is there any better way of writing this logic ???

C14 is activating the Valve and WX9 is a level Sensor. I dont want the solenoid valves to switch back and forth when the level fluctuate. So i think this will take care of the situation.. but ya i wanna see what logic gurus got to say is there any other smart way .. just curious
Thanks

It looks like what you have done is given the level control 5,000 counts of hysteresis. Thats one way to solve that kind of a problem. You could write it all in one rung by eliminating C2 and putting the compare instruction in the seal in branch.

Are you filling or draining, or does the level sensor indicate fluid level or distance to the fluid surface? Just wondering because the shut off point is less than activation point.

A cleaner way.

This will turn on C14 when WX9>25000 and will stay on as long as WX9 is > 20000 counts.

Alaric said:

It looks like what you have done is given the level control 5,000 counts of hysteresis. Thats one way to solve that kind of a problem. You could write it all in one rung by eliminating C2 and putting the compare instruction in the seal in branch.

Are you filling or draining, or does the level sensor indicate fluid level or distance to the fluid surface? Just wondering because the shut off point is less than activation point.

Click to expand...

oh ya Hystersis thats the word i was lookin for

So what C14 does is detect the High Level of water in the tank and activate the 2 valves (one NC, the one that allow the water to go into tank and NO that is the one allowing the water to go into Gutter). That same water tank is used for some other purpose too. The way i put the valve is in fail safe position so if no power(which is same as high level) the gutter valve will be open and the tank valve is shut.

Alright here is the whole thing. Right now i am waiting for the guy to make me the fitting for the level probe so i have just forced the solenoid valves and using the manual valves to control the flow. here is a chicken scatch of what is going on ..

agh!!! (why i didn't think of it b4)

Indeed much better way of writing the logic.

Thanks Ken