<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: PC Based Automation Continues to Grow</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.dajac.com/blog/2010/01/02/pc-based-automation-continues-to-grow/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.dajac.com/blog/2010/01/02/pc-based-automation-continues-to-grow/</link>
	<description>Exploring all aspects of PC based automation.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Nov 2010 19:53:23 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: David Novak</title>
		<link>http://www.dajac.com/blog/2010/01/02/pc-based-automation-continues-to-grow/comment-page-1/#comment-1429</link>
		<dc:creator>David Novak</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:43:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dajac.com/blog/?p=377#comment-1429</guid>
		<description>USB devices have the advantage of not being required to share their bandwidth with other devices on the bus. This allows them to define a maximum access time. In contrast, Ethernet devices get less bandwidth as devices are added to the same node, therefore, maximum latency times cannot be guaranteed. This is particularly a problem for highly loaded nodes, such as those carrying image data.

Additionally, Ethernet is more difficult than USB to implement at the board level.

David</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>USB devices have the advantage of not being required to share their bandwidth with other devices on the bus. This allows them to define a maximum access time. In contrast, Ethernet devices get less bandwidth as devices are added to the same node, therefore, maximum latency times cannot be guaranteed. This is particularly a problem for highly loaded nodes, such as those carrying image data.</p>
<p>Additionally, Ethernet is more difficult than USB to implement at the board level.</p>
<p>David</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LabVIEW Consultants</title>
		<link>http://www.dajac.com/blog/2010/01/02/pc-based-automation-continues-to-grow/comment-page-1/#comment-1428</link>
		<dc:creator>LabVIEW Consultants</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:24:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dajac.com/blog/?p=377#comment-1428</guid>
		<description>Yes, USB has certainly helped a lot to realize complex PC based automation projects. EtherCAT might be the next logical solution as more transducers are controlled by a single PC or a device based on PC architecture.

Cool blogs, keep them coming :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, USB has certainly helped a lot to realize complex PC based automation projects. EtherCAT might be the next logical solution as more transducers are controlled by a single PC or a device based on PC architecture.</p>
<p>Cool blogs, keep them coming :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

