I/O count for programmables

[NINAX]

Originally Posted by sysint

Why does the JACE have 64 I/O capacity?
What are people using that for?

You'll have to wait for one of the Tridium Fellows to answer those.

[orion242]

>Think about this... no VAV controllers. They would wire the damper and flow directly back to the controller. (not saying good or bad but this is what they do)

Sounds like a major headache to me. Bringing all that cable to a central point, into a massive panel. If that controller goes down, so does most of the building. I can’t imagine this setup would be cheaper to install and program than ASCs on each box. With VVTs I sometimes bring a 3 or so to a single controller, but that’s about it.

Now if it’s a small mechanical room I may bring a few AHUs to a single controller. But it is almost always easier for us to use a single controller, per piece of equipment. The programs can be copied and pasted, and linking the graphics is easer if there are multiple controllers running identical programs. Drawings are copy paste also if this is the case.

Our controllers can handle up to 128 hardware points, any combination you need via expansion modules. AST functions are built-in to almost every controller, including most ASCs. I can count the number of times on one hand that I pushed them over 100pts on a single controller.

[digo]

I'm looking forward to the spyder micros. Faster processor, more memory, expanded nv count (250), and smaller foot print. All that is missing is a turbo button when working with the app remotely on a JACE.

[digo]

What I do miss is the point count/density of the XL500 panels.
Too bad it's a pain to make them work with AX... you need to expose every point out as SNVTs, but you then run out of those very quickly...

[Snides]

Why does the JACE have 64 I/O capacity? What are people using that for?

From our perspective.
Chiller plant control. HLI to chillers, VSD's on pumps, Modbus to water treatment, elect and water meters.
I/O used for misc items sensors, valves, fans, alarms ect ect.
Cost per point "reasonable"
Engineering/commissioning quicker than Lon or Bacnet

[samurai_tech]

I use a JACE with ndio for boiler/chiller plants and large AHU's. A 34 I/O module plue (2) 16 I/O modules gives you 66 points. I normally use Smart Controls or Spyders for everything else. A Smart EC240 has 12UI's, 6UO's, and 6DO's. Controllers with lots of points usually run out of network variables quickly. By the time you add all your hardware points, set points, timer values, overrides modes, etc., you face a challenge of trying to get all your desired points exposed to the network. I agree that controls should stay distributed. I remember JCI DSC's had 8AI, 8DI, and I believe 16 BO's on one FIC board. You could have up to 63 FIC boards per DSC processor. I never saw more than about 6 per DSC but the problem is if the brain dies it all goes down.

[sysint]

Originally Posted by orion242

>Think about this... no VAV controllers. They would wire the damper and flow directly back to the controller. (not saying good or bad but this is what they do)

Sounds like a major headache to me. Bringing all that cable to a central point, into a massive panel. If that controller goes down, so does most of the building. I can’t imagine this setup would be cheaper to install and program than ASCs on each box....

I'll address this. It's not the whole building but one floor. If you look at the cost of our programmable webserver it is inexpensive. Further, it's more industrial quality and the programming environment is definitely industrial quality. Hot swapping of programming without cycling the I/O's. Can't do that with Distech or the JACE. Some also don't wire everything back but I don't think you find large sales of VAV ASC's outside the US. In fact much of the outside market has much more density per square foot than we have. What do we consider? -- Maybe 1000 foot per HVAC node and we call it a day. Meanwhile outside the US they have 3-4 times the variable count in the same footage.

[joey791]

Originally Posted by sysint

Hot swapping of programming without cycling the I/O's.

NM misread the statement

[sysint]

If you make a programming change in an already running control it adds it in on the next cycle. So, no reboot of the controller or a cycle off of outputs.

[osiyo]

Originally Posted by sysint

I'll address this. It's not the whole building but one floor. ... Hot swapping of programming without cycling the I/O's. Can't do that with Distech or the JACE. Some also don't wire everything back but I don't think you find large sales of VAV ASC's outside the US. In fact much of the outside market has much more density per square foot than we have. What do we consider? -- Maybe 1000 foot per HVAC node and we call it a day. Meanwhile outside the US they have 3-4 times the variable count in the same footage.

I'm not addressing the product you're touting. Not familiar with it, so it wouldn't be fair. Besides I've been reading your posts for long enough that despite disagreements we've had I'd trust your assessment of a piece of gear.

But some comments.

It depends on what criteria you're designing for, the goals one expects to achieve, and the expectations of the customer.

Saying something like "most of the rest of world", etc is a non-argument and not particularly pertinent. Unless you live and work in one of those other places.

Stating something like "Most of the rest of the world does this or that ..." is pretty meaningless. Never has been, never will be.

Such statements only take on meaning if one can also provide compelling facts, independently verifiable, that offers compelling reasons for the READER to also wish to adopt whatever practices as it has been shown to be FACTUALLY beneficial to the READER, or an improvement over current methods used by the READER.

In short, just because ... for instance ... Europe does this or that, or China, or whomever ... that does not in itself mean that their way is a better way.

Nor do I mean to imply that their way is not as good as ours, either. Depends. Each instance and argument must be judged on it's own merits.

I just mention this because you seem to often use such a statement in your debates. "Well, most of the rest of the world ...". Or more specifically, "In Europe they ...".

Okay, so what? Give numbers or some other factual proof, that can be verified, that whatever actually works better.

I'm not anti-The Rest of the World, BTW. Some things other people do better than we do. Some things they do a damn sight worse. Some things they CLAIM they do better than we, but offer no hard evidence to prove it. And some things they pay a great deal of lip service to while not actually practicing what they preach to any appreciable extent. (Think certain Kyoto agreements)

I've visited some 47 countries, last count I made. Enjoyed the places and people in most cases. Have a lot of respect for them. Got along with em well. Well, mostly. Not too darned fond of the French. At least not the most vocal of them.

But saying that "Most of the rest of the world ..." does this or that, is by itself, an utterly meaningless statement to me. I'm no more impressed or swayed by that than some statement like, "American made is better." or "The Chinese made stuff is junk."

<Shrug> Sometimes yes ... sometimes no. Depends specifically on what particular thing you're talking about.

In any event, many of the customers I deal with DO NOT want a whole floor controlled by a single controller. And specifically state so in the contracts we sign. Most specify wording to the effect that any single controller going down should have minimal possible effects upon their building as a whole. They likewise wish that the "head end" going on the blitz will have minimal effects on the whole system.

So we tend to use controllers with no more I/O count than needed that can operate independently if the rest of the system fails.

Typically, one controller per air handler. One per chiller. Separate controller for building heating water circulation pumps. A smaller controller controlling perhaps a CUH and a couple or 3 exhaust fans. One ASC controller per VAV. Etc. All capable of independent operation should the need arise.

Sure, one can realize economies of larger scale. One or two very large air handlers as versus 8 smaller ones. A single controller that controls everything on a single floor of a building. But such ideas don't fit in with our customer demands and expectations. And often, nor does it fit in with the expectations of THEIR customers, the occupants of their buildings.

Don't think of this as criticism. Just an observation on my part. When I start doing business with a European customer, I'll start conforming to his or her expectations, wants, and needs. Until then, I deal with other customers who have other ideas and specific reasons for their ideas.

Almost always reasons backed up by past experience that dictated that doing it differently had consequences they were NOT willing to live with.

[techgabe]

We had a building with 4 large ahu's that were being controlled with 2 "Smart" 500's and 16 Distributed I/O module's. We removed the "Smart"s and replaced them and programmed them with one jace 600. We have not had any problems with communication and the AX programming, I find to be far easier to use than anything else I have used, including Spyder controllers. I use to strongly believe in having localized controllers in each unit. Now I am much more confident in having a central controller that can be used to run multiple functions or multiple equipment. With the increase of memory and processing power that can be put into one controller, i think it can be an option that can and should be looked at more often. I find no decreased reliability by using one controller, than using multiple controllers. Over the years, I have seen many systems go down due to one localized controller on a network going bad.

[sysint]

Hi Osiyo,

"most of the rest of the world" fits here because the product wasn't on our roadmap but was demanded. It came out of Asia and Europe so I guess I'm qualifying that as the rest of the world. Sorry to have left out Africa..

"In short, just because ... for instance ... Europe does this or that, or China, or whomever ... that does not in itself mean that their way is a better way." -- No, but since we have worldwide presence we are aware of world wide requirements (to a determined extent) and they are doing space control. This is WHAT they are doing. There have to be valid reasons, or why would they do things this way? Really only in North America is the node control method widely adopted.

At any rate, that was hardly the point of the conversation, it was simply an observation of the major use for a product we offer. Actually, it prompted it's development.

My curiosity with this is if/when energy costs get equivalent here that will change our methods.

[osiyo]

Originally Posted by sysint

Hi Osiyo,

"most of the rest of the world" fits here because the product wasn't on our roadmap but was demanded. It came out of Asia and Europe so I guess I'm qualifying that as the rest of the world. Sorry to have left out Africa..

No problem. I've been to Africa, too. Several times. Spent 6 months there once (in Kenya).

If you have a demand for that product ... GOOD.

I wasn't criticizing the product. Wasn't my point at all. If you have a market for it ... GREAT.

I was just pointing out that the market we sell to, where I work, is different.

Originally Posted by sysint

"In short, just because ... for instance ... Europe does this or that, or China, or whomever ... that does not in itself mean that their way is a better way." -- No, but since we have worldwide presence we are aware of world wide requirements (to a determined extent) and they are doing space control. This is WHAT they are doing. There have to be valid reasons, or why would they do things this way? Really only in North America is the node control method widely adopted.

Really? I've seen a lot of node control elsewhere.

But I wouldn't hazard a guess as to what percentage of folks, world wide, favor one approach over the other. I wonder if any valid studies have been done on that particular point?

In truth, I don't see a lot of valid studies done on a large scale which give a good feel for precisely what is being done in this country versus that, the differences in results over a period of years (short term studies in my experience are iffy at best as to their validity), and so forth. I'd like to see various strategies, schemes, and solutions compared over significant periods of time, with hard data to back up the assertions.

I think we'd all benefit. As it is my suspicion that there are things some folks are doing in Europe which are better than our methods, and vice versa. Likewise there are things Asia can teach us, and we and Europe both can teach them to do better. Same with the Arab world, Africa, and so forth.

But it can be damned hard to separate touting from hard facts. Separate corporate sales pitches from proven track records. And so forth.

Plus short term results, given in a lot of studies, don't give a good long term look at reliability, costs of maintenance, owner/occupant satisfaction over the years and so forth.

Originally Posted by sysint

My curiosity with this is if/when energy costs get equivalent here that will change our methods.

Hmmm. Maybe ... or maybe not.

Technology is continually changing. Today's best ideas often look not so good 5 years down the road. After we've had some long term real world experience with it.

Without long term hard numbers and data, that included figures about long term reliability, customer/occupant satisfaction over the years, long term maintenance/repair costs, and so forth I wouldn't even guess as to how the results would look when comparing space control as versus node control (as you're calling it).

After all, they've been selling some pretty darned fuel efficient, low cost cars here in the US for years. But they do not dominate the market. There would appear to be only a limited market here for such. It would seem that many would as soon grit teeth and cut down on other expenses as to give up what they think of as the advantages of a somewhat larger and more powerful vehicle. <G> I'm one, an Chevy Aveo or a Prius isn't gonna pull my boat, don't care what yah say, I gotta be able to pull my boat. I'll give up fast food (which I dislike anyway) and going to the movies, etc first.

Point is, maybe in the US those architects and engineers will elect to stick with the current control methodologies they're using and instead elect to spend more money on more efficient AHUs, chillers, etc etc.

I wouldn't know.