Another lie to push their product...

[codewriter]

“The system will not use any proprietary communications protocol including the LonTALK protocol, which must communicate through the LonWORKS processing chip manufactured exclusively by the Eschelon Corporation”

The liars can’t even spell Echelon properly.



http://s104880821.onlinehome.us/alc.jpg

[nikko]

Would you trust a company that publishes a specification that reads as if it was written by a pouty high-school girl? Honestly - if that's the best they can do....

ALC - you should be ashamed of yourself. I thought you guys were better than this.

Nikko

[jeffk91467]

I would bet that page was copied from a spec book for a local job you were bidding on. It wasn't written by "Alc" but by a local controls contractor for a local engineer who did't feel like writing it himself. Everyone's seen local contractors write spec's for projects they are already locked into or chummy with the mechanical engineer.
What's the big deal. It's done all the time.
ALC didn't write that line about LON.

[codewriter]

ALC sure did, its on the second page of their bid package.

[jeffk91467]

The local dealer may have. The company ALC didn't write it. I have seen their "Guide Spec" for their dealerships and that LON statement is not in it. The local dealer obviously added it to lock out the local competition. The local dealer is a locally owned company.

[kwillmech]

Good point though about LON being proprietary in the sense that you must pay Echelon their due by using their chip.

[sysint]

Originally posted by kwillmech
Good point though about LON being proprietary in the sense that you must pay Echelon their due by using their chip. Another lie. Do you have facts to back this up? Of course not.

Plus, simply look at Loytec which designed their own Lonworks "chip". Not really any different from the "chips" a bacnetter uses in their product. I suppose bacnet people could use minature monkeys carrying messages instead of an actual "chip"; however, most of the electronic world utilizes "chips". You may have thought you had some sort of a point, but in reality that was nothing but a lie.

[amsolo]

Well you might not like EMS but they are one of the big boys in the DC metro area. They are comprised of mostly blue-collar workers. They are excellent installers. EMS does more work ($$$) than ALC in GA. They are ALC's biggest integrator.

I have a system with some of there stuff, but I like line programming vs. block (Eikon). Also, different software is needed for each function - programming, graphics, front end.

[amsolo]

Well you might not like EMS but they are one of the big boys in the DC metro area. They are comprised of mostly blue-collar workers. They are excellent installers. EMS does more work ($$$) than ALC in GA. They are ALC's biggest integrator.

I have a system with some of there stuff, but I prefer line programming vs. block (Eikon). Also, different software is needed for each function - programming, graphics, front end.

[nikko]

I have nothing against EMS - won't ever run into them, don;t really care who they are. But I do have a problem with misinformation and lying. As I said earlier, I thought ALC was better than this.

Nikko

[codewriter]

Originally posted by amsolo
Well you might not like EMS but they are one of the big boys in the DC metro area. They are comprised of mostly blue-collar workers. They are excellent installers. EMS does more work ($$$) than ALC in GA. They are ALC's biggest integrator.

I have a system with some of there stuff, but I prefer line programming vs. block (Eikon). Also, different software is needed for each function - programming, graphics, front end.

How big they are does not affect me in the slightest. The comment about LON just shows they are either ignorant, or they know they can't compete so they take the bully route. Pretty sad and unprofessional.


Whose system do you install Amsolo? Work for yourself or a company? What languages can you write?

[kwillmech]

Originally posted by sysint

Originally posted by kwillmech
Good point though about LON being proprietary in the sense that you must pay Echelon their due by using their chip. Another lie. Do you have facts to back this up? Of course not.

Plus, simply look at Loytec which designed their own Lonworks "chip". Not really any different from the "chips" a bacnetter uses in their product. I suppose bacnet people could use minature monkeys carrying messages instead of an actual "chip"; however, most of the electronic world utilizes "chips". You may have thought you had some sort of a point, but in reality that was nothing but a lie.


Facts? No, I'm not the jury here. But every LON device I've seen has the Echelon chip on it. BTW, I've never really seen a Bacnet chip. I think it's just a standard idea for communicating and controlling stuff. Nobody pays ASHRAE for every Bacnet device they manufacture. Nobody pays ASHRAE any credits or tokens for every device they configure on a network.

[Edited by kwillmech on 11-17-2006 at 08:33 PM]

[jeffk91467]

"How big they are does not affect me in the slightest. The comment about LON just shows they are either ignorant, or they know they can't compete so they take the bully route. Pretty sad and unprofessional."

Codewriter, how do you know that the owner of the job the spec was written for didn't want any other controls contractor's bidding the project. They may have already determined who was going to do the project and asked them to write the spec's so there is only one bidder. Or maybe the controls contractor did all the leg work on the project and the engineer let him design and spec the controls. Or maybe the mechanical contractor was handed the job and he prefers to use a specific subcontractor. Maybe they have a good salesman and he get's flat spec'ed on projects. It has nothing with being ignorant, unprofesional or a bully. If someone can get a job without having to bid against everyone and their brother and make a fair mark-up, then more power too them. We've been locked out of bidding job's before, it's just part of the business. Happens to all of us.

[nikko]

jeffk91467 - you could well be right, but whoever wrote that spec. should not even have graduated high school let alone be let free writing spec's for a national company. This isn't sour grapes - I have no problem if an owner flat spec's someone else. I do have a problem if they put that spec on the street and waste other vendors time, but that's a different discussion.

ALC is suppsed to be a solid company. When they produce incorrect information in a completely amature way using poor research and poor presentation it reflects on the company.

As it has done.

BTW - most manufacturers choose the Neuron because it's cheap, easily available and it works. The protocol itself can be and has been ported to a multutude of processors including the the 80xx family, the Pentium family, ARM 7 and 9 family etc. It can reside on just about any procesor out there, provided there's an economic reason to do so. The statements made in the spec. are false, plain and simple and if you do your research you'll find it so (please - don't come back on me on this until you've done your reaearch, I'm not going to do it for you). This isn't a we/them thing, like I said - I have no problem with competition, provided it's good and provided it's presented by someone other than a snot nosed junior wannabe who's puffing up their chest and can't be bothered to at least show some respect for the rest of the industry.

Nikko

[sysint]

Originally posted by kwillmech Facts? No, I'm not the jury here. But every LON device I've seen has the Echelon chip on it. BTW, I've never really seen a Bacnet chip. I think it's just a standard idea for communicating and controlling stuff. Nobody pays ASHRAE for every Bacnet device they manufacture. Nobody pays ASHRAE any credits or tokens for every device they configure on a network.[/B]See Nikko's comments. Anyway, I'm saying that every controller has "chips". You can't get away from it because it's electronics, and many have some form of licensing agreement. This stupid claim about proprietary chips and licensing strictly for Lonworks has to be dropped until I start seeing minature bacnet monkeys running around in bacnetter controllers. Also, Echelon makes no chips themselves. Toshiba and Cypress do.

You pay ASHRAE by being bullied into their protocol with their business partners.

The manufacturers pay stiff fees to maintain bacnet approvals, which in turn you pay for too.

[control_junkie]

Manufacturers pick up the cost of implementing neuron chips in their controllers and in the end, most devices at the hardware level are cost competitive when it comes to the big guys like Honeywell, ALC and JCI etc...

And let's not forget that a contractor only pays ECHELON extra royalties per LON node when utilizing LNS based software.

It is much easier and cost effective to integrate multiple vendor LONWORKS devices than it is multiple vendor BACnet devices.

However, all that being said, proprietary extends far beyond a communication protocol! It encompasses programming tools, database formats, point servers and display/graphic formats. To date I have never been able to program an ALC controller with Lonmaker and I have never been able to program a Honeywell controller with Eikon. (no matter how hard I try)

Regardless of the communication layer, 9 times out of 10 you need some proprietary piece of software to do anything.

When you can program vendor A's BACnet device and vendor B's LON device with the same software, and then make them talk on the same wire peer to peer, everyone can stop yelling about this not being open or that being proprietary.

Until that point in time comes, every type of protocol and every type of hardware is in some ways open and in some ways proprietary.

[sysint]

Distech and Circon have their programming language(s) encased into a plugin. So, in Lonmaker I can program Circon and Distech devices... so at least some companies do what you are talking about.

....maybe you should be buying their product. Then the others will start to get the hint.

The talking on the same wire peer-to-peer is a Lonworks standard, and always has been. Don't confuse that point with bacnet.

..... your comments is why the Lonmark demo at ASHRAE ended up being lame. It wasn't properly advertised that multiple software packages were running together with many more multiple manufacturers devices and that a Circon guy could configure an Echelon device and vice-versa.

.........where's Bernstein?

[klrogers]

Originally posted by control_junkie

Regardless of the communication layer, 9 times out of 10 you need some proprietary piece of software to do anything.




Is LON software truly proprietary? I think not, you can use Lonmaker, Circon's Network Integrator, Distech's Lonwatcher or any other LNS network manager software to setup/configure a LNS network with dozens of different manufacturers devices working together on the network. Granted life is a lot easier if you have plug-ins from the device manufacturers, and most manufacturer's will supply the plugins free of charge.

Personally I prefer to pay a small LNS credit charge per device, and only have to purchase one piece of software rather than buying truly proprietary software for each manufacturer of devices I'm using. Like you said the cost of an Echelon Neuron chip is not noticeable in the price of devices.

[control_junkie]

Originally posted by sysint
Distech and Circon have their programming language(s) encased into a plugin. So, in Lonmaker I can program Circon and Distech devices... so at least some companies do what you are talking about.

Last time I tried to get my hands on the Circon BASIC compiler / plug-in I had to sign up to be a Circon rep or buy it from a rep. The plug in was not free... therefore does not fall in to my opinion of open!



..... your comments is why the Lonmark demo at ASHRAE ended up being lame. It wasn't properly advertised that multiple software packages were running together with many more multiple manufacturers devices and that a Circon guy could configure an Echelon device and vice-versa.



Don't get me wrong I really like and prefer LON based products. But "OPEN" is relative to the protocol and systems being installed.

[nikko]

control_junkie - a 9/16" 3/8 drive socket is "open protocol". If any company makes a socket that meets the engineering criteria that's been stipulated and honed over time by the industry, it's going to work with any 9/16" nut or bolt and it will fit on anyone's 3/8" ratchet, regardless of who uses it.

But do you honestly expect that socket to be free?

Nikko

[keyser_soze]

As long as I have to sign one of these:

http://www.echelon.com/developers/lonworks/protocol/default.htm


is it truly open?

[codewriter]

Originally posted by jeffk91467
"How big they are does not affect me in the slightest. The comment about LON just shows they are either ignorant, or they know they can't compete so they take the bully route. Pretty sad and unprofessional."

Codewriter, how do you know that the owner of the job the spec was written for didn't want any other controls contractor's bidding the project. They may have already determined who was going to do the project and asked them to write the spec's so there is only one bidder. Or maybe the controls contractor did all the leg work on the project and the engineer let him design and spec the controls. Or maybe the mechanical contractor was handed the job and he prefers to use a specific subcontractor. Maybe they have a good salesman and he get's flat spec'ed on projects. It has nothing with being ignorant, unprofesional or a bully. If someone can get a job without having to bid against everyone and their brother and make a fair mark-up, then more power too them. We've been locked out of bidding job's before, it's just part of the business. Happens to all of us.


How do I know? The same reason why I have a copy in the first place. The client asked myself and 2 other companies to give them a quote to replace their existing system point for point, and handed us the SOO for the building. I did another building for the same client, but the "owner" requires 3 bids. It was basically a "open spec", no other reason for them to even include these pages other than to try to make their system appear as the only thing on the market thats "open" in hopes to scare the owner into thinking bad things if they went with any other company. Fortunantly the owner is intelligent, and laughed his rear end off at the statement.

So... Thats how I know. ;)

[dapper]

That license agreement as stated is "Free". It is "Open" to anyone that cares to use it. It does however hold accountable anyone that tries to Bastardize the protocol such as has been done with the many so called implemetations of BACnet.

[codewriter]

Originally posted by keyser_soze
As long as I have to sign one of these:

http://www.echelon.com/developers/lonworks/protocol/default.htm


is it truly open?

The Protocol Patent License Agreement mandates that the protocol be fully implemented without exception. Full implementation of the protocol is mandatory to ensure interoperability between devices. Partial protocol implementations, user-modifiable protocol implementations, and deviations from the protocol specification jeopardize interoperability and accordingly are explicitly prohibited and constitute grounds for termination of the Agreement. The Agreement clearly specifies remedies in the event of non-compliance.


And without that, LON would turn into another Bacnet bust.

[control_junkie]

Follow the conversation nikko, you've left me to quote myself...


Originally posted by control_junkie

Regardless of the communication layer, 9 times out of 10 YOU NEED SOME PROPRIETARY PIECE OF SOFTWARE TO DO ANYTHING.



I am not saying LON is not "OPEN" most of the time! I am not saying BACnet is not "OPEN" most of the time. LON is open to LON and BACnet is open to BACnet. Each has its costs and inequities and pros and cons. And each vendor has it's particular proprietary components whether software or hardware.

Maybe the industry should follow in the footsteps of Linux and BSD. Open source everthing, develop a common architecture for software and hardware and be done with it.

Better yet, maybe the industry should follow in the footsteps of electricity. It doesn't matter what you plug in to the wall, electricity is there. And everything uses electricity the same way. Think of all the wonderful things that run on 120vac. Now that's a standard if I ever saw one.

We need a communication protocol based on readily available "free" data standards such as XML... We need a software model based on a readily available "free" language standard such as JAVA...

I get tired of the BACnet - LON argument. BACnet has it's place and LON has it's place in the industry. I have worked with and continue to work with both on a daily basis. I have put both in the same building at the same time. There are intelligent business reasons for doing so, and the customer sacrifices nothing.

Until the industry has a truly open and free architecture, nothing will ever be 100% open and nothing will ever be 100% non proprietary.

[sysint]

Originally posted by control_junkie
I am not saying LON is not "OPEN" most of the time! I am not saying BACnet is not "OPEN" most of the time. LON is open to LON and BACnet is open to BACnet. Not necessarily. bacnet has NO common networking tool. Devices on the same wire simply coexist without doing too much damage to each other.

Each has its costs and inequities and pros and cons. And each vendor has it's particular proprietary components whether software or hardware. Widely accepted and practiced by the bacnet industry as standard policy and even written into ASHRAE specifications. ASHRAE's whoring to the manufacturers has made a huge mess.

Maybe the industry should follow in the footsteps of Linux and BSD. Open source everthing, develop a common architecture for software and hardware and be done with it. Yea, linux took off like wildfire, there aren't any compatibility issues and everyone's using it.... just retract the electricity analogy -- it's not good.

I get tired of the BACnet - LON argument. Feel free to bury your head in the sand. When you look up it's still there. bacnet is swiftly losing any validity as it's supervisory benefits are being superceeded. And any MSTP implementation is subpar compared to Lonworks on the fieldbus level.

Until the industry has a truly open and free architecture, nothing will ever be 100% open and nothing will ever be 100% non proprietary. If we can simply get rid of the ASHRAE idiots we can start to take care of their inclusion of proprietary.

[qtip]

Originally posted by sysint

I get tired of the BACnet - LON argument. Feel free to bury your head in the sand.When you look up it's still there.

You may want to take some of your own advice, Bac-net will be around also! With lord only knows what the next latest an greatest is.

[sysint]

You still don't get it. I fully realize what bacnet is and that it will be "around".

I also realize the shameless marketing/advertising ASHRAE does in behalf of bacnet.... just look at their latest journal. As long as they are acting like a business instead of following their code of ethics, I intend to bring that out.

They are misleading the public they claim to be benefitting.

Then these same liars put their crap in their magazine and pass it off as the only open solution in automation and never mention the problems with proprietary or even the allowance for proprietary IN THEIR OWN SPECIFICATION.

It's force fed, jammed down engineers throats. One of the biggest deceptive advertising campaigns in some time. I'm sure they all have smiles on their faces utilizing a supposeadly independant organization to line their pockets with cash.

[cleancondenser]

Lets get real.
I am not a controls expert,
Why is a company going to invest time and money to create a product
that is really no different than the rest.
Regardless of the protocol all products are somewhat proprietary.

Even the terminal designations on simple electromechanical
controls vary from manufacturer to manufacturer.
They do not want you to mix different vendors

We use simple Lonworks and Bacnet controllers and
there is a definite difference between vendors.
These organizations are fee based organizatioins
that have manufacturers and contractors as members,

Even our Johnson rep acknowledges that the two protocols are loose standrds and that
his company and others all
"put a little twist on it to make it different"

Our Johnson and Honeywell reps all shy away from the subject of truly open protocol.

Again I am no expert,can I go purchase three Lonworks controllers.
Each made by a different Manufacturer,Johnson Honeywell
Carrier.
and can I add all three to the same bus,without any special software or hardware.
Can I do this with Bacnet or Lonworks ?
Using just one manufacturers software?

Please give me some "simple "details and then I can make up my mind.

Thank You

[sysint]

The Lonworks booth at ASHRAE had the following:

Many manufacturers devices all on the same wire. I saw at least 7 manufacturers, I'm sure there were many more represented.

Multiple software packages configuring/controlling those devices and a single database where the changes were updated. (common networking tool)

You could move devices to different channels served by routers within seconds, replace devices within seconds, or configure devices quickly with any of the connected software packages.

Many of the devices were Lonmark certified, so if you had automatic generating graphical packages I'm sure graphic generation wasn't difficult either.

A common networking tool, peer to peer device level communication, and the ability to quickly move devices within the network automatically are all things bacnet systems cannot do. Period.

Part of that reason is because ASHRAE promotes the business interests of bacnet vendors by allowing for proprietary within there own "open" specification.

[klrogers]

Originally posted by cleancondenser

Again I am no expert,can I go purchase three Lonworks controllers.
Each made by a different Manufacturer,Johnson Honeywell
Carrier.
and can I add all three to the same bus,without any special software or hardware.
Can I do this with Bacnet or Lonworks ?
Using just one manufacturers software?

Please give me some "simple "details and then I can make up my mind.

Thank You

If you get Lonmark certified or compliant controllers, yes you can use three (or many more) different manufacturers devices on one network(bus) with one network management software program. You may need software plug-ins from each manufacturer, these are normally freely provided, a few special plug-ins (Circon's basic programming for example) are only available by purchasing. However for the majority of small/medium jobs you can use devices that have the free plug-ins available.
Even if the devices are not Lonmark certified or compliant you can often integrate them with the same software.

Kevin

[nikko]

Sys - there were 32 products from 22 manufacturers on the AHR demo last year. They were all on the same wire except one and it was on it's own channel as it used power line carrier instead of FTT. Associated to those 32 controllers were 4 different software vendors who were direct connected, one who connected via direct connect Ethernet and another who used an Internet connection to a server located 3000 miles away which used another Ethernet connection to come back into the demo (6000 mile round trip). The demo was pre-wired to save time, but the database was built on site and took approx 6 hours to get up and running (2 guys). Because the commisioning went faster than anticipated there was some time to play so Circon's access controller was set up to initiate lights-on through a Douglas Panel and to command several manf. VAV controllers and fan coil controllers to occupied mode etc.

Every single piece of equipment except the Ethernet router was on display - therwas no smoke, no mirrors, no supervisory controllers and no gateways (acting as gateways - fieldserver had two gateways on display though)

The only fly in the ointment was the Internet connection to/from the show and it was intermitent the first day. Other than that, totally flawless and all vendors used it as a demo platform all at the same time. It never broke.

[dapper]

The construction side of our company deals primarily with Trane equipment. On most of our control jobs we use Distech 'free programmable' controllers and VAV controllers. We always have the Trane equipment supplied with Trane's comm5 cards. Most jobs get an Echelon iLON 100. All on the same network segment. We have also use BAPI LON stats. Until now, LonMaker is the only software that we have used.

It really is that simple.

[adw]

Has anyone had any experience with Lennox L-Series or S-Class rooftop units with factory installed BACnet or LonTalk modules?