GE Fanuc IC754VSI06STD-LH 6-inch color TFT screen

Description

Product Description
IC754VSI06STD is a 6-inch fast panel display designed by GE Fanuc for its operator interface product line. As an operator terminal, IC754VSI06STD enables users to interact with various types of devices.
IC754VSI06STD runs on the MS Windows CE operating system pre installed with the Proficy View Machine Edition software. The 6-inch display screen is also equipped with an RS-232/RS-485 serial interface. Users can input data using the touch screen. IC754VSI06STD is powered by a 12-30 VDC power plug. It has 32 MB of internal memory. Its approximate shipping weight and size are 5 pounds. And 14 x 12 x 10 inches, respectively.
In addition to the main touch screen interface, IC754VSI06STD also supports various communication ports. IC754VSI06STD is equipped with multiple memory types to meet the most demanding applications in the market. The 512MB portion of DRAM is divided into operating system, object storage, and application memory. As a virtual hard drive, 256MB of non volatile flash memory is divided into persistent storage for operating systems and applications.
IC754VSI06STD has a 512KB SRAM retention memory supported by batteries to protect valuable data from loss during power outages. There are no specific hazards associated with impending power failures or other unexpected shutdowns. If there is a sudden power outage, the program will remain in flash memory and user data will remain in the battery powered SRAM.

In the field of thermal automation in thermal power plants, DCS and PLC are two completely different and closely related concepts. DCS and PLC are both products of the combination of computer technology and industrial control technology. The main control system of thermal power plants uses DCS, while PLC is mainly used in auxiliary workshops of power plants. Both DCS and PLC have operator stations that provide human-machine interaction, rely on computer-based controllers to complete control calculations, exchange data with primary components and execution devices through I/O cards, and have communication systems called networks. Why do DCS and PLC have completely different concepts when they are so similar? How do we choose in engineering practice? This article provides a review from several aspects such as historical evolution, technical characteristics, and development direction, hoping to provide reference for thermal engineering professionals. Taking the case of DCS as an example, we strive to provide detailed and clear examples.

The Historical Evolution and Core Concepts of DCS and PLC
DCS is the English abbreviation for Total Distributed Control System. It refers to the dispersion of hazards and the concentration of data. In the mid-1970s, it entered the market and completed analog quantity control, replacing analog control instruments mainly based on PID calculation. The idea of DCS was first proposed by instrument manufacturers, which were mainly applied in the chemical industry at that time. And PLC was successfully developed in the late 1960s, known as the Programmable Logic Controller for logic operations, abbreviated as PLC. Mainly used in the automotive manufacturing industry.

The design principles of DCS and PLC differ greatly. PLC developed from imitating the original relay control principle, and in the 1970s, PLC only had switch logic control. It stores instructions for performing logical operations, sequential control, timing, counting, and operations; And control various machinery or production processes through digital input and output operations. The control program developed by the user expresses the process requirements of the production process. Store it in the user program memory of the PLC and execute it item by item according to the stored program content during operation to complete the operations required by the process flow.
DCS was developed on the basis of operational amplifiers. Design all functions and the relationships between process variables into functional blocks. In the mid-1970s, DCS only had analog control.

The main difference between DCS and PLC controllers is in the calculation of switching and analog quantities, even though the two have some mutual penetration later on, there are still differences. After the 1980s, in addition to logical operations, PLC also added some control circuit algorithms, but it was still difficult to complete some complex operations. PLC used ladder diagram programming, and analog operations were not very intuitive during programming, making programming more cumbersome. But in terms of solving logic, it exhibits the advantage of being fast. DCS, on the other hand, uses functional blocks to encapsulate analog and logical operations, and the expression of both logical and complex analog operations is very clear. However, compared to PLC, the expression efficiency of logical operations is relatively low.

The historical differences between DCS and PLC are significant and have had a significant impact on their subsequent development. However, the biggest impact on subsequent development is not the difference in origin technology, but rather the difference in its concept of origin. The core concept of DCS is a computer control system with dispersed hazards and centralized data. Therefore, the development process of DCS is to continuously utilize the latest achievements of computer technology, communication technology, and control technology to build a complete distributed control system. DCS provides users with a complete, safe, reliable, efficient, and flexible solution for industrial control. The core concept of PLC is a programmable controller, which is used to replace relays, perform sequential control functions such as logic, timing, and counting, and establish flexible program control devices. So, the main line of PLC’s continuous development is to continuously improve various capability indicators and provide users with a complete and flexible control device.
DCS is a system, while PLC is a device, which is the fundamental difference in concept between the two. The impact of this difference is profound, as it permeates every aspect of the technological economy.