Hi Ryan,
Well, you have two setups to consider here - the test setup and the eventual running setup.
I/we were just focusing on the temporary test setup with the SLC 5/04 "on the bench" so to speak. For that, the simplest way of communicating with it from the PanelView 900 is using the DH-485 protocol. As I mentioned, the RS-232 channel 0 port on the SLC 5/04 can be configured for the DH-485 protocol. So that now means that both devices would be ready to chat, but we need a hard line for communications. So next we have to get them interconnected. As this would be a test setup, you should be able to setup the SLC 5/04 and the PanelView 900 "on the bench" somewhere.
There is no cable to go directly from the AMP communications port on the PanelView 900 to the channel 0 port on the SLC 5/04. This is because the AMP port is using the RS-485 wiring standard and cannot be directly linked to an RS-232 port. So we must use interfacing between them. If you have a 1761-NET-AIC+ interface converter and an older 1747-AIC link coupler knocking around in your spares, and the right cables, then you could connect them together for the test.
For the eventual setup - the SLC 5/03 has a native DH-485 channel 1 port. This is the RJ-45 style port at the top which is, incidentally, also using the RS-485 wiring standard. You could connect directly from this DH-485 port to communicate with the PanelView 900, but this is only supported up to 20 feet. Up to 40 feet you can use a single interface. For anything over 40 feet you must use two interconnected interface units...
However, the SLC 5/03 also has the same RS-232 channel 0 port as the SLC 5/04. Likewise, this channel 0 port may be configured for the DH-485 protocol.
So you could use the same communications setup to communicate with the eventual SLC 5/03 as you would be using with the temporary SLC 5/04. The only difference between both setups would be the length of cabling between the two interface units. The temp setup can be quite short, whereas the eventual setup will require 100 feet of special screened cable (Belden 9843) between both interfaces.
I'll illustrate a typical setup...
Have you any interface units or cables knocking about like the above? If not you may have to purchase some hardware to get this up and running.
Ryan rose said:
...We'd like to incorporate this PV900 into the mold handler's SLC5/03 to replace the 30 buttons(which are inconveniently separated into multiple locations)...
With my Safety cap on...
Your modification sounds OK. However, whenever I see or read statements like the above, and keeping in mind I do not know anything about your application in the real world; it raises certain Safety questions...
Are you sure it's OK, from a Safety point of view, to consolidate all the controls into one area of control i.e. the HMI?
While apparently inconvenient, are the separate controls necessary so that an Operator could see more closely what they are controlling as they do so?
Will anything you may be controlling from the new position be blind to the Operator in the new position, if it was not before? If blind, is it Safe to start i.e. are hazards safe-guarded against, if there are any?
Of course, that is just a blind assessment from me. You could have already considered all this or perhaps it's not of concern at all. It's a "just in case" piece of advice.
Regards,
George