Allen Bradly vs Square D

[Lady Engineer]

I mostly design Waste Water Treatment and Water Treatment and some medium voltage, so I use a lot of MCCs. I mostly use Eaton and Square D.

My client suggested Allen Bradly. I'm not sure, because I've only used Allen Bradly one time, and it was to replace the buckets. Does anyone know the good vs the bad for Allen Bradly. I've done well with Eaton and Square D thus far.

 

[petersonra]

I mostly design Waste Water Treatment and Water Treatment and some medium voltage, so I use a lot of MCCs. I mostly use Eaton and Square D.

My client suggested Allen Bradly. I'm not sure, because I've only used Allen Bradly one time, and it was to replace the buckets. Does anyone know the good vs the bad for Allen Bradly. I've done well with Eaton and Square D thus far.

We use mostly AB. Most of the MCCs I used at a previous place of employment were also AB. I don't see a lot of difference functionally, and I have used every brand I ever heard of, and some that no longer even exist.

There is a lot of price difference though, and it has mostly to do with how much a particular manufacturer wants your MCC business, or wants a particular project.

I would suggest this. AB MCCs do a really good job of integration with Devicenet and Ethernet/IP systems. They also do a fair job of putting drives in MCCs in ways that make sense. If you are trying to use DeviceNet or Ethernet/IP in your system, and want to hang the MCC buckets on either network, you would be well advised to seriously consider AB over any of the others. Personally, I am not a fan of DeviceNet, but if someone wants to use it, AB stuff usually works best with it, plus the MCCs are designed around using it.

There are good and bad features of all brands of such equipment. These days, most of the really bad stuff has been worked out of the designs.

 

[steve66]

I mostly design Waste Water Treatment and Water Treatment and some medium voltage, so I use a lot of MCCs. I mostly use Eaton and Square D.

My client suggested Allen Bradly. I'm not sure, because I've only used Allen Bradly one time, and it was to replace the buckets. Does anyone know the good vs the bad for Allen Bradly. I've done well with Eaton and Square D thus far.

Allen Bradley is a quality brand, like Square D or Eaton. I believe they tend to make control products more than gear, so they really don't make panels or switchboards. But they are usually considered top of the line for controls and PLC's and VFD's.

Most clients want to stick with one brand for big items like MCC's. Even if it means having one brand for MCC's and another brand for Switchboards and panelboards. If someone already has AB MCC's, and that's what they like, I'd tend to try and stick with AB.

 

[templdl]

My preference is Eaion which for the most part today I from the Westinghouse era.
I could do a lot with them as the bus run across the back toward the top. They have nice weireways and buckets if it is a brand new installation that's they easy I would go.
If it is an existing instasllation I would certainly go with the existing manufacturer because of renewal parts, the familiarity of the product as well as hopefully a good relationship with the distributor, manufacturer, and sales. I makes life so much more easier.
From my understanding A-B is fairly proud of their product and which they think you should pay more for it.
But then there are those out there that like to identify with a particular manufacturer just like those who identify with various car manufacturers, the die hards, Chevy is the best, other sware by Ford, etc.
The important thing is your relationship with the MCC manufacturer and their understanding to your needs as well as their prompt response, communication, etc. That has value don't forget.

 

[Jraef]

I'd weigh in on this, but one of them signs my paycheck every month now. :angel:

But here is what I can say:
If any of them made junk, they would be out of the MCC business. All mfrs lose money on MCCs, they all have for decades. The reason they do it as a "loss leader" is to garner the replacement parts business and brand loyalty, mostly for the other more profitable products they sell. They are playing the long game, and those that failed in that aspect are now gone, most of them absorbed by others. Furnas; gone. ITE; gone. Goulds/Telemecanique; gone. Westinghouse; gone. Klockner Moeller; gone. Sylvania/Clark; gone. Federal Pacific; gone.

AB does it to get your controller and software business, Schneider, Siemens, GE and Eaton do it to get your circuit breaker / switchgear business because those product groups are very profitable for them.

 

[templdl]

I'd weigh in on this, but one of them signs my paycheck every month now. :angel:

But here is what I can say:
If any of them made junk, they would be out of the MCC business. All mfrs lose money on MCCs, they all have for decades. The reason they do it as a "loss leader" is to garner the replacement parts business and brand loyalty, mostly for the other more profitable products they sell. They are playing the long game, and those that failed in that aspect are now gone, most of them absorbed by others. Furnas; gone. ITE; gone. Goulds/Telemecanique; gone. Westinghouse; gone. Klockner Moeller; gone. Sylvania/Clark; gone. Federal Pacific; gone.

AB does it to get your controller and software business, Schneider, Siemens, GE and Eaton do it to get your circuit breaker / switchgear business because those product groups are very profitable for them.

Yes, the Westinghouse name may be gone but the legacy of MCC product lives on with EATON. The molded case circuit breaskers program srarted with Westinghouse such as the series C. Yes, there are some Cutler-Hammer products that have displaced some Westinghouse products such as starters..But EATON does support most Westinghouse produces in this area.

 

[Lady Engineer]

You guys are the best!! I lean towards Eaton or Square D, but I'm ok with Allen Bradley. I like dealing with Eaton the most, because like someone said, they have the breakers, panels, and the switches that I like using.

It's a public bid, so I can base my design on Allen Bradley, but list Square D and Eaton. They want something that will last, and gasp the existing is an ITE. lol

 

[Jraef]

Do you have a PLC/PAC control system that will be controlling the MCC?

 

[Lady Engineer]

You guys are the best!! I lean towards Eaton or Square D, but I'm ok with Allen Bradley. I like dealing with Eaton the most, because like someone said, they have the breakers, panels, and the switches that I like using.

It's a public bid, so I can base my design on Allen Bradley, but list Square D and Eaton. They want something that will last, and gasp the existing is an ITE. lol

\

No, they have a control panels and an alarm/dialer because it's a manned station. I will add extra digital inputs and outputs unless it's a massive control system. They don't have a SCADA system right now, but will be adding one in the future. Eaton is great for SCADA as well, because they have the Freedom Advantage.

That's a great point, because they may add SCADA!

 

[roger]

Don't forget that AB had a part in creating the Retro Encabulator

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXJKdh1KZ0w

Roger

 

[Lady Engineer]

Don't forget that AB had a part in creating the Retro Encabulator

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXJKdh1KZ0w

Roger

Hahaha...that's great!

 

[GoldDigger]

You have got to tell us the "back story" on how that clip came about!

 

[jim dungar]

That clip has been around for almost 25 years.

 

[GoldDigger]

Never mind, I Wiki'd it, and discovered that it evolved from the better known GE Turboencabulator.

 

[Fulthrotl]

You have got to tell us the "back story" on how that clip came about!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboencabulator

Here at Rockwell Automation's world headquarters, research has been proceeding to develop a line of automation products that establishes new standards for quality, technological leadership, and operating excellence. With customer success as our primary focus, work has been proceeding on the crudely conceived idea of an instrument that would not only provide inverse reactive current for use in unilateral phase detractors, but would also be capable of automatically synchronizing cardinal grammeters.
Such an instrument comprised of Dodge gears and bearings, Reliance Electric motors, Allen-Bradley controls, and all monitored by Rockwell Software is Rockwell Automation's retro-encabulator.
Now basically the only new principle involved is that instead of power being generated by the relative motion of conductors and fluxes, it's produced by the modial interaction of magneto-reluctance and capacitive diractance. The original machine had a base plate of pre-famulated amulite surmounted by a malleable logarithmic casing in such a way that the two spurving bearings ran in a direct line with the panametric fan.
The line-up consisted simply of six hydrocoptic marzel vanes so fitted to the ambifacient lunar wane shaft that side-fumbling was effectively prevented. The main winding was of the normal lotus-o-deltoid type placed in panendermic semiboloid slots of the stator, every seventh conductor being connected by a non-reversible tremie pipe to the differential girdle spring on the up-end of the grammeters.
Moreover, whenever fluorescent score motion is required, it may also be employed in conjunction with a drawn reciprocation dingle arm, to reduce sinusoidal depleneration.
The retro-encabulator has now reached a high level of development, and it’s being successfully used in the operation of milfer trunnions. It's available soon, wherever Rockwell Automation products are sold.


hope this clears it up for you.

 

[kwired]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboencabulator

Here at Rockwell Automation's world headquarters, research has been proceeding to develop a line of automation products that establishes new standards for quality, technological leadership, and operating excellence. With customer success as our primary focus, work has been proceeding on the crudely conceived idea of an instrument that would not only provide inverse reactive current for use in unilateral phase detractors, but would also be capable of automatically synchronizing cardinal grammeters.
Such an instrument comprised of Dodge gears and bearings, Reliance Electric motors, Allen-Bradley controls, and all monitored by Rockwell Software is Rockwell Automation's retro-encabulator.
Now basically the only new principle involved is that instead of power being generated by the relative motion of conductors and fluxes, it's produced by the modial interaction of magneto-reluctance and capacitive diractance. The original machine had a base plate of pre-famulated amulite surmounted by a malleable logarithmic casing in such a way that the two spurving bearings ran in a direct line with the panametric fan.
The line-up consisted simply of six hydrocoptic marzel vanes so fitted to the ambifacient lunar wane shaft that side-fumbling was effectively prevented. The main winding was of the normal lotus-o-deltoid type placed in panendermic semiboloid slots of the stator, every seventh conductor being connected by a non-reversible tremie pipe to the differential girdle spring on the up-end of the grammeters.
Moreover, whenever fluorescent score motion is required, it may also be employed in conjunction with a drawn reciprocation dingle arm, to reduce sinusoidal depleneration.
The retro-encabulator has now reached a high level of development, and it’s being successfully used in the operation of milfer trunnions. It's available soon, wherever Rockwell Automation products are sold.


hope this clears it up for you.

I think the average Kindergartner can easily understand that after first reading of it

 

[GoldDigger]

I think the average Kindergartner can easily understand that after first reading of it

But nobody older than that can. :happysad: