Domestic control systems indeed need more practical experience to compete on the international stage
Thread Content
Having been working with instruments for so long, I’ve summarized my experience and found that there are indeed many control systems that I have used or become familiar with. Congsisheng, Bentley, Yokogawa, Heima, Siemens, Hollyland, Zhejiang University Control System – and of course, Honeywell from the United States as well. The first system I came into contact with was Honeywell’s old system from the 1980s. It gives me the impression that even though the components have been used for twice the duration of their warranty period, they still function stably. Patient. But the new configuration is inconvenient; modifying the configuration requires a rather arbitrary approach. I later came into contact with Zhejiang University’s Zhongkong system; it seemed to be overheating constantly. It now appears that the issue is an improper arrangement of the cabinets, which causes the cards to get too hot. Then there’s Allen-Bradley; I remember it was still version 4.1 to 4.5 at that time. At that time, Hollyland couldn’t perform installations offline, and the device was even shut down once. I was so scared~~~ Then, the Liji team took control of the ITCC emergency shutdown system and the SIS. It gives me the impression that there are too many software plugins, and the engineers don’t have strict programming standards; they design things however they’re told to. Not cool. It’s also quite convenient for ultra-editing programs. However, variable management is not rigorous enough. Also, the handover documents for the completed project are in a complete mess. It is mainly likely because the programming canvas has no limits. The report cannot be generated automatically. And then right after that is Bentley. The Bentley 3300 and 3500 are not products of the same category. The event logging for 3500 is very useful. Then the Yokogawa CS3000 and VP were used; actually, VP is just the 3000 with an additional casing added. It was re-encapsulated once. Updated some Win7 drivers and optimized the graphics. Yokogawa seems very user-friendly; you can do whatever you want with it. But Yokogawa’s prices are so high, damn it – even for selling a software package, there are several different price tiers. Hei Ma is really great – if Yokogawa’s cards are resistant to damage, then Hei Ma’s cards are resistant to being kicked; they really aren’t afraid of any random modifications or changes. Of course, the prerequisite is that both BUSes are in good condition. Kangjisheng’s system is the most perfect one in my opinion.
There’s also FOXBORO; I almost forgot about it. Almost no one uses it in China these days, right? The cabinet is designed like a work of art
This year, we broke 38 of Kangjisen’s card components, while none of Zhejiang University Zhongkong’s components were damaged. Another drawback of Kangjisen’s system is that programs can only be downloaded, not uploaded from the control room.
You use a lot. That’s true; this year, my Kangji devices have all broken, along with my communication cards – not a single one of the Black Horse devices has been damaged. Two of the Yokogawa CPUs have also broken
Kangjisheng is mainly used for unit control; the fact that it prevents data from being uploaded is also a advantage.
It was said earlier that our environment is poor, causing the circuit boards to corrode. But the card holders from other manufacturers are fine
There isn’t that much corrosion. If there’s a problem and it can’t be diagnosed, they just say there’s corrosion. With such severe card overheating, it’s necessary to check the instrument grounding
38 cards burned in a year! ! ! One word: absolutely awesome. :lol
Boro is used quite a lot; it’s a foreign brand at domestic prices. There is plenty of electricity.