So lets start.

[tombc]

So lets start. What is better Lon or Bacnet?

[control_noob]

I'll answer with a question since I have no opinion (or knowlege)... :-)

Which is more widely used, supported, standard, adopted or has less bugs?

I recently met with a sales goon who proposed ripping out a new (< 1 yr.) N30 install and putting in a Lon based supervisory controller... all so we could have graphics which we can add to the N30 anyway with M3 workstation.... why?

[sysint]

Automated buildings has submissions by a guy named Mason who has a ten part? series of articles outlining Lonworks as less expensive to install.

Army Corps has specified LNS Lonworks for new installations.

Over 45 million Lonworks devices in operation today.

[sline-dawg]

You guys are going to go way over my head with this stuff.... but i'm going to read every damn post and learn something....... cool

[tombc]

with lon we can connect panels from different suppliers, and with the right drivers use bacnet colntrols. I admit to not doing much with bacnet, and i like programming with blocks versus line to line, but I can see where it would appeal to some . I guess it depends on your way of thinking out solutions.

My pet peeve, Systems that are not set up for service people unless they are dealers in that particular brand

Tom

[R12rules]

Which system was better .... VHS or Beta?

The Sony Beta was far superior to the VHS format.

But who got the job? VHS did cause somebody marketed the stink out of it while Beta lost market share and eventually died a horrible death!

The better system is not always the winner.
People are very finicky about who they go with. And they dont usually do ANY amount of background research prior to making their decision.

Which network is better of the two listed ???


"Army corp of engineers" .... those guys are animals for building projects!
They just wana build stuff! And they dont give a rip where, when or why....

[sysint]

Lonworks is a device level implementation. I can replace devices the network on the device level. I can add devices (multiple manufacturers) whether lighting, access, HVAC, etc... anywhere in the network easily. No Supervisory controllers necessary. All the points of a device are available. Communication is not an issue in the network. It's consistent. At times device level is more work. If you have a VAV system at times it's nice to have a dedicated system like ALC which is setup specifically for this task. However, when the customer wants a card access controller it's really nice to just add it anywhere and not have to find the right "tier" to add the device. Or, start mapping points through supervisory controllers on tier 3. And, if you are the customer and don't like the local rep you could be "stuck" with them.

[osiyo]

Originally posted by tombc
So lets start. What is better Lon or Bacnet?

Hmmm.

Personally, I'd pick the guy (installer/programmer) who knows his stuff best over any particular "system" such as either Lon, BacNet, or propriety.

The results, whether they're good or not, is more often determined by the installing/programming contractor than it is by the "system" or the particular equipment manufacturer.

I say that as someone in the business. And we do all the above.

Common for me to go to a new job where the customer has booted the last contractor and "system", and to listen to customer bad mouth Lon, BacNet, Honeywell, Johnson Controls, Alerton, Circon, Andover, etc ... whomever and whatever "system", saying it's WORTHLESS.

All because the origininal installer/programmer was just a half assed hack.

Wasn't actually anything wrong with whichever "system" had been put in. Except the way it'd been put in, tested, commissioned, programmed, etc.

<Shrug> Just my opinion.

I'm in love with, and owe loyalty no "system". Any that I put in, and I do Lon, BacNet, and propriety, I concentrate on installing right, and programming it even better. No flash, no bells and whistles to impress the customer, just solid ... correct ... performance.

Now, there are other issues which I have opinions about, as concerns particular pieces of equipment or manufacturers. But that's another story.

Most of the problems I see are not with "systems", it's with bad installation and programming.

[sysint]

Osiyo - I agree with most of what you say... what I'm saying is Lonworks systems allow you the freedom to do the proper programming and implementation when the previous contractor is , well, less than cooperative.

Or when there is a problem with the local representative.

[genman]

Originally posted by R12rules
Which system was better .... VHS or Beta?


"Army corp of engineers" .... those guys are animals for building projects!
They just wana build stuff! And they dont give a rip where, when or why....



Yes they are animals - dinosaurs mostly - I have sold several jobs to the "corp" I spent 3 months once calibrating some of the most sophisticated equipment there is for monitoring the conditions of power plants. The equipment was supposed to be used to trip breakers to protect equipment from damage in case something went wrong. All the trip circuits did was energize a local recording that played all over the facility in a particularly irritating female voice to notify everyone that "you have a switchgear alarm". Now in electrical terms 1 second is a lifetime - so how long is it when the alarm goes off at 3 am and someone has to get dressed and go to the power plant to trip a breaker??? Another "corp" design at work. I think that the corp was waiting for some general to die before they could get up with the rest of the world... Don't get me on the corp - they make me crazy…

[osiyo]

Originally posted by sysint
Osiyo - I agree with most of what you say... what I'm saying is Lonworks systems allow you the freedom to do the proper programming and implementation when the previous contractor is , well, less than cooperative.

Or when there is a problem with the local representative.

No argument, Sysint. That is certainly something in Lon's favor.

But I was trying to make a specific point.

My customers don't really give a flying rip about Lon versus Bacnet versus propriety. Nor about Honeywell versus JCI versus Trane versus Andover etc.

And we, as a company, don't make a living by touting that we're a "Lon" dealer.

We make our living by providing a "system" to the customer that works, and works right, exactly as we said it would and IAW what the customer expected when he or she signed on the dotted line.

It has been my experience that if one does that, the customer is happy. And one gets repeat business or good referrals. Which means we're happy.

Customer doesn't REALLY much care what the heck "system" you put in as long as it works and works well.

Likewise, customer does not care how "good or superior" you claim one system is to another, if it isn't working right.

I NEVER hear a customer complaining that he or she wished he or she had a Lon system, or Bacnet, or whatever instead of what he or she has. What I hear is customer complaining that whatever he or she has, isn't working the way he or she wants it to work. The way he or she thought it would work based on what installing contractor claimed.

And/or customer complaining that original installer is almost impossible to call back and get to correct something that never did work as advertised. Or customer complaining that if installer comes back, he always seems to find some excuse to add to the customer's bill. So on and so forth.

THAT ... is what we concentrate on, as the way we make a living and grow our customer base.

We do it right, period. Or we'll make it right, period. No excuses or waffling around about it.

It does make a difference. Trust me. While I've not ever heard a customer seriously debate whether Lon or Bacnet is better. (Most don't really know much about either except for what the slick ads say.) I routinely and regularly hear them bad mouth whichever "lousy" system they have or had that didn't work right. And praise my guys because they have confidence that when we're done, whatever they have will work, and work right.

One of my guys, for instance, is a legacy, proprietary CSI controller guru. He does other stuff, too. But I give him the lead in those systems. He has a loyal customer base who swear that those old CSI systems are the "best". Another guy I have on my team does Andover. Ditto, his customer think they're the best. Another, does Automatrix, and his customer couldn't be happier or more loyal. Yes, we do Lon, mostly TAC and Honeywell. Tho we're fixing to say goodbye to Honeywell. We, and our customers are having some issues with those folks which have nothing to do with Lon versus Bacnet, etc.

Point is, that while I understand all this debate about problems and issues with this sort of network versus that, the ease of making and maintaining a points database using this system versus that, etc.

The real problem in the controls world has more to do with the individual knowledge and skill level of the installing/servicing tech than it has to do with Lon versus Bacnet.

A good, Trane proprietary tech will produce a better working system for a customer than will a mediocre or half assed Lon guru. And it's particularly important that the lead man understands the equipment being controlled. ie I have one guy who is a programming genius. And types aout 1000 words per minute. But his knowledge of HVAC system technicalities leaves something to be desired. So I use him to generate initial programs to suit customer specs. But before the program is accepted, it's turned over to one of my guys who is a 15 year HVAC mechanic. Who programs slow, and isn't all that good at it. But he knows HVAC systems very, very well. And will catch bugs and gotchas the other guy overlooked.

And that's how one makes money and loyal customers, isn't it? By providing em with a system that works correctly, and as expected? And is installed in such a way that it's works fine and lasts a long time.

<Shrug> I just don't see these debates of Lon vs Bacnet as very productive. Isn't the thing I hear most customers complain about.

Sorry about the long post, but subject is a pet peeve of mine.

[sysint]

No offense Osiyo, but I still think the discussion is relavent. Not every company is an Eagan type company with alot of resources at their disposal.

Also, most customers don't have the resources or knowledge available.

I have a customer looking for a change. They didn't give a rip about LON vs BACnet either. They cared about the service, support and costs which is a more than viable discussion about LON vs. BACnet. They realized they couldn't get it with their many "BACnet" based systems. Promises broken.

I have not seen a BACnet based system that lends the flexibility of a LON based system to date. Can you think of one? I like to see one. Honestly. Again, LON is device level based. That makes it the most flexible, and less costly over time. I'm not debating the merits of the individual technology implementation(s) here, just the result.

What always gets my goat is hearing "I don't think these LON vs. BACnet discussions are very productive..." because what seems to follow is "figure 6.2" showing BACnet all over the page followed by ASHRAE specifications. Not saying that's your intent but I see it all the time and I'm getting sick of it. It's in all the industry rags like LON doesn't even exist yet millions of Lonworks nodes are installed and operating. It's too the point when I hear that refrain I think to myself..."yep, another guy trying to justify his system or support deficiencies on future flexibility and cost controls to the customer."

I still think BACnet is not at the stage of giving each vendor or owner the freedom and cost advantages a LON based system delivers.

[osiyo]

I have not seen a BACnet based system that lends the flexibility of a LON based system to date. Can you think of one?

Unfortunately, so far as I can tell BACnet has a lot of promise, and very little delivery thus far, that I've seen.

Sysint. It is not my intention by any means to attempt to argue that BACnet is better.

It IS my intention to argue that JUST because a contractor elects to go Lon, or what-the-heck-ever, that this does not guarantee success or superiority. Or a system which even works adequately, much less well.

I'm simply arguing that the single greatest cause of customer complaints and systems which don't work as advertised is "people" related ... not a matter of "system" used.

On the projects upon which I work, I spend VERY little time over issues such as creating or changing databases, comm problems, etc.

The vast bulk of my time is spent towards the end of a project. Finding all the durned errors where an installer put something in incorrectly or poorly, finding those items where somebody did not do a point by point HANDS ON verify that the right sensor was connected to the right terminal. And that in fact the sensor or actuator worked correctly and was calibrated. Yah know, the same old standard thing that anyone who has worked with digital and computer systems since their invention understands .... GIGO, garbage in - garbage out. Poorly thought out and implemented PID loops. Or a thermostatic control with poor choice of reset variable values. A programmer who crated a program that's real nifty but which does not deal with the "what if" of a component malfunction. Or that really neat, ZOWIE looking front end graphics screen ... that looks just spectacular. But is full of errors from the aspect that the designer and creator made a really neat looking screen. However he or she linked a "status" to a command point as versus a true status point, or made a friggin typo that's not at first obvious. As in reversing an "On" and "Off" indicator. Or, more than a few times, it's just a matter that the screen looks really, really impressive, but the selection of which data to show is poor. Logical from the screen creator's point of view, and neat looking. But not the best selection and presentation of data and controls from the owner/operator's point of view. I run into a LOT of complaints about this last point. Customer's prefer utility and usefulness, clean presentation of the IMPORTANT points on an uncluttered screen. Laid out in the same way their thinking and normal method of supervision and operation would go. Grouped in logical order over snazzy ... most every time.

Lon is indeed a good choice for numerous reasons, no argument. But isn't the answer, alone, to having a good, workable installation and a happy customer.

It's like a recent small job in which I got involved. Customer had a part of a large building controlled by some Microzone controllers. And was most unhappy, had been since it'd been installed. As far as customer was concerned, it'd never worked RIGHT.

WHen I took a look, out of curiosity, I readily saw that the whole problem was with the installation and implementation. Not with the fact Microzone controllers had been used. They were more than up to the task. However the original installer should've had his ass kicked for incompetence and/or sloppiness.

Enough, from me. I could rant about these things forever. But am still convinced the biggest problem in our biz is poor craftsmanship, knowledge, and implementation.

Well, that and customer's screwing with what they don't understand. The reason I press my guys to make exact backups of the final, tested and proven system. Database and programs and default variable values. Don't let customer touch ANYTHING til that's done. Then, when we get a call, dump everything back to original settings, and if system works ... bill the customer and explain why he or she shouldn't have done whatever he or she did. Find out what customer was trying to do, and explain how to do it properly.

[sysint]

I understand completely on the implementation points. I talk routinely with European countries and it seems the education level is on a higher plane than the states.

-Not to say that we are incompetant, just that the market doesn't seem to foster excellence with any consistency.

I do agree most often it's the delivery of product, not the product. But again, it's easier to cleanup when it's open. Also, it's easier to make changes when it's open. Otherwise I have to deal with the problem representative just as the customer did, only now the rep is upset, charges more and is still involved.

Right now with everybody and their brother going into controls, it's nice to have the open to fall back on.

[tombc]

I fulley agre that the build and test of any system is critical. we always use one to program ond one to check program, Then the checker does the end to ends with the job installer. that way we have continuity from start to finish. even with this we seem to have to correct things to be good.

After 30 years on the mechanical side this is a nece change.

[osiyo]

Originally posted by sysint
Right now with everybody and their brother going into controls, it's nice to have the open to fall back on.

Yes, there is that point. Open is good.

And you're correct about the everybody and their brother getting into controls. That alone creates it's own set of problems.

I have had more than a few customers who're now doubting Thomas types who're just about digusted with the whole DDC automation concept. Some of whom are on a third system, and haven't seen one work like it should, yet.

Makes it kind of hard to establish good customer - contractor relationships when the customer figures you're just gonna lie to em and screw em over by charging a prime price to install a second rate system, once again. Like the others did.

OTOH, the nice part of the job is when you do it right and see the look of surprise, and pleasure, on the face of the customer, and hear him or her say, "Oh Geez ... it WORKS ! I can't believe it ... it actually works right." And this a couple weeks after the system has been on line and the customer has had a chance to find any bugs or failures.

[osiyo]

Originally posted by tombc
I fulley agre that the build and test of any system is critical. we always use one to program ond one to check program, Then the checker does the end to ends with the job installer. that way we have continuity from start to finish. even with this we seem to have to correct things to be good.

After 30 years on the mechanical side this is a nece change.


Continuity is always good.

In our case, we find it works pretty well to always have a lead tech for each job. Most of our work is larger projects. Multi-AHU, whole sizeable buildings, etc. And in most cases our in-house engineering dept will engineer the job, create the initial programs and graphic screens, etc.

Still, there will be a lead tech assigned. Who has more than a little final say-so, both responsibility and authority.

It gives the job some consistency. One guy who's sticking with the job, and doing follow thrus and followups. Eyes and hands to make sure things are done in one consistant fashion throughout the job. And that all the odds and ends are tied up and finalized and finished in the end.

One of the problems with projects is that the engineering dept, the salesman, etc are often off and working on the next project. And it's hard to get them to pay attention to that job which is still in progress. Plus, depending on whom you get to actually give you some time and attention, you may get different answers. So the lead tech, among other things ensures all the answers are consistant and one thing does not conflict with another.

So everything ... EVERYTHING ... gets routed thru the lead tech. Additional parts requests, RFI's, change orders, etc. And as the resident subject matter expert, he reviews the plans, programs and graphic screens generated by engineering to ensure they're right and fit that installation properly.

Our engineers sometimes get carried away with the "cut and paste" thing, or the "one solution fits all" thing. Lead tech can and will customize everything to fit the specs and expectations of THAT customer. His #1 job, make sure customer is a happy camper.

Plus we utitilize in-house standards. As to the way things are installed, how they're wired, color coding used, type of parts used, how the schematics are drawn, and the general program logic utilized.

That is, unless there is a specific reason to do it otherwise, a specific series of ABB VFD's will be wired precisely the same, job to job. And internal setup done consistently. Building pressure control to be done the same. Program logic for controlling economizer will be the same. Same set of documentation provided. Heck we even require system and screen settings, fonts used, graphics pieces to represent ductwork, fans, actuators, etc for the front end to be consistant from installation to installation, screen to screen, etc.

This avoids time wasted to "reinvent the wheel", avoids mistakes and confusion caused by system programmer doing things differently unit to unit or project to project. Plus if lead tech ups and dies on us, or is out sick, guy covering for him isn't lost. Expects things to be done in such and such a way. It helps him get up to speed in a hurry.

Our service guys also like it. They used to hate it when they'd go on a service call and in every case they'd have to try to figure out from scratch how THIS guy did whatever.

Also, our customers' like it. Finished product looks more professional. There is consistency in the look and feel of the screens and the paperwork. If customer operator understands how this control loop controlling this action works, he'll immediately understand the next similar one.

And, in our case, since a lot of our business is repeat business, same customer but different property, or new section of sizeable building done part at a time and brought on line. Learning curve for customer's operator or maintenance people is minimal. If guy has learned system at property A and is now over at property B, he'll immediately know how to operate the interface, make adjustments, etc.

Did I mention it also saves us a LOT of time repeatedly re-inventing the wheel?

Often there are 20 adequate ways to do something. All of them will work. But we'll get together, discuss all the options and pros and cons, and select ONE way ... which will be declared the STANDARD. Not to be varied from without specific, unavoidable reason. And then when deviated from it'll be well and prominently documented in the docs and on the screens if it's something that'll be on the front end screens.

We get a bit anal about these things. On the front end, for instance, one doesn't even have to move the cursor to click "Next" ... "Next" ... etc. All buttons of same type and purpose look the same and have the same label. "Enable" always means enable, never start/stop. Status means status, not ordered state.

When we first started this, there was a lot of opposition and resentment. A lot of our guys liked doing things "their" favorite way. And to display their individual artistic talents. And it does cost us money and time to enforce this consistency. We do inspections for it at final commissioning.

But in the long run, saves us a lot of time and money in troubleshooting and correcting problems. And later our service guys like it a lot. Service guy knows what he expects to see, and EVERYTHING is labeled ... with consistent labeling. So there is no confusion over different terms being used.

And the customers like it ... VERY important.

[mkitrtfst]

Man , I wish you were in our area! No consistency on our automation.Be nice if there was some general agreement on simple controlling.

[dmaffei]

Very Nice, Osiyo! I really like how you are to the point on systems problems rather than a one sided view on which platform is better. That's a nice big picture view instead of the myopic "my platform is better than yours". I've witnessed the same things over the past 10 years of heavy automation work. You've pointed out some of the real issues involved with systems and not brand name or platform shortcomings. I do know that when I have an eight centrifugal, four plate and frame, thermal storage system, complete with full variable speed drives on anything driven, some of the control systems will run out of transfers or programming space, lack of resolution, etc., or just plain have issues I don't want to deal with down the road. I feel that just as there are different levels of HVAC contrators, commercial versus industrial versus residential, the same thing applies to DDC. Depending on the complexity of the system and capability of the ________(you fill in the blank), that can determine what you'll end up installing.

[sysint]

OK - now that everyone agrees with Osiyo, let's take this a step further. I do Lonworks because of this reason of consistency:
Language is the same no matter what the controller "is". It's open and accessible to all points I can replace on the device level. I can use the software tools of my choice for network administration. I can create a database of devices with multiple software platforms
Now my consistent implementation is across multiple vendors products - not just with a specific line. This is hardly a myopic point of view.

I think you guys really don't see all the things you can do with LON to have consistent implementation. Even simple things like variable name changing....

[R12rules]

Originally posted by osiyo

I have not seen a BACnet based system that lends the flexibility of a LON based system to date. Can you think of one?
But am still convinced the biggest problem in our biz is poor craftsmanship, knowledge, and implementation.

Well, that and customer's screwing with what they don't understand. The reason I press my guys to make exact backups of the final, tested and proven system. Database and programs and default variable values. Don't let customer touch ANYTHING til that's done. Then, when we get a call, dump everything back to original settings, and if system works ... bill the customer and explain why he or she shouldn't have done whatever he or she did. Find out what customer was trying to do, and explain how to do it properly.



I like your style.

Right to the heart of the issue.


Tell me, how may types of "systems" or networks are available, currently still in use and being installed?
10?
20?
50?


Thanks.

[osiyo]

Originally posted by R12rules
Tell me, how may types of "systems" or networks are available, currently still in use and being installed?
10?
20?
50?

Thanks.

Oh, Geez, how would I know?

I really haven't the time to try to keep up with the WHOLE industry. Nor the inclination, to tell the truth.

If you're interested in finding out the answer to your question, read any responses here which you get. As I'm sure we have "Trane" guys, "Carrier" guys, KMC, so on and so forth, in addition to the generic "Lon" and "BACnet" fans.

In addition, you might go to http://www.ddc-online.org and check their manufacturer's list. Which is not comprehensive but does list the bigger players and has links to their web sites.

Myself, I lose track. Like many people in the biz, I suspect, I tend to settle down with, and favor just a couple lines of equipment.

I'm not gonna play the game of "my equipment preference is better than yours". Fact is, if the tech is good, and the equipment he specializes in is adequate, he'll make it sing and dance as well as anyone's. If he's not so good, he's gonna produce a half-assed, buggy system even if he uses the best stuff out there.

I tend to favor particular equipment for pragmatic reasons.

(1) While we do have a mechanical department, and I used to be a toolbox and torch carrying boiler and HVAC guy. These days I'm a controls specialist in a controls department. That means that we (the department) do not buy and install the actual HVAC equipment. So I have no dealer special connections and arrangement with Trane, McQuay, Carrier, etc. Now, I can usually navigate thru, for instance, Trane's old proprietary interfaces, make changes and know and understand what I'm doing. But I haven't even tried to keep up with their latest and greatest. If I need such ability, I borrow Mechanical's Trane guy. Fact is, I haven't time to get my own work done AND stay up to date and current with the 3 makers mentioned above. Which, in new equipment, represent most of what I see in my area. Add, Aaon RTU's.

(2) In most cases, I don't need to know the particulars of the above. In the work we do, and the way we do it, most times I'm not gonna take over DIRECT control of all of a Trane chiller's functions and parameters. Oh, hell no. If we didn't buy it, I'm not monkeying around with the internals. Haven't even had the necessity to do it, actually. We're gonna have a Trane specialist do all the setups and such to make the unit operate properly for a given installation. And all I'm gonna do is an enable/disable, monitor some temps and alarms, and present customer with a couple setpoints. I make NO attempt to put ALL the parameters and controls into the database or on the customer's screen. Don't need to, don't want to, and have yet to have a customer who wants me to. Customer monkey's around with the wrong parameters, he could void warranty and be eating the cost of an expensive chiller. As concerns interfacing with those points and controls I need to, depends on the installation ... the whole installation.

ie Is the DDC system a propriety one, for instance, Automatrix? If so, I can use standard signal and relay connection points that the Automatrix stuff can handle. Or, if the Trane unit has a BACnet interface, we can do that. Etc. If it's a TAC system, and Lon, no problem. Except that I'm gonna get rid of all the extra points, from the customer's point of view, that he doesn't need and shouldn't be messing with anyway.

Etc.

Keep in mind that we often do not, on purpose, present ALL the points to a customer. Give him no access whatsoever to a BUNCH of stuff. He, or she, wouldn't know what to do with it anyway. And there are typically a number of things that if the customer messes with it, he or she is gonna void the mechanical manufactuer's warranty, the mechanical installer's warranty, our warranty, and possibly violate any number of rules and regulations within Mechanical Code, Building Code, Fire Code, etc and so forth.

(3) Given the above, as I'm not tied to a particular manufacturer's equipment on the mechanical side, I (We) made our choices of hardware and systems that we specialize in for a number of reasons. And tend to stick to those particular lines as a result.

It's all fine and well to say "Lon" is interchangeable.

But it's not, not really. Nor are BACnet devices. On the practical side to buy a lot of this stuff and get a decent price and decent support, you need to become a dealer.

We do TAC, as concerns Lon installations for a reason. Sticking to TAC, we buy larger quantities, get a better discount. They also bend over backwards, just a little more and a little better for their regular customers who do significant business with them. (So do other manufacturers) Net result I (and we as a company) are quite happy that when we buy, we're gonna get a pretty decent discount, and if it's a large project ... and even better discount. And if we need the answer to a technical question, and the regular customer service hotline is backed up. I have a more private number I can call and I WILL get an answer to my questions ASAP.

In business, such things count. The very reason a friend of mine, and competitor, likes Alerton. He has a good relationship going with them.

Next, as stated Lon is just a standard. But not all Lon devices are equal. In our experience, TAC has produced reasonably reliable devices, of reasonable ruggedness. I HATE call backs and warranty repairs. Reliable is good.

Next, TAC maintains some consistency in actual hardware package. Installers are installers. It's good when they're given, job after job, a device which has similar footprint, dimensions, terminations, and labeling of terminations. When this is so, they make fewer mistakes.

Same goes with a propriety protocol system we deal in, Automatrix. Which is old, legacy, and years behind the times.

BUT ... it's rugged, reliable, mostly backwards compatible, etc. On a recent small job I sent an installer with a preprogrammed new replacement controller. Job was one were an older controller had failed (after about 10 years). Old controller model was no longer made. New controller had a slightly different footprint, but only slightly. Would fit right where old one did and mounted similarly. Terminal strips were different in placement on the controller, but labeled identically. Consistency ... I like consistency. I never even had to send a tech to the site. Tech logged in remotely, verified item worked right. Job done.

I think about these things.

I like getting discounts. Get them not only from the DDC makers, I get them from my suppliers of the accessory items.

We try to keep the number of different relays we use to a minimum. It's easier for inventory control, fewer parts on a truck, fewer mistakes made in wiring, less time to install as installer has put in MANY of same type, or if it's a service guy replacing failed one, new one mounts right where old one did. Less fumbling around. And as I'm buying, for instance, standard cube relays (always with a LED), DPDT, in lots of 50 or 100, I get a better price.

Cabinets. As we deal primarily in just a couple lines of DDC controllers, purchasing cabinets for em is a no-brainer. Guys doing engineering and layout know by experience exactly what will fit in what. The installers, having dealt with many -consistent- installations of same or similar equipment, know exactly where which cabinet can and will fit, how close the spacing can be if there are multiple cabinets to be installed together, so on and so forth. ie A recent, sizeable job. My lead installer walked into machinery room knowing how many cabinets and what sizes, took a look and broke out tape measure. And in about 60 seconds had it figured out as to exactly what spacing he needed that would work and how many cabinets he could get on THAT wall space. Incidentally, within an hour he had it figured out and drawn out as to conduit runs, size of conduit needed, so on and so forth. And handed me his shopping list for approval.

Now he's an old and experienced controls installer. Thus, reliable and will catch mistakes and figure out exceptions. But a lot of the work is done by his apprentices. It helps when "devices" to be hooked up are minimal in type and variety. They make fewer mistakes. Less tendecy to hook something up wrong, or put wrong sensor in wrong spot.

So we like to use "standard" devices. There is a whole heap of DP switches out these. We use just a couple. Which will work with any controller we deal with. This just simplifies things. Installer soon knows exactly the room he needs, exactly how to install it correctly, has all the little shortcuts and handy techniques worked out to get the sucker in ... RIGHT.

Did I mention I like the discounts from being able to buy such bulk knowing that if I have extra from that job, no problem ... can use it on the next?

So I try to avoid dealing with MANY controllers and devices, and specialize in a few, which will perform well. Less inventory, easier and faster installation, fewer mistakes. Extras can be used on the next job instead of sitting on the shelf for years. And if something fails on install, odds are pretty good that we've got a spare on the shelf and I can send our "Go-fer" running to the site and work won't be interrupted or delayed.

So among other things, our choices of lines of controllers is such that many of the incidental items, sensors, actuators, device boxes, fittings, etc are interchangeable. Not all, but most.

We're in the process of dropping one line of controllers. I won't mention the name. It's a major maker, and the controllers are actually okay. But it seems every time we turn around the maker makes changes which necessitate retraining of installers, different mounting methods and footprints, different wiring scheme and even different markings on terminals. They're Lon devices. But we're pretty tired of all the -unnecessary- hardware changes. Besides, that maker seems to think his item which is functionally identical to many others, is made of gold or something and charges accordingly. So we're just ditching em. Hard to justify additional expense to customer. As item doesn't actually do anything the others we carry can't duplicate. Plus maker has been backdooring us by moving in on the service end after we've got the install done. Not something that made us happy. As we do have our own service department, and those guys like making a paycheck, also.

[lonboy]

Great discussion!
I think that Osiyo hits the head on the nail numerous times about providing the customer with a DDC system that performs well. There's no question that good planning, trained technicians, installation standards, and supplier support are all key components to any high performance DDC system. I've seen way too many control systems over the years that end up underutilized or bypassed completely because the installing contractor took shortcuts on the infrastructure, lacked programming skills, didn't understand the systems they were controlling, or was nowhere to be found when service or maintenance was needed. And, I've seen many jobs where proprietary vendors bleed the customer for every add, move, or change. But, I think this thread was in regards to the benefits of LON vs BACnet.

The differentiation as I see it is boiled down to 3 words - freedom of choice! LON (Local Operating Network) provides choices of devices, infrastructure, network managment tools, HMI's, integrators, and system sustainability. All of the major controls manufacturers today offer a line of LonWorks devices. LON devices communicate on a variety of media including twisted pair, powerline, fiber, and IP. A single network manangement platform, LNS, allows integrators to easily create and manage networks of devices from multiple manufacturers with one LNS tool. Simple inexpensive webserver devices provide user interfaces without having to install special software on client PC's. An industry sponsored organization, LonMark, provides interoperability standards and certifies device conformance. And, one publicly owned company's survival (ELON) is contingent on the widespread adoption of interoperable LonWorks networks.

BACnet while a specification for an open protocol, does not deliver interoperability on the device level, does not address all 7 layers of the OSI communication model, requires a different network management tool from each controller manufacturer, and has no one organization that actively supports it for everyone who uses it regardless of the manufacturer. BACnet promises open but delivers proprietary. BACnet to it's credit however, does often allow integrators to tie together legacy HVAC controls at the system level. Though these gateways can be expensive and complex to program.

Does the freedom with LON have a price? Absolutely. But, in order to have it, we need to understand it, use it, make mistakes with it (real learning), and support it. If LON is to become the next VHS, we'll need to educate our customers, technicians, and specifiers. There's a ton of information available out there about LonWorks. I'd encourage all control and service tech's to get familiar with it as LON's dominance continues to escalate and evolve. I'd also recommend taking some training classes available from most LON vendors and Echelon as well. I know that there's many IBEW training centers now teaching LON infrastructure installation and integration as well. I also know of several electrical contractors who have hired HVACR controls technicians to take some business away from the Mechanicals. Watch out for Sparky! The good news is that energy, security, and safety are high priorities for building owners and managers - there's plenty of work for everyone, especially in the small to medium sized buildings market and the sleeping giant - home automation.

So what's better, BACnet or LON? That can sometimes be a tough question. If I were a controls contractor considering which to invest in, I'd have to ask myself which technology will provide the greatest return in terms of customer satisfaction, performance, and sustainability. Which offers the greatest number of choices and opportunities to expand my business? How difficult will it be to train my people? And, is there a way to get started learning without laying down a big pile of money?

With 45 million devices operating today, thousands of device manufacturers, and a robust proven protocol designed for control applications, my money is on LON.

[sysint]

Well LB..... if they say I have bias that's an understatement for you.. ;)

[chrisc]

Damn Guy's,
I understand one's preference to protocol or manufacturer, but to try an argue a point with a reply that's more the content of a novel, that's ridiculus. I'm partial to the stuff that I have to deal with on a day to day basis, that's what pays the bills. My work is 95% public schools, we install Johnson, N30,NCM,NAE. JCI products definitely dictate that market up here in NJ. LON,Bacnet it doesn't make a difference to me, I just want the damn stuff to work!!!!

[ts ac tech]

O.K. Osiyo...

You've sold me on your "product", that being "your" company. What's it going to take to get you to be a player in the next project my "company" puts out? We usually have two or three little projects a year, but in about three years we are going to have a very large project. A 10 to 13 story building with all kinds of "special" environmental control and controls needs...I would like to see you, at the very least, give a bid on the project.

Here's the kicker...we, the building owner, have standardized our controls and equipment. We know exactly what we want, how we want to do it, and the capabilities of the controls to do it. I'm learning every day more and more about our controls of "choice" and am confident that I will eventually know more about the "system" than the manufacturer of that "system". That is, if/when I can get the manufacturer to quite holding on so tight. Obviously from that last statement I have proprietary equipment. If I would have been an employee of the "company" when the decision was made to standardize, I would have been able to give my input and possibly would have ended up with a more "open" system...but I'm stuck with BACnet 'till the end of time, or 'till the BIG freeze...

So, to tie this into the discussion, I, as an owner/operator, as the "customer" who has to live with the results of all your hard work and expertise, having experienced both LON and BACnet, would like to say that LON would suit me just fine and give me the freedom to fine tune everything. But, again, I am stuck with what I have now and what I will get in the future. So I'm forced to know the inner workings of BACnet to the point of not only causing it to not only perform a song and dance, but also prepare a 7 course meal while painting a master piece. I have to have the ability to make my, and I emphisize MY, controls systems perform to that degree. If you, the controls installer/programmer, are not willing to let go of your "control" of the system you just sold me, then why do I want to do continued business with you? I understand that most projects when released don't necessarily have a dedicated staff to take care of that system. And the need for the service department is legitimate...but don't force me to use your services! Give me the tools, no, SELL me the tools, I'm willing to pay, to do the service work myself. That would save me, rather my "company", tons of money in the long run. And would more than likely give you return business from me.

I saw someone mention being charged the service call fee to fix something he had screwed up...that is what I want to avoid. Both the screw up and the lack of ability to fix it. When you deliver the package to me, the completed controls system, with all the testing and commissioning finished, deliver with that package the minimal training required to get me going. But also afford me the opportunity to aquire the same knowledge you required to deliver that package. In other words, I want to have the ability to go into competition with you. I know that's a hard nut to swallow, but if I lose my job tomorrow I want to be able to knock on your door and have you fall over yourself trying to hire me because of my abilities and qualifications. Is that asking too much from the industry? Too often when I seek training I am met with "you don't need to know that"...YES I DO need to know that, that is why I'm seeking training!!! In order for me to be the best employee I can be to my boss, I need to have the ability to fix my "systems" in the event of catastrophic failure. If I have lost all programming and backups, which should never happen, but for argument's sake, I should be able to start from scratch and get that system back up and running without having to call your service department, except for maybe a little guidence. Having that ability ensures my job security and in the end, saves the "company" a substantial amount of money. Oh yeah, and did I mention that my employer is willing to PAY to get me to that point? My boss wants me to have that knowledge and expertise...that's why he hired me in the first place!!

O.K. So I didn't tie my "stuff" into the discussion very well...or did I? Which is better, LON or BACnet? Which ever one makes the customer happy in the end. If it takes a LONworks system to make the customer happy, then LON is better than BACnet. If it takes a BACnet system to make the customer happy, then BACnet is better than LON.

Sorry for the novel...sometimes I feel like I'm the only one in my unique situation. Having been in the installation/service/sales part of the industry for many years, I am now on the maintenance/owner/customer side of the industry and I feel very alone at times.

I appreciate this site, this forum, and especially this thread VERY much...thanks for the community y'all provide. I am honored to be a part of it!!!

[digital freq]

Originally posted by ts ac tech
Sorry for the novel...sometimes I feel like I'm the only one in my unique situation. Having been in the installation/service/sales part of the industry for many years, I am now on the maintenance/owner/customer side of the industry and I feel very alone at times.


I am in the exact situation as you, so you are not alone.
I also believe your reply deserves its own topic instead of being buried in this thread.
Even though Bacnet and Lon are open sytems they are still propietary as far as programming, training, and general ownership of the software as well as obtaining the hardware. I think this is to keep us the customers,owners, and service techs at the mercy of the vendors. This then ensures they, the vendors and dealers have service calls as well as installation contracts. This is simple job security ,everybody wants it.....

[lonboy]

I wonder what your definition of proprietary is? I guess if you believe that because Echelon has a patent on the LonTalk protocol (ANSI 709.1) that they have complete control of it. That doesn't seem to be the case considering how many manufacturers are building LonWorks devices and tools these days.

I can use either the Circon tool, the Distech tool, the Honeywell tool, or the LonMaker tool to install, configure, and commission a LonWorks network made up of devices from mutilple manufacturers. I can get LonWorks training from all these vendors and many more. If I buy the software - I own it! If my customer buys the software - they own it! If I use an ilon100 - the HMI software is free and all any enduser needs is Internet Explorer. And, I can buy plenty of LonWorks devices from distributors such as Engenuity or even off the shelf at my local supply houses.

Arguably, LON is proprietary but so is the Windows OS. And without that, we wouldn't be having this conversation

[sysint]

I don't think I'd be going overboard to say if the owners knew more about LON we wouldn't be talking about BACnet.

Let me put it this way.... the IT guys are getting involved and they can instantly work well with LON.

BTW - Lonboy, pat someone on the back for JAWS. It's significantly better...unless those e2's have something different 'under the hood'.

[osiyo]

Originally posted by ts ac tech
O.K. Osiyo...

I have to have the ability to make my, and I emphisize MY, controls systems perform to that degree. If you, the controls installer/programmer, are not willing to let go of your "control" of the system you just sold me, then why do I want to do continued business with you? I understand that most projects when released don't necessarily have a dedicated staff to take care of that system. And the need for the service department is legitimate...but don't force me to use your services! Give me the tools, no, SELL me the tools, I'm willing to pay, to do the service work myself. That would save me, rather my "company", tons of money in the long run. And would more than likely give you return business from me.

Hmmm. I'm not sure if I get your point.

However, in the way we do business, when we're finished with a project. You, the customer, get several printed copies of the O&M manuals. In addition, we give you a couple more copies on CD's. Text and pics on CD's changed to PDFs. Actually binary copies of all programs, attributes etc used in every controller. Source code, and compiled. Plus mirror images of the controller memories. Thus, if one fails, and you buy a new one and put it in yourself ... a simple matter of removing 4 screws, unplugging the plug in terminal connections, swapping controller and plugging in the replacement, you can just dump a mirror image of the original into the controller in a matter of seconds and all the setups, parameters, settings, etc are done and you're on-line again.

Our O&M manuals contain all point sheets, all as-bulit drawings and schematics, floor layout of the building showing location of all controllers and equipment, to include precisely where comm lines are pulled and which breakers feed which control transformers for your equipment. Also included are manufacturer cutsheets for ALL accessory items utilized (sensors, relays, damper motors, whatever.) Included are the full tech manuals, same ones we use, for each type controller we install.

If the installation includes a front end, you get the original disks for all software installed on the front end. They're yours, we even give you printed copies of the manuals for the software.

When I walk away, job is done, and you've signed the check, you have EVERYTHING I used to create your system. With only one exception. A commissioning tool (software and a small interface) my techs use. If you'd like to have that, it's gonna cost you, ~ $1200. But if you'd like to have it, no problem, write me a check.

Oh, and you don't have the knowledge. We do offer trainning on the stuff we put in, how to use and operate it. We're not in the business of teaching you to be an automation tech/engineer. So you're on your own as concerns that.

But you'll have all the tools to learn the same way I did. So have at it.

[bastard]

Whats more popular? do a google....

Results 1 - 10 of about 715,000 for lonworks
Results 1 - 10 of about 355,000 for bacnet

(Lonmark Certified Products 443)
http://www.lonmark.org/products/prod_search.cfm

(Bacnet Certified (is is BTL or BACnet International what's the standard 200 or so but who knows there are so many dupes.)
http://www.bacnetassociation.org/btl/

Also 25 Million Lonworks Hydro Meters in Italy
http://www.echelon.com/metering/experience.htm

Please.

Ask me if I care both we can do both but I prefer Lon just for the mountains of available product.

[Snoring Beagle]

I find myself looking at a big complex of many facilities.
In the near future I may have to deal with.

There are BAS's that include;
Automatrix 5000+ points, 1992
Honeywell 2002,
Metasys, 2004
Network 8000, 1995

They all still work and the very issues brought forth about Engineering to installation to service have come about in the negative vein.

They are all proprietary, don't talk to one another, top secret stuff as far as vendors are concerned. And Techs who do show up many times leave things worse than they were. They don't have the time and don't say much.

Anyway, The future is coming and I may be in the middle of it.

What should a poor boy like me do?

[control$]

That sounds like an interesting site! Guess starting fresh is out of the question. What do you wish to be your end result? You will need to keep it realistic. Richards-Zeta can take care of the NW-8000 and Johnson and to lesser degree ALC. Honeywell can't talk to Honeywell....so I wish you luck! As for the Matrix stuff, let's face it. They got the money's worth out of it years ago.

[The Penguin]

The thing that wizzes me off the most is the tendency to lock up control systems so that no one else can access/figure out how to change stuff when needed/or add stuff for a ti. or at least make it as difficult/awkward as possible

It seems to me that bacnet lends it self to encourigning the system lockup/lockout more than lon

I just can't stand it