dmargineau
Lifetime Supporting Member
Platform SLC 5/04- 1747-ASB.
Has anyone ever attempted to "monitor Universal RIO communications rate" via ladder logic for the above listed platform?
This is the second occurence within a couple of years when a 1395 DC drive, controlled via Universal RIO by an SLC 5/04-1747-ASB and the 1395-148540 Node Adapter interface, seemingly "Okay" from the CPU's and drive's processor vantage points, started "acting up" with no obvious field issues...
Admitting that the respective applications are pretty "complicated" and relying on "timely CPU communications" the only way to "decide" about the 1395 Communications option "partial failure" was the inabilty of the users to connect DriveTools 32 to the drive's processor over a DH+-to-RIO PassThru link; interfacing "Serially" to the on-board SCANPORT port never failed and the drive seemed perfectly functional according to DriveTools 32 or Drive Executive Online interfaces!
Upon the replacement of the Node Adapter option board the issues completely disappeared.
AB/Rockwell TechSupport delivered nothing but the usual "run around"...
I have personally never experienced this type of "partial failure" of a $1400 communications component; obviously, the reason for the "fits" was the "decreased" RIO baud rate, reduction determined by the inabilty of the DriveTools 32 utility to remotely connect to the 1395 RIO communications port.
In my world, two identical occurences already constitute a pattern.
Has anyone ever attempted to "monitor Universal RIO communications rate" via ladder logic for the above listed platform?
This is the second occurence within a couple of years when a 1395 DC drive, controlled via Universal RIO by an SLC 5/04-1747-ASB and the 1395-148540 Node Adapter interface, seemingly "Okay" from the CPU's and drive's processor vantage points, started "acting up" with no obvious field issues...
Admitting that the respective applications are pretty "complicated" and relying on "timely CPU communications" the only way to "decide" about the 1395 Communications option "partial failure" was the inabilty of the users to connect DriveTools 32 to the drive's processor over a DH+-to-RIO PassThru link; interfacing "Serially" to the on-board SCANPORT port never failed and the drive seemed perfectly functional according to DriveTools 32 or Drive Executive Online interfaces!
Upon the replacement of the Node Adapter option board the issues completely disappeared.
AB/Rockwell TechSupport delivered nothing but the usual "run around"...
I have personally never experienced this type of "partial failure" of a $1400 communications component; obviously, the reason for the "fits" was the "decreased" RIO baud rate, reduction determined by the inabilty of the DriveTools 32 utility to remotely connect to the 1395 RIO communications port.
In my world, two identical occurences already constitute a pattern.
Last edited:
