Reply to Thread

Originally Posted by ALIREZA

I NEED TO BUY POWER OPEN PROCESSOR PN: 652-001 .

MBC OP's are being phased out... Good Luck.

Go JCI.....

I NEED TO BUY POWER OPEN PROCESSOR PN: 652-001 .

WHAT'S APPLICATION NUMBER ALTIVAR212 FOR ADDING TO TEC DEFINITION FLN APOGEE ?
ALTIVAR212 IS A AC INVERTER FROM SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC BRANDS .

I WANT TO CONNECT ALTIVAR212 TO APOGEE FLN P1 BUT I CAN'T DO IT ,
PLEASE ADVISE ME

Originally Posted by sysint

...Yep I think you do. I'd like to talk.
Anyway, I like things more distributed. If you are going with a bacnet front I say gate the LON. That way you aren't left out when you want some front end flexibility. Taking multiple protocols and integrating them to a single front poses more situations than I like to see.

Hit me up. My addy is in my profile.

Originally Posted by jgraham

The big thing is when you discover points from the controller and they are generically named. Then you have to track down the point list, which usually involves talking to the factory who doesn't want to just give up their list on a whim.

Don't forget also that with CEA-709 you have things like SNVT_switch which end up being two variables in bacnet.

Originally Posted by jgraham

...I can say I agree that if you can get everything on one protocol it's better. I guess I was thinking in terms of head-end. Tridium will talk with pretty much anything, so to me that's open. If we're talking Siemens parts, (raptors, predators, programmable stats), the new BACnet line requires their special software. That would, I guess, be considered closed.
I personally love Lon. I'm doing two fairly large sites using pretty much all BACnet and I want my Lon back.

...Yep I think you do. I'd like to talk.
Anyway, I like things more distributed. If you are going with a bacnet front I say gate the LON. That way you aren't left out when you want some front end flexibility. Taking multiple protocols and integrating them to a single front poses more situations than I like to see.

Originally Posted by Gomer3353

This bring up one of my pet peaves, point naming. Any way what I have found is not that they don't want to give it up but it is finding the guy in the backroom of the basement that programmed it. No one at the main office even knows his name or how to contact him. He is the guy that wrote the code and is such a circuit head that he has no concept of the real world and how the data gets read or understood by mere mortals. JMHO
Gomer

Amen and preach on brother Gomer!

This bring up one of my pet peaves, point naming

Mine too !!!!!

I had a guy (that I work with?) send me a job/station wanting me to help out with the front end here recently,,, and ohhh boy.......

What does temp 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, etc, etc, etc,,,,,,,,,,, mean anyways????????

point XYZ123 ????

Fan 1, 2, 3, 4 in the same app?

No ATC'S and could you provide some graphics and a front end for this????

bahahhahahahahahahaha,,,, NO !

Good God, good point!

The big thing is when you discover points from the controller and they are generically named. Then you have to track down the point list, which usually involves talking to the factory who doesn't want to just give up their list on a whim.

This bring up one of my pet peaves, point naming. Any way what I have found is not that they don't want to give it up but it is finding the guy in the backroom of the basement that programmed it. No one at the main office even knows his name or how to contact him. He is the guy that wrote the code and is such a circuit head that he has no concept of the real world and how the data gets read or understood by mere mortals. JMHO
Gomer

Nobody knows it ALL. That's why we share.

The big thing is when you discover points from the controller and they are generically named. Then you have to track down the point list, which usually involves talking to the factory who doesn't want to just give up their list on a whim.

Originally Posted by jgraham

I personally love Lon. I'm doing two fairly large sites using pretty much all BACnet and I want my Lon back.

As I'm about to start a large BACnet job, what issues are you running into?
jogas

Originally Posted by sysint

Are you John? -- Look I like what Tridium is doing to solve an issue. However, it's really putting the finger in the dam. I think it's still better to move any device with a different protocol to the quickest way to a standard platform. What I mean is that if the device itself can translate to a common protocol, you flip the switch. Or, you add a translation device to get it on common ground or that translation device is on that network with a connection to "X"/IP to satisfy requirements.

I have a CEA-709 bias because it's the best protocol out there for independence. I was just visiting a company that tests bacnet and CEA-709 products because they have products for both protocols. In the testing lab what are they testing for compatibility and communciation? Only the bacnet products. Why? They don't need to test the Lonworks products, it's not an issue.

Do I know you Sysint? I can say I agree that if you can get everything on one protocol it's better. I guess I was thinking in terms of head-end. Tridium will talk with pretty much anything, so to me that's open. If we're talking Siemens parts, (raptors, predators, programmable stats), the new BACnet line requires their special software. That would, I guess, be considered closed.
I personally love Lon. I'm doing two fairly large sites using pretty much all BACnet and I want my Lon back.

Originally Posted by simsd

ACCman,

Yes your analogy is somewhat true, but the other issue is that customers think that if they buy BACnet instead of LON, that they still have an open system. Yes it's open in the sense that it can connect to things - but it's not open in the sense that you still need the vendor's software and cables to do any programming.

It's not the same case with LON as the manufacturer's give you the "wizard" or "programs" that can be accessed through the JACE.

So - BACnet - two companies needed.
LONworks - one company only as long as the wizards are available.

Like I stated (I think) earlier, bacnet requires testing for compatibility on a far greater scale than LON does. TThat being said nobody is really using Lonmark alarming, scheduling, and trending. (there are reasons for this) However, bacnet has an edge with their AST functions, but really they design it around distinct subsystems that really are a crap shoot for compatibility.... nowhere near refined nor ever will be. Why do you think H-well, JCI and Siemens like bacnet so much? Why do you think the ASHRAE cronies like it so much? It keeps them in business.

Which is probably why it seems Echelon is not keeping up on LNS. It's mature, it works significantly better than bacnet and it's not making a whole lot of money supporting the platform.

That being said, I think from device to front end there are many LON options and even some that don't require front end SOFTWARE or HARDWARE licensing. That's something to think about...seriously.

Gotta love LON, eh?

I do

ACCman,

Yes your analogy is somewhat true, but the other issue is that customers think that if they buy BACnet instead of LON, that they still have an open system. Yes it's open in the sense that it can connect to things - but it's not open in the sense that you still need the vendor's software and cables to do any programming.

It's not the same case with LON as the manufacturer's give you the "wizard" or "programs" that can be accessed through the JACE.

So - BACnet - two companies needed.
LONworks - one company only as long as the wizards are available.

Clarification

Originally Posted by sysint

I have thoughts about this. Even if you have a bacnet system into Tridium you still need the manufacturers software for configuration. So, really if there is a less expensive platform that crosses LON/Bacnet with no licensing that's good. It's even better IMO if it's LNS LON because then you don't worry about getting the manufacturers software because you simply have plugins available.

Its sounds like my analogy of the "window" is very close to being correct when the Tridium system is used on an older generation "closed" system.
My point being, there are still two vendors charging the customer for certain types of problems.
I do understand the overall goal of upgrading components until the older system is replaced by newer "open" components.

Thanks for the input.
As for the licensing, the contractor pays and so does the customer for all of the systems I am familiar with, even with Tridium.

sysint

Thanks for clearing up and concurring. I too, figured LON was the only way to go with the wizards.