Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 45
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    14
    Post Likes

    ALC BACnet IP Unitary Controller

    Does ALC offer a BACnet IP unitary controller for VAVs and FCUs or, if not, do they have one in development? I know JCI has them and Siemens supposedly has BACnet IP DXRs...how about ALC?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    113
    Post Likes
    ALC doesn’t have one that I know of but all tools needed to program them should be installed on the server. Is this for a stand alone piece of equipment or is there an existing arc net or MS/TP network. If you provide more info I can give you a breakdown of parts needed and how to make it work.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,837
    Post Likes
    You mean stand alone? We've done it with existing ZN modules, works fine. Sounds kind of wasteful though, how does the heat/cool votes make it back to the plant/AHU so it isn't just running flat out all the time? You don't strictly need a server for a whole system either, you can stick a touch screen on it and work with it that way.
    Scott Jalbert, WebCTRL ninja, Naiagara AX and Smartstruxure newb, SiteScan Retired

    The master has failed more times than the beginner has even tried

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    14
    Post Likes
    Thread Starter
    Quote Originally Posted by unonut View Post
    ALC doesn’t have one that I know of but all tools needed to program them should be installed on the server. Is this for a stand alone piece of equipment or is there an existing arc net or MS/TP network. If you provide more info I can give you a breakdown of parts needed and how to make it work.
    I'm actually evaluating replacement vendors for our facility. I didn't want to start another "who's the best" thread. ALC is one of the contenders but I wasn't able to find a BACnet IP unitary or ASC controller for terminal units. It's not a deal breaker but it is a consideration.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    113
    Post Likes

    ALC BACnet IP Unitary Controller

    Quote Originally Posted by Controls_3AE View Post
    I'm actually evaluating replacement vendors for our facility. I didn't want to start another "who's the best" thread. ALC is one of the contenders but I wasn't able to find a BACnet IP unitary or ASC controller for terminal units. It's not a deal breaker but it is a consideration.
    Few questions.
    What front end is going to be used?
    Do you have one in mind and if so are you planning on using that manufacturers controllers?
    Don’t know the size of your facility but I thinks it’s overkill to have IP for VAV’s and small equipment in most cases. I also believe that could get expensive in the long run? Not to mention the headache of distance limitations for cat5 and the cost of switches depending on the setup. (Are the switches going to be run by your IT dept and if so do they have ports available for all of these devices. Can the switches be unmanaged or must they be managed. If they have to be managed switches the cost can skyrocket. Recommend going with MS/TP communication vs IP at terminal units and small equipment unless your just doing a few units. If you have hundreds and it will require a bunch of new 48 port managed switches that range from hundreds to thousand each it could turn ugly quick.
    Good luck



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Purcellville Va.
    Posts
    936
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Controls_3AE View Post
    I'm actually evaluating replacement vendors for our facility. I didn't want to start another "who's the best" thread. ALC is one of the contenders but I wasn't able to find a BACnet IP unitary or ASC controller for terminal units. It's not a deal breaker but it is a consideration.
    You could look at the Circon SCC-520 or Loytec LIOB-585.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    364
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by unonut View Post
    Few questions.
    What front end is going to be used?
    Do you have one in mind and if so are you planning on using that manufacturers controllers?
    Don’t know the size of your facility but I thinks it’s overkill to have IP for VAV’s and small equipment in most cases. I also believe that could get expensive in the long run? Not to mention the headache of distance limitations for cat5 and the cost of switches depending on the setup. (Are the switches going to be run by your IT dept and if so do they have ports available for all of these devices. Can the switches be unmanaged or must they be managed. If they have to be managed switches the cost can skyrocket. Recommend going with MS/TP communication vs IP at terminal units and small equipment unless your just doing a few units. If you have hundreds and it will require a bunch of new 48 port managed switches that range from hundreds to thousand each it could turn ugly quick.
    Good luck
    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I don't think its overkill. It's convenient. There are no headaches on distance and switches are cheap. Run the network the way you do your MSTP... without the IT. Give them an access point just like you do with MSTP. I have customers putting in hundreds of IP devices. They like them better than fieldbus. No middleware boxes required. You never have a flat architecture MSTP and now IP is here as flat as can be and people think this get's ugly. If that's the case, shut off the smartphone and go back to analog because it sure is ugly. Buy an old TomTom instead of using that map app on your phone.

    It's called progress and it's good.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    113
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by BetterDuck View Post
    I don't think its overkill. It's convenient. There are no headaches on distance and switches are cheap. Run the network the way you do your MSTP... without the IT. Give them an access point just like you do with MSTP. I have customers putting in hundreds of IP devices. They like them better than fieldbus. No middleware boxes required. You never have a flat architecture MSTP and now IP is here as flat as can be and people think this get's ugly. If that's the case, shut off the smartphone and go back to analog because it sure is ugly. Buy an old TomTom instead of using that map app on your phone.

    It's called progress and it's good.
    Whoa bud. Little snappy over communication trunks aren’t we. I believe you might want to check your facts a bit. There is definitely a distance limitation in using cat5 vs MS/TP. Also not everyone can chose or afford to run their own cat5 and create a separate intranet for a BMS. Especially if it’s a retrofit. Then you are also using home runs back to a single location vs daisy chaining. List is to long and if you don’t understand then I doubt I could explain it so you could. Be good and CALM DOWN it’s only my opinion and one I gave to try to understand someone’s needs and wants so I could try to help them out.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    What? Who? Where?
    Posts
    2,424
    Post Likes
    Would stick with ARCnet or MSTP@76.8+ for terminal equipment.

    kontrol out
    "Good" - Jocko
    "Open is as open does." - Forrest Gump
    "Can't we all just get a Lon?" - Garry Jack
    "BACnet: integration or interrogation?" - The Janitor
    "Interoperability? You can't handle interoperability!" - Nathan R. Jessup
    “What’s that? Aaa… open protocols? Don’t talk about…. open protocols? Are you kidding me? Open protocols? I just hope we can hardwire an interface!” - Jim Mora Watch it here!

  10. Likes unonut liked this post
  11. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    364
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by unonut View Post
    Whoa bud. Little snappy over communication trunks aren’t we. I believe you might want to check your facts a bit. There is definitely a distance limitation in using cat5 vs MS/TP. Also not everyone can chose or afford to run their own cat5 and create a separate intranet for a BMS. Especially if it’s a retrofit. Then you are also using home runs back to a single location vs daisy chaining. List is to long and if you don’t understand then I doubt I could explain it so you could. Be good and CALM DOWN it’s only my opinion and one I gave to try to understand someone’s needs and wants so I could try to help them out.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    No need to try to make something out of nothing, but please check the facts. This year got a bunch of projects with over 200+ nodes, one over a thousand, one upcoming at 450. So, if you want to compare notes I can ask you how many ALL-IP sites you have done. If it's less than 10, then maybe I can fill you in on all sorts of possibilities. It's here. It isn't going away.

    The benefits over BACnet MSTP are so great nobody wants BACnet MSTP after they get some installs done. Nobody. I thought there would be some, but it's none. Zero.

  12. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,481
    Post Likes
    Sharing case studies to back up these sites?

    Why is it almost no one else is proclaiming the same products solved all/any their issues? Surly if it’s as main stream as you claim, we would have a solid fanboy club here and no shortage of case studies. Haven’t even heard of an independent sighting of such install using your stuff.
    Networking gear, yep. Controllers, surly you jest.

    Boutique solution for those looking for grass fed, carbon & cage free controllers. All from the same joint that claimed LON was the future.
    Last edited by orion242; 07-20-2019 at 10:41 PM.
    Propagating the formula. http://www.noagendashow.com/

  13. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    What? Who? Where?
    Posts
    2,424
    Post Likes
    Schneider and Distech locally have gone 100٪ IP on their unitary controllers locally. The installers are indicating termination time is increased as well as the additional cost of crimpers and test tools. Also it's great when you have IP in, IP out and zone sensor all Cat5e/6 and nothing labelled. Fun times.

    kontrol out
    "Good" - Jocko
    "Open is as open does." - Forrest Gump
    "Can't we all just get a Lon?" - Garry Jack
    "BACnet: integration or interrogation?" - The Janitor
    "Interoperability? You can't handle interoperability!" - Nathan R. Jessup
    “What’s that? Aaa… open protocols? Don’t talk about…. open protocols? Are you kidding me? Open protocols? I just hope we can hardwire an interface!” - Jim Mora Watch it here!

  14. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,481
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by kontrolphreak View Post
    Schneider and Distech locally have gone 100٪ IP on their unitary controllers locally. The installers are indicating termination time is increased as well as the additional cost of crimpers and test tools. Also it's great when you have IP in, IP out and zone sensor all Cat5e/6 and nothing labelled. Fun times.

    kontrol out
    I'm seeing and hearing of sites going all IP, not doubting that. Using certain products...not so much.
    Propagating the formula. http://www.noagendashow.com/

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •