|
|
| Author |
Message |
server
science forum beginner
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 26
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:21 am Post subject:
Alternator control problem
|
|
|
|
message unavailable |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bruce Durdle
science forum beginner
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:21 am Post subject:
Re: Required FDA and OSHA control system documentation?
|
|
|
It's one of the examples I quote to people who don't think spelling
matters. I seem to recollect that a few years ago there was a case in
the UK where a doctor used "proscribed" instead of "prescribed" when
writing some instructions for care of a patient ...
Bruce.
Francis wrote:
| Quote: | Yes, wrong word, sorry. I meant prescribe or enforce.
And all you have to do to check is tap Define and the word into a search as
I just did.
"Bruce Durdle" <bmdurdle@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:421f76dc$1@clear.net.nz...
Shouldn't that be "prescribe"?
(That's my nit pick for the week) - but the IEE Guidelines (and I think
the HSE before that) recomend a Functional Spec to be "complete, concise,
and unambiguous". Add accurate to that as well.
Bruce.
Francis wrote:
It is a principle of the FDA not to proscribe a particular way. It's a
sort of consultants charter really.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Miller
science forum beginner
Joined: 06 Feb 2005
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:21 am Post subject:
Re: Misubishi.. E-Terminals
|
|
|
"jb" <st1@cpsv.com> wrote in message news:ctmfoo$44r$1@news.netins.net...
| Quote: | sQuick
Ok Got one.. 
Recipes.. Our machine needs the operator to change setups. Not provided by
the company that built the machine.
Some of the var's the operator needs to adjust during the run. I need to
be able to save these changes back to the same setup name without having
the need of the operator to enter a 'new' name each time.
I can see that the save needs to be triggered by the PLC, yes?
But I think I need to be able to set a bit in the PLC from the operator
interface when they 'load' a new setup from the U.I.
Can a touch button set more than one bit/data register at a time. Looking
to have the 'load recipe' work and also set a flag bit the PLC can use to
'know' that the world changed.
Hope this make since ..... sometime translating what's in the head is not
to easy..
thanks
jb..
|
I can see what your saying, and it sounds pretty simple.
Unfortuneatly I dont have a termail avaliable at the minute.
I'll have to wait till the next job with one comes in......if u can
wait ?
If u cant wait, contact me via email and ill have a word with
the mitsi reps.
Regards
Paul Miller iEng MIIE (elec)
(sQuick) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ajay
science forum beginner
Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 3
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joerg
science forum beginner
Joined: 08 Feb 2005
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:21 am Post subject:
Re: Required FDA and OSHA control system documentation?
|
|
|
Hello John,
| Quote: | Keeping the design document up to date and continuing to use it is one
of the most important things. It can be rather difficult when I walk
into a plant to do some work and find no documentation or out of date
documents.
|
My first boss said "If you didn't document it then it didn't happen".
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ajay
science forum beginner
Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:21 am Post subject:
Re: What is Axis Control
|
|
|
Jerry Avins wrote:
| Quote: | That site shows several product lines. If you can't tell them apart,
you
will need a lot of help to design things similar to them.
The carriage on a lathe, as it is moved along the ways by the lead
screw, is a single-axis system. The cross slide on the carriage, at
right angles to the ways, is a second axis; both axes described so
far
are linear. The spindle in the headstock rotates, that's a third
axis.
The compound rest that rides on the cross slide can be replaced by
another linear motion, perpendicular to both the bed and cross-slide
ways, called a milling attachment. That is a third linear axis. Each
of
those axes of motion can be, but needn't be, put under servo control.
I hope that helps you to understand the task better.
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can
get.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ |
Thanks, that indeed explains it very well  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry Avins
science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 534
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:21 am Post subject:
Re: What is Axis Control
|
|
|
Ajay wrote:
That site shows several product lines. If you can't tell them apart, you
will need a lot of help to design things similar to them.
The carriage on a lathe, as it is moved along the ways by the lead
screw, is a single-axis system. The cross slide on the carriage, at
right angles to the ways, is a second axis; both axes described so far
are linear. The spindle in the headstock rotates, that's a third axis.
The compound rest that rides on the cross slide can be replaced by
another linear motion, perpendicular to both the bed and cross-slide
ways, called a milling attachment. That is a third linear axis. Each of
those axes of motion can be, but needn't be, put under servo control.
I hope that helps you to understand the task better.
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott Seidman
science forum addict
Joined: 05 May 2005
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:21 am Post subject:
Re: LabView example of undecipherable write-only code
|
|
|
perfb@yahoo.com wrote in news:1107224142.918598.36340
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
| Quote: | Here is a screen-shot of an actual real-world working automatic
test program used in an industrial manufacturing environment
that I have since had to try and maintain:
http://www.geocities.com/perfb/labviewgibberish2.jpg
(view at 100% zoom to read labels)
In my humble opinion, it appears to me as a wonderful
example of LabView's potential for incomprehensibility.
I wonder what others might think of this example?
Should the original programmer just be shot,
or was there something he could have done
to make it more hierarchical and/or understandable?
Or, is it a natural evolution into indecipherability as
LabView applications grow in complexity?
|
It's like any other example of undocumented code not broken down into
appropriate subroutines.
That said, I have a real problem with Labview's
interpretation/representation of a state machine. Once it gets a hair
complicated, its impossible to edit/debug.
Scott |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jrferguson
science forum beginner
Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:21 am Post subject:
Re: Maths Problem - Need all the help I can get!
|
|
|
Your value of 11.18 is incorrect by my reconning. I make it v = 6.196 sin(5pi t
- 0.1077)
From: v1 = 4.33cos(5pi t) - 2.5sin(5pi t)
and v2 = 8.66sin(5pi t) - 5cos(5pi t)
v1 +v2 = v = 6.16sin(5pi t) - 0.67cos(5pi t)
which gives: v = 6.196sin(5pi t - 0.1077)
when v = 4Volts we have 4/6.196 = sin(5pi t - 0.1077) = 0.6456
therefore: arcsin(0.6456) = 5pi t - 0.1077 = 0.702
solving for t gives 0.0515 seconds
If you ave access to Matlab (or similar) you can verify my calculations for
yourself.
Hope this helps
John Ferguson
Windsor, England |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve Cothran
science forum beginner
Joined: 28 Jun 2005
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:21 am Post subject:
Re: LabView example of undecipherable write-only code
|
|
|
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 13:14:10 -0500, Gene S. Berkowitz
<first.last@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
It appears that the original Artist (this ISN'T programming)
did not realize that he could use more than one screen for the
project...
--Gene
|
Yeah, Labview docs tell you that somewhere around page 1134 of the 3rd
book or thereabouts. :0
I bought v7.something and attempted to grasp it. I stopped because I'm
48 already. It does come in a cool box, though, and makes a great
support for a shelf. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Shaw
science forum beginner
Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:21 am Post subject:
Re: Required FDA and OSHA control system documentation?
|
|
|
Tim Wescott wrote:
<snip>That document is still used by the company, 5 years later.</snip>
Keeping the design document up to date and continuing to use it is one
of the most important things. It can be rather difficult when I walk
into a plant to do some work and find no documentation or out of date
documents.
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Allen
science forum beginner
Joined: 05 Feb 2005
Posts: 23
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:21 am Post subject:
Re: LabView example of undecipherable write-only code
|
|
|
Typical example of badly written software, should send it to Mr Gates.
<perfb@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107224142.918598.36340@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Here is a screen-shot of an actual real-world working automatic
test program used in an industrial manufacturing environment
that I have since had to try and maintain:
http://www.geocities.com/perfb/labviewgibberish2.jpg
(view at 100% zoom to read labels)
In my humble opinion, it appears to me as a wonderful
example of LabView's potential for incomprehensibility.
I wonder what others might think of this example?
Should the original programmer just be shot,
or was there something he could have done
to make it more hierarchical and/or understandable?
Or, is it a natural evolution into indecipherability as
LabView applications grow in complexity?
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tim Wescott
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 292
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:21 am Post subject:
Re: Required FDA and OSHA control system documentation?
|
|
|
The best job of documentation I did was the one really in-control
project that I had the privilege of working on. I generated documents
and two other people implemented my designs in software. If there was a
question I answered it by revising the document, and they followed the
document to implement.
That document is still used by the company, 5 years later.
John Shaw wrote:
| Quote: | Anita,
I have worked with several pharmaceutical manufacturers who have
different attitudes about requirements for documentation, so I am not
sure what the FDA requirements are. As for your question,
"some PID loops have logic that forces it into manual under certain
circumstances... Does the plant have to have documentation of loops
that have such features?"
I really haven't been able to find the answer.
My own opinion applies to all industries, regardless of regulation.
Those loops and all others should be documented. For each control
system there should be functional specification that list all loops,
programs, and logic modules and their function. Every loop should be
listed. A simple, "standard" loop could refer to a section of the
spec describing the standard function. However, any exception needs to
be specifically documented as to the function (not the implementation).
For example "FIC-123 is forced into manual mode when pump PU-123 is
not running. When PU-123 is running, FIC-123 will remain in manual
until the operator places it into automatic."
The documentation may have tables listing the loops, their tags and
descriptions, and a reference to a paragraph describing the function
(either a generic description or a unique description for that loop).
For every control loop the document should describe what the loop
controls (maintains at set point) and what the loop manipulates
(changes in order to carry out the control). For example, LIC-123
controls the level in tank T-123 by manipulating the flow (FI-122) into
the tank.
Of course, this document may be very long and time consuming to
prepare. But the process and its control strategy hve to be designed.
When these are designed the document can also be prepared. After all,
it has to be written down somewhere if anyone is going to implement it.
And you will soon find that the functional description will pay off in
the long run (often in the short run) whether or not it is required by
any regulatory body.
John
Anita Richards wrote:
I am interested in the types of control system documentation required
in regulated industries, particularly FDA (pharmaceutical) and OSHA
(plants under PSM regs).
Are written descriptions of logic and control loops required to be
kept. For example, some PID loops have logic that forces it into
manual
under certain circumstances. Most were implemented when the control
system was installed; others as a part of modifications. Does the
plant
have to have documentation of loops that have such features? What is
the typical industry practice?
Any other comments are welcome.
|
--
Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gene S. Berkowitz
science forum beginner
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:21 am Post subject:
Re: LabView example of undecipherable write-only code
|
|
|
In article <1107224142.918598.36340@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
perfb@yahoo.com says...
| Quote: | Here is a screen-shot of an actual real-world working automatic
test program used in an industrial manufacturing environment
that I have since had to try and maintain:
http://www.geocities.com/perfb/labviewgibberish2.jpg
(view at 100% zoom to read labels)
In my humble opinion, it appears to me as a wonderful
example of LabView's potential for incomprehensibility.
I wonder what others might think of this example?
Should the original programmer just be shot,
or was there something he could have done
to make it more hierarchical and/or understandable?
Or, is it a natural evolution into indecipherability as
LabView applications grow in complexity?
|
It appears that the original Artist (this ISN'T programming)
did not realize that he could use more than one screen for the
project...
--Gene |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry Avins
science forum Guru
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 534
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:21 am Post subject:
Re: CHEAP Serial bus, control 200 devices, 50 meters
|
|
|
Ben Bradley wrote:
| Quote: | ... http://users.erols.com/jyavins/tantrum.htm ...
DDJ didn't publish that? I now remember (I haven't even though of
this in years!) that I wrote and DDJ published a semicoherent rant
about the C language (I had the bad luck of learning C just before the
ANSI standard came out), and once I saw where my published letter took
most of a page, I wished I'd submitted it as a "guest editorial" or
some such and gotten paid for it!
About your code, there's a routine in the Apple ][ ROM (source
listing in the "Red Book" included with early ]['s) to do the same
thing with a 6502 (its branch and call instructions are almost
identical to the HC11), and the code looks almost identical to yours.
I'm not accusing you of plagiarism or any such, just pointing out that
several people doing the most efficient implementation of a fairly
simple task like this are likely to come up with the same solution.
|
...
I strongly believe that the only way for most of us to become good
writers is reading the works of good writers. In that sense, written
programs are much like other literature. My assembly code style
developed when I was writing code for 1802 (with no role model) and in
the 6502, where I had the excellent monitor ROMs of the KIM-1 and the
AIM-65 to serve as models of style and repositories of neat ideas. I
read them to learn how to use their functions, but to do that, I needed
to understand what the code did, and the details were enlightening.
I first encountered the "trick" of one function calling another just
after it with no RETURN statement in order to repeat an action in the
AIM-65 monitor. In outline, it looks like this:
DBLSP: CALL CRLF
CRLF: <code to output $0A $0D>
RETURN
When DBLSP (doublespace) is called, CRLF (Carriage-Return/Line-Feed)
executes twice, then returns to the original caller. You don't forget
lines like that any sooner than you forget "Jenny kissed me when we
met"* if you happen to come across it.
I guess that my point is that writing in the same style often creates
similar works. (It's no wonder that some early Mozart sounds rather like
Haydn.) There's no plagiarism, but no coincidence, either.
Jerry
____________________________________________
* Jenny Kissed Me by Leigh Hunt
Jenny kissed me when we met,
Jumping from the chair she sat in.
Time, you thief! who love to get
Sweets into your list, put that in.
Say I'm weary, say I'm sad;
Say that health and wealth have missed me;
Say I'm growing old, but add-
Jenny kissed me!
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Sun Nov 23, 2008 10:26 am | All times are GMT
|
|
Personal Injury Attorney Los Angeles | Loans | Flights to Bangkok | Problem Mortgage | Remortgages
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Electronics forum |
Medicine forum |
Unix/Linux blog |
Unix/Linux documentation |
Unix/Linux forums
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Science and Technology
»
Engineering
»
Control
