<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>Industrial-Automation on Jonathan Skinner</title>
    <link>https://jskinner.info/tags/industrial-automation/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Industrial-Automation on Jonathan Skinner</description>
    
    <generator>Hugo -- 0.150.0</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://jskinner.info/tags/industrial-automation/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Predictable PLC State Machines: A Practical Pattern That Scales</title>
      <link>https://jskinner.info/posts/predictable-plc-state-machines/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://jskinner.info/posts/predictable-plc-state-machines/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Modern PLC projects suffer when control logic is scattered across rungs, hidden in timer branches, or tightly coupled to raw I/O. The result is brittle behavior, difficult commissioning, and painful offline testing. The approach below is a simple, repeatable pattern for building state-driven modules that stay deterministic, testable, and vendor‑friendly. It divides each routine into clear sections—&lt;strong&gt;Inputs → Commands → Interlocks → Permissives → State &amp;amp; Transitions → Status → Control Resources → Outputs&lt;/strong&gt;—and enforces one rule above all: &lt;strong&gt;states govern state; device control happens only in Outputs&lt;/strong&gt;. Whether you write in ST or Ladder, this structure keeps behavior predictable and easy to review.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
