Do what we all do for any IP device when we have forgotten the IP address-
Connect to it with a crossover cable, attach wireshark, reboot the unit and watch it tell you what its address is.
I have a TAC Series 2000 Netplus Router that I am trying to resurrect. My issue is I dont know the IP address for the unit. I tried to connect directly to the unit using a serial cable but that port is toast. My question is, how do I get the IP address from the unit using only the ethernet port? Is there a default address I could use after I clear the memory? I just need to use this router temporarily. Also any leads on getting this unit repaired for future use?
Thanks.
Do what we all do for any IP device when we have forgotten the IP address-
Connect to it with a crossover cable, attach wireshark, reboot the unit and watch it tell you what its address is.
Thanks BACnet. I have never used Wireshark. I am currently downloading it. Ill give it a shot and respond later.
I tried Wireshark. I got the IP for my computer and 0.0.0.0 as the only responses. When I cycle power on the NPR I see activity but no valid addresses. I wonder if the whole NPR is hosed.
Do you see it requesting an address? It's possible that it's not statically assigned.
The document you want is : 04-00052-01-en
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.
Here's the document Matrix just referenced (in case you don't want to google it as I just did).
-B
This might help more since you said series 2000 -
http://edgeonline.tac-americas.com/s...df/TCON191.PDF
http://edgeonline.tac-americas.com/s...s/pdf/2003.pdf
How do you know the serial port is hosed? If that's messed up I'd be planning on getting a new device as who knows what else is messed up.
On the repair TAC/Schneider used to repair things and had list pricing, but on that it would likely be worthwhile to buy a 527-NPR or even just a 527, short of finding one used somewhere. Here's an old post on repairs. http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=140615
I would have emailed the documents if I had known they were freely available.
Around here there are plenty of nasty politics in the HVAC controls industry.
People get threatened with law suits, told to destroy or return software or documents all the time.
For a bunch or "OPEN" systems, the word proprietary gets bandied about quite a lot!
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.
I haven't heard of anyone getting in trouble for sharing product manuals. After all, the end users should have copies of these things anyway if the installer isn't a crook.
What they consider proprietary, is up to them to decide ... and a court to work out.
Would you wanna defend a civil case to find out if it is or isnt ... or would you err on the side of caution???
BTW ... which bully-boy do you work for?
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.
Generally speaking what you say is true enough. As far as it goes. The creator and owner of a document does have the right to determine whether or not a document may be copied, freely distributed, etc.
But also generally speaking, courts also hold (at least in the US) that the original author make some effort to protect his/her intellectual property if that is his/her intent. The ways and means of doing this can be widely varied and usually are. A simple statement that the doc may not be copied, distributed, etc without the author's consent (and possibly a paid fee) is adequate.
Of course, one may not copy and distribute in a fashion so as to make it appear that it is YOUR work or creation, especially for a fee, that's a given, without express consent of the author.
In any event. The precise details of law are long and involved.
However, as a general rule, if someone makes said docs freely available to the general public, does not expressly prohibit copying and/or redistribution, you're safe enough to do so as long as you're NOT claiming it as your intellectual property.
In such cases, courts generally hold that if you do so, and the original author objects ... they have an obligation to at least warn you of their objection and to call for you to cease and desist.
In which case, if you DO NOT cease and desist, then they've got a perfectly legitimate case against you.
In short, since TAC's document site does not require password log-on before being able to view their docs, the linked to docs don't say anything about prohibited redistribution, etc its pretty safe for those who did to provide a link directly to the docs.
What law is being violated?
What REAL loss or harm is TAC suffering as a result? That's the first thing a court would want to know to even consider hearing a case.
This is not the same as with a recent case where the owners of this site found out someone was mirroring it and its contents. In that case, there was obvious harm/loss done.
The mirror site claimed contents as their own. It possibly drew folks away from this site, resulting in a loss of revenue to the owners of this site. Etc. Clearly one can not do such things ... not legitimately.
The owners of this site protested, rightfully, to those concerned. And whomever it was that provided the site hosting for that mirror recognized the improper situation and shut down the mirror.
A site where I stash some stuff that might be interesting to some folks.
http://cid-0554c074ec47c396.office.l...e.aspx/.Public
Oh, I hear what yr saying there....expecially about the 'loss' part ... it would be hard to justify a 'loss' simply by sending a document ... what about say ... I dunno? Siemens CIS software? or JCI HVACPro
...Hmmm, that poses a question!
Anyways ...
What happens here (and here is relative in space-time AND in legal pervue) , is that the local branch of the parent company takes it upon itself to start issuing notices to the effect that one should desist ( even if one probably needn't have to desist)
...and one cannot afford enough lawyers/solicitors to answer every stupid onerous, litigious piece of drivel that drips from their lips ... or issues from their legal departments (as the case may be).
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.
This thread has taken an interesting turn.
Speaking only of product manuals (not software which Matrix just got into a bit) one wonders why someone wouldn't want the manual getting out.
If you want/need a manual, it is presumably because you have some of their hardware and you need to modify it in some way. Presumably, when the product itself was installed or sold to you, you were given or had the opportunity to get the manual. The fact that you don't have the manual can cause only one thing- frustration at the company for not being able to use the product.
So perhaps from the legality side, a case could be made for obtaining a manual if you are in [legal] possession of the device itself. But a much easier case could be made in the court of public opinion if a company turns to the dark side and pesters people who try to use their products.
You'd have to be a powerhouse of a company to make it in the end if your business approach is to attack your customers for asking too many questions or wanting documentation.
Is the software sold for a profit? Does it and/or the docs that come with it indicate that it MAY NOT be redistributed, copied, etc without authorization of the creator(s)? Does it have copy or licensing protection devices (hardware or software) installed?
This is somewhat a different bag of worms. But not greatly different.
Traditionally, software ... like hardware ... was sold, and was part of the profit making business model of the companies concerned.
Typically, owner/operator/installer type technical manuals were not sold. (i.e. The how-to's of usage, configuration, installation, and operation of the device) Were usually either distributed right along with the hardware, often coming in the box with it, or were available for a simple fee to cover the costs of printing the darn thing.
Actual REPAIR manuals, however, by tradition and customary practice were sold, generally for a profit. And sometimes the sale was limited by the creator to "authorized" personnel. The criteria for "authorized" being whatever the creator of the docs decided upon.
i.e. Trane might give away, or only charge a modest fee to cover printing costs of the owner/operator/installer docs for a chiller. But reserve the right to restrict the sale of in-depth repair manuals to "authorized" Trane service people, and maybe even charge an extra markup ... to earn some profit ... for them. Many automobile manufacturer's do much the same.
"Customary Practice" comes into play when courts look at this sort of thing.
In short, if a manufacturer openly makes certain docs publicly available for download by ANYONE without restrictions ... other than the customary one's covering such subjects as you may not alter them and redistribute the altered copies while claiming them to be your own creations and/or sell them for a profit ... and said docs are of the usual owner/operator/installer sort covering how to install, configure, use, etc ... its VERY doubtful said manufacturer can or would claim some violation against you. Oh, I'm sure there is some idiot somewhere who's done that precise thing ... but I'm also sure some judge and/or jury somewhere were laughing their a**es off at the case. IF a judge somewhere was so bored and with nothing else to do that he/she even felt the case had enough merit to bother with.
You do understand that in most places just because you submit a charge or claim against someone else ... that DOES NOT mean you automatically get a day in court, right? If a prosecutor or judge sees no valid merit to the charge he/she can just tell yah to kiss it and go away. Or tell yah to file in some other judicial area where yah might find someone willing to pursue the case.
That sort of thing happens ALL the time. I can remember having that specific conversation with a judge. I was working a project in a county courthouse. Was taking a break, grabbing a cup of coffee and got into a conversation with a judge. Of course, first thing he wanted to know was how our project was going, and was his courtroom going to be cooler in the future? He was tired of his jury members being over warm and nodding off to sleep. But during our chat I mentioned he must be really busy and swamped with work since he had several piles of records on his desk. One being a particularly large pile. He laughed and said indeed he was swamped, but the main problem was that large pile. He called it his "BS" pile. Those were cases he was NOT gonna hear, nor pass on for someone else to hear. Just pure BS stuff with no merit significant enough to warrant the case actually going to trial. However, every day he had to go through such piles of garbage, read the contents, and if he found insufficient merit to the case, write up a justification for not wasting taxpayer money on taking it on to trial. And that took time. Often much of his day. And that was after the county prosecutor had already weeded out a bunch of drivel.
In any event, what we were discussing is pretty much a common sense thing. If they're charging a fee for whatever, or restrict access to obtaining the docs in the first place to "authorized" personnel, or state that you CAN NOT redistribute the docs under any conditions ... yah probably shouldn't be redistributing the stuff.
If they're openly making it available, for free, to ANY ONE ... its highly doubtful they'd bother getting upset over a person redistributing it as long as you do not alter it. As in, removing or changing the name of the authors/creators, claiming its your creation, etc. The vast majority of companies are pretty good about this. Often discouraging redistribution (if they do) only because they'd prefer it be downloaded from their site each time to ensure whoever got the latest copy with all changes, addendum's, etc.
I am sure there must be some, but I can not off the top of my head recall running across any manufacturer's in our line of biz from whom I've had any difficulty getting a standard tech manual.
I look such stuff up all the time. Nearly always find a copy on the manufacturer's web site, or on the web site of one of their distributors/resellers.
In the few occasions where that has failed, I've called the folks concerned. Have yet to have one tell me "No". (Manufacturer's that is, have had other controls contractors be less than cooperative.)
Main problem I run into is in the case of dated, out of production devices. That can be a challenge sometimes if the original manufacturer no longer has that doc available in digital form on their web site.
Hmmm. Okay.
What are you doing that causes them to think they have grounds to ask you to desist?
I'm trying to imagine this.
Now, if I were using an illegal copy of software to do something, I could understand such an objection. If the software requires a fee and/or licensing ... then that's the way it is. I'd inform the customer of the situation and ask customer what further action they wish to pursue? Call in a tech/engineer from the other company who has the right, legal software and have that person make the necessary changes? Customer purchase software? Or does customer wish us to purchase ( and charge customer for it)? Or should we just rip out whatever and replace it? What?
I'm not playing lilly-white, pure and innocent here. It is POSSIBLE that at some time in the past I MIGHT have obtained certain software by less than legitimate means, then used it to look inside some systems/controllers in order to obtain info about settings, configurations, custom programs, etc ... prior to ripping darn stuff out and replacing it with something else. So I'd have data about what WAS ... so could discuss that with customer to see if that was adequate, did they want changes, or whatever?
But that was invariably in cases where customer had no or inadequate documentation from original installers, and/or no adequate front end (working) that I could use to see what was doing what. AND original installers either were no longer in business, or no longer had records for the site, or were just being horse's a**es.
Generally speaking, a rare action on my part. Most of the time, vast majority of the time ... unnecessary. Can't recall but 3 or 4 instances where I MIGHT HAVE needed to resort to such a tactic ... out of hundreds of projects I've done. Each time special circumstances sort of dictated the need.
However, in the normal course of business, I've not found this kind of thing necessary.
In most instances when interfacing with, or integrating, someone else's stuff we simply need to ask installing contractor of that stuff, or the device manufacturer, and we get the info needed. Almost always they readily help us out.
If its a device that for whatever reasons requires reprogramming/reconfig and we don't have the means ... authorized person gets a call and is hired to do it. Pretty standard modus operandi.
If said person/company refuses ... pretty simple, we offer customer a few options. One being to kindly tell that firm they'll no longer get customer's business ... EVER, and secondly we'll offer various options for ripping the stuff out and replacing it.
Now, if you're talking about about reprogramming/reconfig or whatever of the internals of a controller for which you are not a distributor/integrator WITHOUT the knowledge and cooperation of the manufacturer/installing contractor ... whole different ball game.
We put stuff in. We're an authorized dealer for a few lines of equipment. IAW terms of the contract we do config/custom programming, etc to meet the specs, and warranty what we do.
If customer then has someone else come in and make changes, without our consent and cooperation (paid) ... that's fine. Customer's building, customer's equipment. Customer can do whatever he or she likes.
But we're washing our hands of it. That system now belongs to whomever, all warranties are now null and void. Need us? Or need our advice/expertise? Gonna cost ... every call.
Customer needs as-built's, BOM's, device tech manuals? They got em. If they lost em we'll happily replace them ... no charge. We have digital records of everything we've done going back to the 90's. Copies of plans, points sheets, databases, config data for controllers, copies of programs, etc. We maintain such copies for all projects, customer in our opinion has a right to have such.
If customer or their new contractors needs proprietary, for a fee, software to accomplish whatever changes they have in mind and don't wish to hire us to accomplish said changes ... can buy said software from manufacturer, we'll help to arrange it. Customer can buy it. New contractor can't unless an authorized dealer for manufacturer. In the several lines of equipment we deal with, this is the same for all of them. The software is sold only to authorized dealer or customer. Customer's "unauthorized" controls contractor can use it, on THAT customer's system. But may not copy it or take it with him to use on someone else's stuff.
<Shrug> Pretty standard way things are done. AFAIK. Some of our customer's make it a point to obtain any necessary, proprietary software when they buy systems. Some don't. Most don't. But could.
There is a great deal of discussion about "Open Systems", but what does that mean really?
For our projects, customers get ALL relevant docs, files, etc for their system. And all passwords. Including the the BIG ONE ... unlimited administrator rights. Why should we withhold that one? Chuckle, most don't want it and we're instructed to only let key people within their organization know what it is. Often enough, they forget what it is, or where they wrote it down. Simple, just call, we'll tell em, again.
But in most cases, unless specified otherwise, they buy a finished, adequately working system (to include working hardware, running software, etc). They don't buy developmental and engineering software automatically. Have to ask, and pay if that's what they want.
Now, I've been to Australia, several times ... tho not in some years now ... nice place, I like it. Perth, Sydney, and Hobart. But, of course, I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of the BAS business there.
I was touristing ... concentrating on getting rude, lewd, and tattooed. The usual, yah know. Was a sailor at the time. Out to sea for months at a time. Come in, grab some excellent chow, hit a few pubs and get suitably lubricated, get into a little row with someone ... just for fun. Get teeth knocked in ... just to have the guy pick me up off the floor and invite me to a barbie at his house and to meet the wife and kids. Or sometimes it was even me picking the other fella off the floor and offering to buy him a drink, then we'd go chase the ladies. Didn't matter if I actually caught one ... spend long enough at sea and yah just appreciate being able to SEE one.
So I have no idea about usual business practices there as concerns our line of business.
So I gotta ask, precisely what are yah doing that causes such reactions from the other contractors/manufacturer's reps?
Around here, while we have competitors, we're normally on a friendly, cooperative basis with them. Each careful to not step on the other's toes. And mainly, more than anything else, careful to never pi** off the customer. Locally, customer's have little tolerance for doing business with contractors who can't get along and cooperate. Usually results in one or the other, or both, being shown the door. (At least, in the large commercial/industrial sector of the biz.) i.e. Here, its NEVER a good idea to bad mouth a fellow contractor in front of a customer. Unless customer him-/herself is bad mouthing them ... then its okay to agree. But best not to elaborate or add to it.
A site where I stash some stuff that might be interesting to some folks.
http://cid-0554c074ec47c396.office.l...e.aspx/.Public