PC control or microprocessors and pic are better

[sha3rawy]

Hi

I would like to use the pc to control aworking machine or any equipment in another way I would like to use the pc to monitor the equipment working parameters so the men in duty can control the equipment in service remotely from acontrol station without any need for localy control.

a friend says use c# for programming the serial or parallel ports for controling is he right.

or

what is the prefered programming language to do this?

or
Is the pic controller & microprocessors are better than the pc?

Thanks.

 

[MacGyverS2000]

Given the lack of problem details, a non-descript answer of either "yes" or "no" would be equally correct.

Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

 

[zappedagain]

As Mcygyver stated, it very much depends upon your application. PCs give you a lot of flexibility; just watch out that most PCs don't come with serial ports anymore. You'll probably have to buy an adapter and plug it into a USB port.

Embedded systems work well too; most can now support a web-port, so if you can run an internet cable to them you can access them from the PC.

That's the top view. There are many, many details at the bottom that will lead you on one path or the other (unit cost volume, engineering effort, programming experience, money you want to spend on tools, etc.).

John D

 

[IRstuff]

C# or C++ is a matter of preference. Once you determine what hardware you are going to use, the choice of programming language will be greatly simplified. Just note that the learning curve on an object-oriented programming language is often absurdly steep

Since you are obviously not a programmer, you might investigate using something more like Labview, which comes with a plethora of graphical controls, interface drivers, and display and data processing modules. This will allow you to concentrate on getting the functionality you want, rather than burning hours debugging interface and display code. While the cost of Labview might appear prohibitive, just bear in mind how expensive it might be to spend a month or two debugging some otherwise trivial interface.

Note also, Labview comes with a library of drivers for specific instrumentation, so what you are interfacing to might already be fully supported in Labview.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[sha3rawy]

Thanks for help.

I am sorry I didnot write the problem in detail I have an electric power plant, diesel engines as aprime movers with 1MW for each the plant is controlled with acombined digital analog control system, but alot of faults generates with no indication for the cause the monitoring of the plant parameters some times is not correct IAW the comparison between the digital and analog gauges.

I would like to use the same wiring and the same transcducers and using the pc as atool to monitor the plant parameters from one place also my concern is to use the pc for storing the plant status as an elctronic log and the pc programm may help alot in detecting the generating faults (for the electric control system) so how can I start .Iam not aprogrammer and my company will not offer alot of many . the company would like to make some sort of retrofit for the controling system without spending alot of money so I have been charged to find is it possible to interface the system with the pc with a minimun cost.

 

[itsmoked]

In your case I'd use a PC just for monitoring and some sort of package like LabView as previously suggested. But keep in mind that most sensors do not allow you to hook them to a second set of inputs.

Keith Cress
kcress -

http://www.flaminsystems.com

 

[Compositepro]

PC's can do a lot very inexpensively, but can never be used in a critical control application where the PC crashing will cause any damage or financial loss. PC's are not realtime controllers and they will crash at unexpected times.

 

[MacGyverS2000]

A programmer will have to be hired at some point either way, and you'll pay less (in general) for a PC programmer than an embedded guy. Comms between the different systems will be easier to put together and easier to prevent interference with Ethernet. Unless you need the absolute(?) safety of a dedicated embedded system, it sounds like a PC at each spot is the better choice here...

Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

 

[xnuke]

You said you had a "combined digital analog control system." What hardware/software are you using? Please elaborate.

xnuke
"Live and act within the limit of your knowledge and keep expanding it to the limit of your life." Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged.
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[danw2]

The "combined digital analog control system" might have communications ability already - like Modbus registers ready for 'plucking', where values from the various sensors reside. Maybe, no certainty . . .

But, if such is the case, a commercial HMI/SCADA software package with an historian component could be configured to grab the data and put it in a database for analysis.

Google will bring up dozens of HMI/SCADA packages, of which Labview is one.

Have you asked the manufacturer if they have a SCADA/HMI package for the generator?

 

[OperaHouse]

If YOU want to do it, Consider using a control basic that is available for the pic. The answer is not which is best but what you can deal with. Understanding the problem is enough to deal with. Don't spend your time trying to learn C on top of that. It will only slow down the creative process AND a C programmer will certainly not try to understand what you want to accomplish. Control basic may be a little slower and that is usually not a problem. It will be easier to understand again when it has to be changed a year later.

 

[itsmoked]

Along those lines check:

http://www.parallax.com/tabid/134/List/0/CategoryID/9/Level/a/SortField/0/Default.aspx

Keith Cress
kcress -

http://www.flaminsystems.com