 13 proves me wrong. If I were correct, then coil 800 should be on.

Thanks for the idea. I'll go through the program again and see if it works out.



-Eric

I'm kind of on MartB's side. It appears that they go to real IO and the 1 contact and the 100 coil are internal bits. It would make more sense if we saw the whole program.

I was thinking along the same lines but after a few of my "assumptions" lately I was "skeered" to say so.

rsdoran said:

I was thinking along the same lines but after a few of my "assumptions" lately I was "skeered" to say so.

Click to expand...

I must admit I thought about it for a while before replying as I hate to "open mouth and insert foot" as I normally do!

Please let us know if I was on the 'right track' Eric.

Okay, I thought we might be on to something, but...

Notice that contact 100 in the rung beginning at 13 (instruction 16) is shown as a double line, yet contact 100 elsewhere is a single line...

The whole program is only 14 pages, so I'll post it soon... :nodi:



-Eric

Just Thinking Out Loud...

The 'double lined' coils seem to match up with the physical outputs, so I now have another idea...

Perhaps 'double lined' contact 100 is a physical input, but 'single lined' contact 100 is an internal bit? Boy, doesn't THAT make things confusing?...



-Eric

What about applying the same principle as the outputs ?

i.e. Double line external input and single line internal etc? Is there a corresponding coil 100 that has the double/single line?

I'm digging through some old college notes (dusting off cobwebs), but I know I've seen something like this before.

Ha Ha - I didn't type fast enough

Eric Nelson said:

Perhaps 'double lined' contact 100 is a physical input, but 'single lined' contact 100 is an internal bit?

Click to expand...

It certainly appears that whoever hand-wrote the I/O above the devices thought the same thing.

Never heard of being able to use the same numbers for both internal and external devices before, though.

Steve

Eric Nelson said:

I immediately thought that the double lined contacts/coils were simply showing the on/off status (IOW, printed from 'online' mode), but now that I look at it again, this can't be true. The rung beginning with 13 proves me wrong. If I were correct, then coil 800 should be on.

Click to expand...

This IS showing on/off status... Better yet, "power flow".

Look VERY CLOSELY at the various contacts. Normally closed has a very, very faint slash through it. I'm not sure we are seeing the contacts (NC or NC) appropriately. It would be most prudent to view the whole program.

As a side test, could you check physical voltage to each input and compare it to what this is showing, assuming this is an online screenshot?

Lastly, the title of this post is silly mentioning "old people". We need someone with GOOD vision to view this program.

Steve Etter said:

Never heard of being able to use the same numbers for both internal and external devices before, though.

Click to expand...

Me neither, but after 'translating' the first 2 pages, this newest idea is working out perfectly!...

I guess instead of adding say "X" to bit 100 to designate it as an input (i.e. X100), they just used the 'double line' to express it. Therefore, 'single lined' bit 100 would be equivalent to internal bit C100 (in DirectSOFT terms). Same number, but different prefix.

Thanks a lot for your thoughts and ideas guys! What would we do without :site:



-Eric

Jimmie_Ohio said:

This IS showing on/off status... Better yet, "power flow".

Click to expand...

As I said in post #3 (the one you quoted), this idea doesn't prove out. This is reinforced elsewhere in the program with output coils shown with double lines, yet the rung is definitely false, based on this 'power flow' idea.

But thanks for replying. ALL ideas are welcomed!



-Eric

That is what I was thinking because I have dealt with an "older" processor that did something along those lines. If I remember correct some of them did not automatically associate I/O with the slot a card was in, you had to designate it AND I have run into some where the designation was not in order...definitely through me some hoops to figure out.

Ok then, what I am still having trouble with is the I/O numbering.

If we ASSUME the slot number corresponds to the first digit of the address (ie. 100 = slot 1, input 0, 307 = slot 3, input 7 and so on) then how can output 500 (rung #55) correspond to slot 5, which appears to have an input card?

Apparently, this is a bad assumption.

So how DOES the I/O numbering correspond to the cards?

(looks like Ron is saying this, too)

Steve