This is Wrong. Right?

The Plc Kid

Member

Join Date

Feb 2009

Location

Macon, Georgia

Posts

3,233

• Nov 22, 2011

• #1

On Pdf page 23 of this publication http://literature.rockwellautomation.com/idc/groups/literature/documents/um/1769-um011_-en-p.pdf

It shows a compactlogix controller with a 1756-ENBT?

WTF?

 

jimbo3123

Member

J

Join Date

Sep 2003

Location

Detroit Area

Posts

550

• Nov 22, 2011

• #2

I would say so.

Also, The picture next to it (of the 1756 rack) shows the Ethenet cable running to the processor (with keyswitch), but the text says "1756-ENBT Module (as an adapter)"

 

dmroeder

Lifetime Supporting Member

Join Date

Apr 2006

Location

Vancouver, WA

Posts

3,604

• Nov 22, 2011

• #3

I've been bitten by the copy and paste bug a time or two myself...

 

OkiePC

Lifetime Supporting Member

Join Date

Mar 2005

Location

ENE of Nowhere Oklahoma

Posts

11,790

• Nov 22, 2011

• #4

Wasn't there an oddball version of compactlogix based on the 1756 chassis?

 

jimbo3123

Member

J

Join Date

Sep 2003

Location

Detroit Area

Posts

550

• Nov 22, 2011

• #5

OkiePC said:

Wasn't there an oddball version of compactlogix based on the 1756 chassis?

Click to expand...

Hmm... not that I know of.
There used to be a Flex processor, on the Logix5k platform that would connect directly to Flex I/O.

 

dmroeder

Lifetime Supporting Member

Join Date

Apr 2006

Location

Vancouver, WA

Posts

3,604

• Nov 22, 2011

• #6

OkiePC said:

Wasn't there an oddball version of compactlogix based on the 1756 chassis?

Click to expand...

There is the L4x series that have 1768 modules that install to the left of the processor if that is what you are thinking of. You can get an Ethernet module.

 

Ron Beaufort

Lifetime Supporting Member

Join Date

Jul 2002

Location

Charleston, SC

Posts

5,701

• Nov 22, 2011

• #7

if you're interested in this sort of thing, here are some more errors from the same manual ...

page 71 is basically a Copy-and-Paste from the CONTROL-logix manual with the name changed to COMPACT-logix ...

(1) the COMPACT-logix doesn't have Change Of State (COS) capabilities ...

(2) the local outputs are NOT "sent" at the end of every task ...

even the word "backplane" isn't exactly correct when applied to the I/O for the COMPACT-logix platform ...

party on ...

.

 

Last edited: Nov 22, 2011

Lancie1

Lifetime Supporting Member

Join Date

Jul 2003

Location

Alabama

Posts

9,999

• Nov 22, 2011

• #8

Technical editors just aren't what they used to be. Ron, you should apply to Rockwell for a proof-checker job!

 

The Plc Kid

Member

OP

Join Date

Feb 2009

Location

Macon, Georgia

Posts

3,233

• Nov 22, 2011

• #9

I second that. Nothing gets past Ron.

 

The Plc Kid

Member

OP

Join Date

Feb 2009

Location

Macon, Georgia

Posts

3,233

• Nov 22, 2011

• #10

He has pointed me to some mind blowing mistakes in some of the manuals.

 

daba

Lifetime Supporting Member

D

Join Date

Jul 2004

Location

uk

Posts

5,401

• Nov 22, 2011

• #11

Welcome to the real world.....

I have had to deal with so many RA publication goofs.... can I have a dollar for each one please?

Having said that, they are nicely laid out and the indexes and contents tables are usually right ! lol

To be fair, RA produce a humongous amount of material that it's not surprising a few mistakes get through.

 

OkiePC

Lifetime Supporting Member

Join Date

Mar 2005

Location

ENE of Nowhere Oklahoma

Posts

11,790

• Nov 23, 2011

• #12

When I first started with the PLC5/40 Enhanced, I filled out about ten corrections and suggestions (I had 20 or more paper manuals with the forms in the back, saved for paper planned RIO changes...'member Paper Manuals and Real Wood Pencils?)

Back on topic, anyway I wrote professional explanations of the errors and omissions, submitted them through the proper channels, and never even got a form letter acknowledgement back.

Then I discovered this place...

 

Last edited: Nov 23, 2011

Clay B.

Lifetime Supporting Member

C

Join Date

Jun 2005

Location

Concord,NC

Posts

1,304

• Nov 23, 2011

• #13

OkiePC said:

When I first started with the PLC5/40 Enhanced, I filled out about ten corrections and suggestions (I had 20 or more paper manuals with the forms in the back, saved for paper planned RIO changes...'member Paper Manuals and Real Wood Pencils?)

Back on topic, anyway I wrote professional explanations of the errors and omissions, submitted them through the proper channels, and never even got a form letter acknowledgement back.

Then I discovered this place...

Click to expand...

I really like that I have found bugs in there PowerFlex Drive software and never did get a notice if they fixed it. Atleast my local vendor returns my calls.

 

daba

Lifetime Supporting Member

D

Join Date

Jul 2004

Location

uk

Posts

5,401

• Nov 23, 2011

• #14

When I first got my hands on a PLC5/250 (Pyramid Integrator), I was dismayed to see the [ONS] instruction missing from the instruction set, instead it had the clunky OSR and OSF instructions.

I submitted feedback, again through the proper channels, asking why it had been omitted, and suggesting it was a very useful instruction, can be placed anywhere on a rung, and only needed 1 bit of memory (the OSR and OSF need 2 bits each).

My message hopped around the world a few weeks, eventually the reply came back to me from the States, quote: "The 5/250 does not have the ONS instruction, use the OSR or OSF instructions instead" !!