I would welcome any suggestions.
Jump to content
Posted 12 April 2009 - 05:17 AM
Posted 12 April 2009 - 10:31 PM
Unless you really need real time acquisition I wouldn't go with RIO (very expensive). PC as the controller (pc cards are cheap and you have the full flexibility and scalability of LV without the LV RT and memory restrictions) and any 3rd party ethernet acquisition modules (better channel count than NI e.g Acromag).
I am working on a project that will require a central controller with some analog inputs and digital IO but also two to four remote 8 to 20 channel AI devices. For the central controller we are considering cRIO or sbRIO. The remote DAQ devices could be up to 200m from the central controller. All they need to do is read voltages on demand. No high speed required. However, I have to be able to talk to in from LV RT.
I would welcome any suggestions.
Posted 14 April 2009 - 06:22 PM
For the central controller we are considering cRIO or sbRIO. The remote DAQ devices could be up to 200m from the central controller. All they need to do is read voltages on demand. No high speed required. However, I have to be able to talk to in from LV RT.
Posted 14 April 2009 - 08:53 PM
Posted 14 April 2009 - 09:24 PM
cFP are not cheap.
DO NOT GO WIRELESS!!!! (especially if you are in an industrial environment) unless you really have to. There aren't many pro's but shedloads of cons.Wires don't drop connections and interference is rife in the 2.4GHZ band. Also solid structures (like walls, cabinets and even people) attenuate the signal immensely. Just search the net for problems people have getting a signal from one side of their house to another let alone 200m!.
Posted 14 April 2009 - 09:42 PM
Make sure there is a requirement to go wireless - some sites specifically rule-out wirelss (military, standards comissions, etc).
DO NOT GO WIRELESS!!!! (especially if you are in an industrial environment) unless you really have to.
Posted 14 April 2009 - 11:07 PM
I have also used cFP for testing Train Valves, machine control and factory monitoring (many moons ago now). I disagree you are paying for robustness and ease of use. I think you are paying a premium for the NI name. For most of my applications it's the channel count vs cost that is prohibitive. I find dumb 32channel Gigabit Ethernet digital/Analogue IO is far more cost effective and easier to manage (IP65 compliant @ £600 all in) than any of the NI solutions. Even a PLC is 1/3 the price if you really must have real-time.
True, but you are paying for the ruggedness and ease of use of the platform (hot pluggable modules etc.) if your application demands it, then its worth it.
I have used Fieldpoint to develop a Hydrogen fueling station for fuel cell industrial vehicles. It worked flawlessly even at 1 degC (parking lot outside in fall).
Again, your mileage may vary but I regularly use wireless connectivity to view camera output for alignment and calibration in a vision application in a saw-mill. The distance to wireless node is about 50m through lots of steel walls with no problems. I get about 9 frames/s but thats good enough for my application.
This is using a regular laptop with 802.11g with commercial OTS networking hardware (nothing fancy, custom or expensive).
I guess the ultimate choice of hardware depends on needs as well as budget.
Make sure there is a requirement to go wireless - some sites specifically rule-out wirelss (military, standards comissions, etc).Amen!
Posted 15 April 2009 - 03:02 PM
Posted 21 April 2009 - 01:41 AM
If we would abandon the idea of remote acquisition over ethernet would there be a way to condition a voltage signal (more or less constant) to be reliably read from a distance of 600ft (200m)?