How do I catch the Fieldbus?
Oct 23, 2000 10:29 am, by Jim Pinto
Subject : Communications
from the Automation List dept.
Text :
Automation Listers : The 8-part Fieldbus standard has confused everyone. End users expect interoperability as the primary benefit of standardization. But, that remains elusive as vendors push to promote their proprietary differentiation. A wide variety of networks is available in the industrial automation environment and confusion arises because their capabilities overlap. Even if or when a fieldbus standard is complete and products are available, this will not eliminate the need for other industrial networks for a variety of reasons - cost, speed, complexity, compatibility with already-installed devices and future expansion requirements. My new article : "How do I catch the Fieldbus?" has just been published in the ISA Worldbus Journal, supplement to InTech, October 2000. You can read it on the web at : http://www.jimpinto.com/writings/worldbus.html Your comments and feedback will be appreciated. Cheers: jim ----------/ Jim Pinto email : jim@jimpinto.com web: www.JimPinto.com San Diego, CA., USA ----------/
Reply

• Re: How do I catch the Fieldbus?
  Oct 23, 2000 10:23 pm, by Duncan E. Walters
  If Process Automation is to be vibrant, then it must serve some very fundamental purpose. Either it aids in making the work place safer, faster and in turn more efficient. Or it declines and becomes mired within the price war strata and stagnates due to depletion of funds greatly required to advance the industry. The benefit, directly or indirectly, to the bottom line is indeed a necessity. Since 1993, it had been foretold to me of the coming of Fieldbus: The messiah of the process automation world. Of course it was Siemens making the claims that Fieldbus was an adaptation of their European bus system (ASI), Rosemount laying claim to some contribution (HART) and Honeywell apparently leading the way in some other manner. But through it all, I failed to see how the boardroom was to be impressed with this latest panacea of the process industry. Certainly as budgets are won or lost on this level, consideration should be given to their understandings. There is still so much inefficiency and waste within American / International manufacturing that could be addressed by advanced process design with emphasis on process automation. The betting on a communications backbone to raise the industry would not be wise. The advances in technology have so outpaced the industry that it would seem that the “Nerds in Control” (a phrase borrowed from CTC , my apologies) have put a technical spin on the industry such that the lunatics are running the asylum. I constantly fail to understand why it is that when I sit down to discuss the process control system at a number of companies the first topic is the speed of the processor or the latest and greatest wizbangs to come out of Milwaukee, Johnson City, Phoenix, Minnesota or Foxboro. It used to be that the discussions focused strictly around the process and its requirements. It seems that we no longer focus on the process dilemmas, but instead on what new gadgetry can be installed. Don’t get me completely sideways, I do see some benefits to a standard vehicle in obtaining I/O data. I also see some tremendous downfalls. I read one of your other articles regarding the downturn in Industrial / Process Automation market and yet another about the demise of the Honeywell IAC division. The TDC-2000 may have been an amazing collection of electrical hardware for its time. But I always maintained that Honeywell ruled in the Refining market due to their process expertise. Hence the TDC 2000 and 3000 systems were simply the manifestation of their automation knowledge within the refining arena. It was our company which helped determined Chevron / Richmond to divest themselves of TDC in the exploration applications and standardize on PLC apps for process control. This during the early 80’s when it was forbidden to think that a PLC could perform process control. But the stage was set since TDC/ Honeywell did not have a strong arm in the process designs of oil field production. We were a small company with a good deal of oil field controls knowledge and we were able to usurp their position and make a stand for a “new” technology. But the primary emphasis was on the ability to control the process. In one of the responses to your article on the downturn in the Industrial / Process Automation Market, a writer commented that a ten percent increase in production is highly unlikely. Well, aren’t we to feel good about that prognostication? However, I just finished designing and building a manufacturing plant where through strict process control paradigms, we took machines which were producing 7 turns per 8 hour shift and increased the same machines to 12 to 14 turns per shift. I would estimate that to be a little better than ten percent. Quality also increased and the utility and manpower costs decreased when compared to their sister companies. We then went on to build three more like facilities around the world allowing us the opportunity to fine tune our process control schemes. The hardware and software were incidental, but they performed as intended and all were beneficiaries from the success. Perhaps we need more chemical and process engineering infused into the industry if we are to help further the IA market. I would rather see more ROI applications put forth and sold to upper management than to have a seat on the Fieldbus. I appreciate your articles and the opportunity through this forum to put forth my iconoclastic views and opinions. Best Regards, Duncan E. Walters Dynalektrix@Hotmail.com
  Reply
  
  
• Re: How do I catch the Fieldbus?
  Oct 25, 2000 12:52 pm, by Jim Pinto
  Duncan E. Walters wrote : >If Process Automation is to be vibrant, then it must serve some >very fundamental purpose. The benefit, directly or >indirectly, to the bottom line is indeed a necessity. Jim Pinto responds : Thank you, Duncan ! I absolutely agree! The proprietary promotions of Fieldbus Foundation and Profibus are simply indications of suppliers trying to jockey for advantage in a market that is stagnant. All the incestuous merges and acquisitions confirmation that they are going nowhere. Duncan continues : >Since 1993, it had been foretold to me of the coming of Fieldbus Jim : The users have always been frustrated. The only way I could express the situation was through poetry : Industrial networks bring lots of gains But that brings with it lots of games The fieldbus wars cause a lot of fuss The Users want an Open bus. The Vendors simply can't agree To make a fieldbus cheap, or free The committees they just twist and turn They argue out and then adjourn You've gotta read between the lines That Open and Closed are just designs That Users all for Open plead When Inter-op is what they need. De facto standards win all debates Ask Microsoft and Mr Gates. Duncan continues : >There is still so much inefficiency and waste within American / >International manufacturing that could be addressed by >advanced process design with emphasis on process automation. >The betting on a communications backbone to raise the industry >would not be wise. Jim : Amen ! Industrial automation is all about Productivity - not Technology! As Engineers, we should be interested in what the Customer needs. Duncan : (On the subject of increase in productivity) >I just finished designing and building a manufacturing plant >where through strict process control paradigms, we took machines >which were producing 7 turns per 8 hour shift and increased the >same machines to 12 to 14 turns per shift. Jim : We neeeeed more Engineers to present results like that, with pride of accomplishment ! Thank you, Duncan ! Duncan : >Perhaps we need more chemical and process engineering infused >into the industry if we are to help further the IA market. I would >rather see more ROI applications put forth and sold to upper >management than to have a seat on the Fieldbus. Jim : Amen! And Halleujah!! Cheers: jim ----------/ Jim Pinto email : jim@jimpinto.com web: www.JimPinto.com San Diego, CA., USA ----------/
  Reply