Has anyone applied one of these yet?
Sedona EasyIO
Regular Guest
Has anyone applied one of these yet?
Sedona EasyIO
Professional Member
We rolled out five of these on a project a couple months ago - but we couldn't reliably get the Sedona comm to work, and our Linux SoftJACE couldn't talk BACnet/IP at the time, so we ended up using these as Modbus/TCP devices...(sorta cool to have three protocols in one device)
They're a little goofy - for instance, they support thermistors, but only when you build the table...and if you want to use a 10K-ohm thermistor, you don't set the input to be a 10K-ohm resistance input, otherwise it reads a maximum of 10K-ohms! You set it as a 30K-ohm resistance, then it will read the entire range of a 10K-ohm thermistor...once you build the table...
And, we had one of the devices never read the digital inputs correctly, so technically that's a 20% failure rate, but with such a limited sample, that's not really fair - but it was another little issue to deal with.
My impression is that they are not a mature product yet - the ESL style of the documentation (and website, too) doesn't help with that impression - but the ones we have deployed are working just fine.
Regular Guest
we used only two of them as a test on in the office and didn't have any proplems with the sedona communication. Overall, we are really high on them but no real sites yet. I heard there was a new firmware for it that came out that might have fixed some of the original problems. We gave a few of them to our customers for testing and will have a site using them in a week or two.
Permanently Removed
Simultaneously communicating the three?Originally Posted by davem
Professional Member
you flash it with each new proto, as far as i know.
Professional Member
We have many and they are great. Yes it is a little goofy which is due to legacy issues...that 30k 10k thing had me going for a while too.
Excellent IO density.
Sedona is better with Workbench
Can be flashed is desired to be modbus or bacnet only
Yeas...ALL 3 protocols ( AT THE SAME TIME!!)...thats right CONCURRENTLY!
1 + 1 = 3 ( *** for very large values of 1)
...everybody wants a box of chocolates and long stemmed rose
Be brave. You cannot get eaten by an imaginary tiger.
Permanently Removed
Well, that's confusing. All three concurrently or not?
Finally somebody is starting to catch up.
Why use "Sedona" protocol?
EDIT--- I don't see where they support simultaneous communication of multiple protocols. Could you direct me in the right area? TIA.
Last edited by sysint; 10-04-2010 at 07:20 PM. Reason: Comment
Member
Somewhat related but not...anyone know of any other Sedona-based products on the market yet? I remember hearing that Belimo was going to do a smart VAV controller/actuator/thingy based on Sedona. Are companies really adopting Sedona or is it still too early?
Regular Guest
I have heard of aic wireless using sedona for street lighting, but we have only seen the easy io. They are two more devices, don't know what company they are, that we are going to be testing on shortly.
Professional Member
What is the sedona framework?
New Guest
AIC Wireless has used the devices. The product will be rolled out at the Niagara Summit May 2-4, 2010. I would recommend contacting AIC Wireless with any questions.
Professional Member
Looks like these guys have it also: http://www.ccontrols.com/basautomation/basremote.htm
Regular Guest
Does anyone have any expericence with EasyIO Bacnet/MSTP VAV controllers? I have a price list from their sales dept. but I cann't find the cutsheets for these contrllers.
We have a dying Honeywell XL500/XL10 system here and need to find options to replace them all phase by phase.
Professional Member*
I have no experience with EasyIO.
Have you looked into Delta? They are suppose to be a good BACnet replacement system that will integrate easily.
http://www.deltacontrols.com/solutio...lers/dznt-xxxx
Permanently Removed
XcelTech- Don't you see the trend? People now want their field devices speaking multiple languages and do not want to be restricted anymore.
You see, when you get multiple languages at device level you no longer need proprietary frameworks. Standards are there for a reason. Thinking about this with Sedona of course this is a great play by Tridium. They make Sedona roll into the framework easier so if you use Tridium likely you use it. Otherwise you would use something else buy anyway product still sells.
The next phase of this is what is happening with OPC. Here with OPC you can build an open framework instead of using a proprietary framework. I've even seen IEC61131 programs (for fully programmable controllers) dumped into multiple PLC's. Essentially the communication issues disappear and people can get back to engineering.
Professional Member*
That is all fine and dandy and I don't disagree. However, if Sedona is still flaky and still in the realm of smoothing out the edges, Paragk might not want to put the time and effort into using a young new system. I am sure his customer doesn't want to wait for Sedona to mature or take weeks to fix the bugs after each new component is installed.
Like I said earlier I have no personal experience with Sedona or EasyIO and was merely suggesting another option.
On a personal note, I don't like Proprietary frameworks either. I was informed the new Delta plug and plays allowed for non-Delta equipment to be easily attached and implemented. Which sounds a lot like what you were saying,
Thinking about this with Sedona of course this is a great play by Tridium. They make Sedona roll into the framework easier so if you use Tridium likely you use it.
Permanently Removed
Will Delta subsequently be offering their configuration tools or is this a one-way street in?
There are things to consider. Open interface, freely available configuration tools, and networking tools.
Usually a vendor offers to take everything in. Big deal. If you bring everything into a proprietary framework how does that help the owner? Doesn't. So, when I see these boxes that propagate the proprietary communication protocols with allowance to bring in open protocols they have essentially killed the open part. I wouldn't use them.
The next part to this is how is the interface? I'd look for open communication interface. No proprietary frameworks or tunnels.
And, finally how about the configuration tools? I prefer FREE. So, if I buy a piece of hardware I should get the tools for it. However, I see often if you are a software-only provider and need to outsource your controllers and I/O manufacturing to Taiwan I see why you would design a proprietary framework and charge for software with mechanisms to make yearly sign up fees and charge for upgrades because you have no way to make money on hardware as you do not manufacture actual physical product.
Anyway, I find Sedona somewhat interesting if it gets standardized and doesn't require specific "chips".
Banned
Thats a Bacnetish quote. From now on you will be known as Bacnetguy (the next generation)
Controls Committee
I haven't. Looks pretty cool though. Sedona, Bacnet and Modbus looks like their only comms briefing the documentation. The drag and drop workbench is huge
Is it really that special to have multiple protocols communicating concurrently in one device? I've been doing LON, Modbus RTU, Bacnet IP and proprietary communication out of the same device for awhile. Most are doing 3 or less protocols, but there are a few doing 4. Maybe I've just been lucky, or my ignorance in mainly dealing with one manufacturer, but I never thought of it being that special. I recall talking to one guy who simply never thought of trying multiple protocols out of one device, he was always buying another device, didn't mind telling him about it, don't have stock in that company!
"How it can be considered "Open" is beyond me. Calling it "voyeur-ed" would be more accurate." pka LeroyMac, SkyIsBlue, fka Freddy-B, Mongo, IndyBlue
BIG Government = More Dependents
"Any 'standard' would be great if it didn't get bastardised by corporate self interest." MatrixTransform
My 5 yr old son "Dad, Siri is not very smart when there's no internet."
Permanently Removed
It gets very special when the point count goes up in the device... and quite frankly when you can communicate something like LON and BACnet since the variable structure is dramatically different.
Putting LON and BACnet into a fieldbus simultaneously separates men from boys. So, now you have a very easy way to separate front ends from devices and provide flatter architectures. You can use significantly more robust LON fieldbus and send out BACnet/IP or OPC at multiple levels.
So, this type of thing is special if you don't dump it into a proprietary framework.
What I don't understand is the appeal for Modbus. In many ways I find Modbus mostly useless. What redeeming qualities does Modbus have to other technologies? I'd rather use BACnet MSTP any day over Modbus. Modbus has almost zero standards for anything. So, you can see where I set the bar on that.
Posting Permissions
Reply