CR4 is a great place for that discussion. Plenty of people here that are involved in industry. Maybe narrow down your thoughts a little..........industrial automation is a pretty broad topic. I think you'll find a lot of people that agree with you. Welcome aboard.

Hi and thanks for the tip. I have been a (process) control systems engineer for most of my working life and worked in sugar, paper, nickel and power industries. My concern is that modern systems are often 'besotted' with the 'can do anything' features, rather than 'necessary and sufficient' needs of the factory. Anyone agree?

Penttijp

I'm not in that line of work, but I can agree that we have become enamored with bells and whistles across the board, much of it completely unnecessary.

Yes, just look at the ideas submitted for 'solar tracking'. JP

CR4 isn't in the domain of getting users to <...agree..>; it is often unneccessary.

This is a valid question in industrial automation.

I worked for a custom automation and machine company for several years and some of the first questions you must ask when automatically handling something is what is the load, how accurate must placement be, and what is the minimum number of axes that could do the required movement.

Sometimes we would begin work on a new project and someone new to automation would conclude the job requires a six axis robot and two sets of servo controlled nesting tooling with a vision system. No doubt these types of equipment is often needed but it will require long term support by technical people. Also its equipment life is limited to how long the OEM manufacturers support the controllers and software that you use. As long as the customer has a controls department it will probably run a long time but without proper support it will become useless in a few years. Would this be long enough based on the production line its going into?

With careful thought oftentimes processes can be reduced to fewer axes of simpler automation. Air cylinders with linear slides might replace servo controlled devices. Extending a conveyor and adding a turn may eliminate two axes of movement. An AC motor with proximity switches may replace sophisticated pick and place. "Drop in" nests may replace active part alignment.

I have seen automation that is straightforward still working 20 years later because maintenance men can replace wore out standard air valves and most plants can maintain standard PLCs as opposed to "proprietary" controllers.

Surprisingly the more straightforward stuff costs as much initially as the more sophisticated stuff because the straightforward stuff requires more mechanical design work whereas the other is "plug and play". The simpler equipment has less flexibility but is longer lasting.

Careful thought does simplify automation but sometimes the more sophisticated stuff is still required.

To me, the idea of industrial automation (IA) is inherently in opposition to simplicity of engineering. IA is used for high production and reducing expert labor cost. marketing in volume seems to attract the need to massage the details- do we need different colors selling to men or women? does the weight feel comfortable? what percentage of people think so? these random questions could apply to cars, hand tools, clothes, food, etc. The ideas of 'necessary and sufficient' imply a functional goal for what is being engineered. It also implies removing restrictions or subgoals which complicate the design. But is it the best way? On a wood stove design i am working on, does it need a computer controlled combustion system? Well, no. Would it make loading fuel for a storm easier? Yes for some people, no for others. So what do you do? Make it optional and interchangeable. That is just the ticket for IE. But is it worth the extra capital cost.of production- and what restrictions are introduced- the need for electric power, a thermally protected location- that some people do not want at all. Yes, it is nice to be able to do either, but the cost of the option has to be paid whether or not it is used.

I guess basic design is where 'necessary and sufficient' is really useful. When you get to engineering- really making it work-that is where the tough stuff is.

"I have made this letter longer than usual, only because I have not had the time to make it shorter."

--Blaise Pascal