What do you Think of the New Rockwell Compact IO System

What do you Think of the New Rockwell Compact IO System

http://literature.rockwellautomation.com/idc/groups/literature/documents/pp/5069-pp001_-en-p.pdf

I was going to post "what's new about it ? 1769 Compact I/O has been around for a decade."

But whoah... this is the first time I've seen the new 5069 I/O system. The product profile is dated November 2015.

How did you find out about it ?

It's not shown on the I/O platforms page (the link in the PDF is not yet active) and that Product Profile is the only publication in the Literature Library.

I expect that this, along with the 5580 series of 1756 platform controllers, will be highly featured in Tech Session T02, "What's new in Logix", at Automation Fair in Chicago next week.

The EtherNet/IP adapter already has USB and an SD card and a small dot matrix display, suggesting that it might have the underlying hardware available for a CompactLogix CPU as well.

Ken Roach said:

I was going to post "what's new about it ? 1769 Compact I/O has been around for a decade."

But whoah... this is the first time I've seen the new 5069 I/O system. The product profile is dated November 2015.

How did you find out about it ?

It's not shown on the I/O platforms page (the link in the PDF is not yet active) and that Product Profile is the only publication in the Literature Library.

I expect that this, along with the 5580 series of 1756 platform controllers, will be highly featured in Tech Session T02, "What's new in Logix", at Automation Fair in Chicago next week.

The EtherNet/IP adapter already has USB and an SD card and a small dot matrix display, suggesting that it might have the underlying hardware available for a CompactLogix CPU as well.

Click to expand...

Ken

It will be in T02. Are you going? I will be there. Anyone else on the forums headed to Chicago for AF?

Look like there's no 120 VAC modules currently, so that's a bummer for us. The extra density over Point IO will come in handy.

Out of curiosity, how much use is a "fast" input card if you're still going over Ethernet and subject to its RPI?

As always though, it all depends on what they are charging for it...

I like the concept and footprint, but it is useless to me if Safety I/O is not included.

I love it... until you wire it up and have it in a cabinet then have someone try to troubleshoot, once they cut the wire ties and start pulling on wires it will soon look like ****

Whats wrong with putting wires behind a door and not have them in your face, same as the Click PLC, 99% of my customers dont care about whats inside or the features just on the price and the looks once its installed

Let me see one after its been installed after a year and then I will make up my end... as you can tell I am more on the building/troubleshooting side of our business, still a fan of the 1769 mods

I like it a lot.
I hope that if they do release Compactlogix CPUs for this system, that there will be both "affordable" and "powerful" variants.
I can definitely imagine this as the basis for an all-encompassing general purpose automation system, from low-end to high-end (*)

Some critique, questions:
- I think that the lettering that designates the terminals is very discrete (too discrete).
- I think that since (almost) all terminals will be used up for the signal wires on the 16-channel variants, that at this point this system cannot do away with an intermediary terminal strip for sensors and actuators. There are no auxiliary terminals. Maybe in the future if 8-channel modules are released, then there will be connection points so that sensors and actuators can be connected directly.

* If this actually happens, ControlLogix would be relegated to the high-end with extra features for the procestype systems (RIP, CiR, redundancy).
And that is why I fear it will not happen.

geniusintraining said:

I love it... until you wire it up and have it in a cabinet then have someone try to troubleshoot, once they cut the wire ties and start pulling on wires it will soon look like ****

Whats wrong with putting wires behind a door and not have them in your face, same as the Click PLC, 99% of my customers dont care about whats inside or the features just on the price and the looks once its installed

Let me see one after its been installed after a year and then I will make up my end... as you can tell I am more on the building/troubleshooting side of our business, still a fan of the 1769 mods

Click to expand...

This is how we have done it for many years now. Front insertion cage-clamp terminals rather than side inserted screw terminals. We are definitely not going back.
Yeah, the wires needs to be "tucked back" into the wiring duct, and that looks slightly less appealing as a bundle of wires hidden behind a door. But your argument about troubleshooting does not hold up.
The front-inserted wires are easier to identify and get to, and if you have to install a new wire, or move an existing wire, you dont mess up that bundle of wires. I occasionally do some rewiring on old systems, in order to upgrade them, and I can testify to that front-inserted wires in cage-clamp terminals takes half the time to connect as compared to classical side-inserted wires in screw-terminals.

JesperMP said:

I occasionally do some rewiring on old systems, in order to upgrade them, and I can testify to that front-inserted wires in cage-clamp terminals takes half the time to connect as compared to classical side-inserted wires in screw-terminals.

Click to expand...

Agreed BUT, you will only install a machine once... I will troubleshoot it many times over the next 10 years, if it takes you a little more time now it would save me a lot more in the future

Its like programming in STL, its faster to program but for troubleshooting (for most technicians) its harder for them to understand so if you can't convert it over its a pain and better to take the longer road and program in ladder if given the choice

Not asking to go back just have some consideration for others and their view

I still dont see your argument. In a module like the click and 1769 there is typically a small duct in the module where the wires have to fit before they enter the terminals from the side, and there is typically a dense bundle of wires that just barely fit into that duct. When you have to trace a wire from the terminals and all the way back, it is harder to identify the wire and trace it. You typically end up making a mess of that bundle of wires, so much that you have a hard time closing the door on the module. And after that it also LOOKs awful. Come to think of it, I often see in old panels with PLC modules like that, that the wire bundles in the modules looks messed up and the doors either cant be closed or are just missing.

JesperMP said:

In a module like the click and 1769 .

Click to expand...

No the Click is the same as 5069, the 1769 has the door

JesperMP said:

I still dont see your argument

Click to expand...

Not a argument.... the question was "What do you Think of the New Rockwell Compact IO System" just gave my opinion and answered the question

Kind of useless. It only works with one processor, the ControlLogix L8. Word is, this is going to be the "new standard" for A-B remote I/O. Everything is going to adopt the same wiring and architecture. Of course, we've all heard that one before. Only time will tell, and honestly, given my customer base, I'll probably never use this iteration of it.

PBuchanan said:

Ken

It will be in T02. Are you going? I will be there. Anyone else on the forums headed to Chicago for AF?

Click to expand...

I'm planning on being there.

keshik said:

Look like there's no 120 VAC modules currently, so that's a bummer for us. The extra density over Point IO will come in handy.

Out of curiosity, how much use is a "fast" input card if you're still going over Ethernet and subject to its RPI?

As always though, it all depends on what they are charging for it...

Click to expand...

Reading the literature my vendor gave me, it looks like there's some logic capability within the I/O. It seems like they're more than just "dumb" I/O modules.

Given that this is specifically for the new Control Logix Processor, I'm going to venture a guess a say in the neighborhood of multiple arms and legs.

This I/O is happening. They are revamping Flex and Point I/O as well.
Along with this they are making changes to the data types in Logix Designer where all the I/O data types will have the same structure. The idea being that you can build your program with any I/O, say Flex, then if a customer changes to Point, you won't have to rework your program because both data types will have the exact same structure.

The presentation we got was quick so I'm waiting for the slides so I can soak it all in.