Mixing Controlnet Platforms

It looks to me that 1756(ControlLogix) and 1747(SLC) Controlnet don't mix. I'd like to have my 1756-CNB(ControlLogix) talk to my 1747-ACN15(SLC I/O). Any ideas why it doesn't work? Guess I'll be using the ol' DH+.

Sam

A little more detail would be nice. Can you see both modules through RSLinx? If so, did you set up a ControlNet network in RSNetworx? Are the firmware in both cards compatible? Maybe you need to flash a firmware upgrade.

Do they have the same node?

If you are wanting your SLC I/O to show up as a remote rack to your CLX processor, it's not gonna happen. Now if you have a SLC processor in that rack and you want to message you can replace the ACN with a SCNR, but of course that is not what you want I would assume, since now you would have two programs to maintain.

The closest you can get to using your 1746 I/O is to put a 1756-DHRIO card in your CLX and an ASB module in your SLC rack. Of course there are some limitations to the DHRIO module & you should read up before using (don't expect it to perform as well as a PLC5 RIO scanner).

Or just bite the bullet and replace the SLC I/O with CLX I/O with controlnet modules.

Darren

The purpose of the modification is to move and convert the ladder from the SLC5/02 into a new ControlLogix. This eliminates the old SLC5/02 while keeping all the I/O wiring in the SLC rack. The 82 rung ladder was relatively simple to convert using the Logix conversion tool.

ControlNet is the network of choice because of the inherent speed and ease of programming and there is already a 1756-CNB in the new rack. It would have been cool to just replace the 5/02 processor with a SLC adaptor but Rockwell says it wont work. I thought ControlNet is ControlNet but apparently there is a PLC/SLC flavor which is different than the ControlLogix flavor.

The options as stated are to go DH+ (one flavor only) or to replace the SLC rack and I/O cards (and spares...), and rewire it. Ugh. I guess the real reason for this rant is for someone (Rockwell) to explain why there is not a simple migration from SLC to ControlLogix using *ONE* card and some software mods. I sure the answer will be equally technical and unsatisfying.

Sam

Just to be nit picky, it is not DH+, but A-B Universal Remote IO that you would be using. For a single rack it will work well. RIO is actually easy to work with, once you get the hang of it. The only area it is confusing on is the analog modules which require a BTR/BTW.

See http://domino.automation.rockwell.c...A70A339035A3F0CF85256AFB00674958?OpenDocument

for general concept of BTW.

Darren

It's not that ControlNet is any different when implemented on SLC and ControlLogix platforms, it's that the ControlLogix never had I/O profiles built for the 1746-ACNR15 and 1746 I/O modules.

Why ? Very simple; to prevent low-function 1746 I/O from undercutting high-function 1756 I/O on the market. The decision was made a long time ago and I don't see it changing.

I love the features of 1756 I/O and I don't like trying to use old I/O with new systems unless they are very extensive (like the 83 racks of 1771 I'm renovating to ControlNet).

You can use 1746 I/O modules with PLC-5 controllers on ControlNet. You can use FLEX I/O modules with PLC-5C15 or ControlLogix.

But you're in that corner of the product map that was purposely never colored in.

I'm not sure how satisfying that answer is to you, but in your particular circumstance you're going to need a 1756-DHRIO scanner and 1746-ASB as previous posters have described.

Ken is absolutely correct: SLC I/O can't be controlled by ControlLogix - this is done mostly by political reasons.

But they can co-exist on the same ControlNET network.

Let say: you have some PLC5,CLX,SLCs PLCs with mix 1747, 1771, 1794 and 1756 I/O on the same network.
PLC5 can control SLC, PLC5 and FLEX I/O
CLX can control PLC5, CLX and FLEX I/O
SLC can control SLC I/O and I am not sure about the rest.

My opinion: it is time to switch to 1756 I/O, once you use it you will never go back to SLC, PLC5 and possibly Flex modules.

Speaking of Flex: 1734 platform should replace it completely very soon.