MIFIIPI55E10HI00 MIFII-PI-5-5-E-1-0-HI-0-0 GE feeder relay


General Electric MIFIIPI55E10HI00

Category: SKU: MIFIIPI55E10HI00 Tag:
Whatsapp:+86 15359293870
WeChat:+86 18106937731
Contacts:kelly CHEN


Brand=General Electric (GE)
General Electric MIFII-PI-5-5-E-1-0-HI-0-0
Part Number=MIFIIPI55E10HI00
Description=Multilin MIF II Digital Feeder Relay
Feeder relay 110-250 VDC 3-phase IEC digital curve
Power=110-250 V DC 10W
Power=110-230 VAC 10VA
Frequency=50/60 Hz
Maximize. Contact rating 250 VAC
16A resistor
Voltage digital input up to 300 VDC
Current analog input 5A PH-5A GND

The commonly used control products include DCS and PLC.
Distributed Control System (DCS), also known as Distributed Control System.

PLC (Program Logic Control) programmable logic controller.
FCS (FieldBus Container System), with the development of fieldbus control systems, there is no strict boundary between DCS and PLC. In the eyes of most people, the large system is DCS, while the small system is called PLC. Of course, it’s not impossible to say that, but it’s not right yet. Now let’s talk about the similarities between PLC and DCS.

The development of PLC and DCS to this day is actually moving closer to each other. Strictly speaking, today’s PLC and DCS can no longer be cut in one fell swoop, and the concept between them has often become blurred. Now, let’s discuss the similarities (similarities) between each other.

1. In terms of function: PLC has already achieved analog control function, and some PLC systems have even strong analog processing capabilities, such as Yokogawa FA-MA3, Siemens S7 00, ABB Control Logix, and Schneider Quantum systems. And DCS also has strong logical processing capabilities, such as achieving all possible process interlocks and equipment linkage start-stop on CS3000.

2. In terms of system structure, the basic structure of PLC and DCS is the same. PLC has been fully ported to computer system control today, and traditional programmers have long been eliminated. Small application PLCs generally use touch screens, while large-scale application PLCs fully utilize computer systems. Like DCS, the controller and IO station use a fieldbus (usually based on RS85 or RS232 asynchronous serial communication protocol). If there is no expansion requirement between the controller and the computer, that is, if only one computer is used, this bus will also be used for communication. But if more than one computer is used, the system structure will be the same as DCS, and the upper computer platform will use Ethernet structure. This is one of the reasons why the concept of DCS is ambiguous after the large-scale PLC.

3. The development direction of PLC and DCS: Miniaturized PLC will develop towards a more specialized usage perspective, such as more targeted functions and application environments. The boundary between large-scale PLC and DCS gradually fades down until it is fully integrated. DCS will continue to develop in the direction of FCS. The core of FCS, in addition to more decentralized control systems, is particularly important in instrumentation. The application of FCS abroad has developed to the instrument level. The control system only needs to handle signal acquisition and provide human-machine interface and logic control. The control of the entire analog quantity is dispersed to the on-site instruments, and there is no need for traditional cable connections between the instruments and the control system. The entire instrument system is connected using a field bus. At present, Yokogawa in China has used FCS in the CNOOC Shell petrochemical project, and the instrument level uses intelligent instruments such as EJX, which has the world’s most advanced control level.

How to treat PLC and DCS correctly?
I personally never emphasize the superiority or inferiority between PLC and DCS. I have used a new term “control products” for them. We provide users with the most suitable control system. The vast majority of users do not use DCS just because they want to use a set of DCS, and control products must be positioned on the basis of meeting the user’s process requirements. In fact, most users who propose to use DCS or PLC have never been exposed to self-control products or have some special needs. Overemphasizing this will only lead to a dispute of words. We have gained an understanding of the general situation of control products based on the differences and commonalities between PLC and DCS. Please note that as professionals, we should not define our products as PLC or DCS, and we cannot psychologically differentiate our products in this way.