Logic Efficiency help

[JeffKiper]

If you can get them to use RFID on each can you can reduce the human error factor. If Im running can 5 but I accidentally hit can 8 because I was busy. What is the consequences? Does the machine run dry or do you have more material in the can when you remive it it makes a mess? After cleaning up a few messes the RFID pay for themselves time and timw again.

 

[Mueller34]

Personally, If you are going to spend time upgrading the system then it would make sense at this point to re-number the cans anyway, RFID is a good way but if these cans get bashed quite a bit could end up with a lot of mis-reads, also the cost of a reader & the chips would be higher.
From that point it would also make sense that if a can is replaced then give it that number & reenter the tare weight.

+1 for retagging all the cans while the upgrade is being done

What about using barcodes to identify the cans? Depending on the can and its use you could use a printed label or laser engrave it?

 

[plvlce]

+1 for retagging all the cans while the upgrade is being done

What about using barcodes to identify the cans? Depending on the can and its use you could use a printed label or laser engrave it?

From the mention of FOD as a potential issue a printed label might be an issue, but I can't see how an engraved barcode would be any more of a concern than the current engraved number.

 

[parky]

The problem with many systems that use a camera or optical recognition is placing the bin in the right direction or multiple readers etc. we had a system using RFID the vessels were all the same size & could only be fitted in the "NEST" as we called it so there was no chance of missing a read due to orientation, it will depend on your system of course, knowing many companies are reluctant to spend large sums on tech, & I suppose it depends on loss of material, production time lost, maintenance of a tech system the people who hold the purse strings are the ones you need to convince, but if the operators are not up to ensuring things are placed correctly it will look bad on you, It really is a matter of putting the ball in their court & ensuring you can deliver what is promised.
One of the biggest problems is, operators seem to find the smallest of loop holes to make their life easier, sometimes there is a tradeoff between a completely automated system & one with some manual intervention.

 

[willxfmr]

This is indeed a situation where indirect addressing is probably the best solution. However, I would be sure to add very clear rung comments as to where the indirect numbers are coming from, and going to. As a group, we maintenance folks get confused easily if things aren't explained in more detail than you believe should be required.


Bubba.

 

[parky]

@Willxfmr, I do agree, documentation is essential, indirect addressing can be confusing even for seasoned programmers especially where indirect via an indirect is used, I have seen lots of code where the code has either been made difficult to understand deliberately or because of development to improve efficiency or standardisation it becomes difficult to understand.
I came across some S5 code, in that platform timers are 0-255, however, the code was using timers (timer number passed as a fixed word) from 256 onwards, I was not actually looking at the code as a job, just one of the technicians on site was trying to find a fault, I was aware that there are no timers above 255 & at first I was puzzled, I had a hunch that timers were only 8 bit so I created a timer which was indirectly addressed at 256, it was working & through monitoring timer 0 it was this timer, turns out as the timers are 8 bit addressing the upper byte is ignored so sees it as timer minus 256 i.e. only uses the lower byte. This was obviously an attempt to deter people from messing with the code. Also seen again in S5 where an MC5 instruction value in a dataword was used so by doing a special function (one of the RS instructions) the hex code in the dataword was processed as an MC5 instruction, this meant that with some other code that manipulated this dataword it would process that instruction, an example (not actual MC5 hex code as I do not have it now)
Lets assume the MC5 instruction is Load I0.5 so the MC5 code is as below
Load KHB5A0 // load a hex value for the MC5 instruction (note: the upper part of the 16bit word is the MC5 instruction & the lower is possibly an address
DO RSx // Sorry cannot remember the RS instruction but it processes the code so in reality it Loads I0.5
By incrementing the address bits the next time it is scanned it runs the load instruction with a different Input bit.
So in effect self modifying code it foxed me for a while & I considered it dangerous.