Thanks for the article on finding fieldbus gurus at system vendors ("On the Bus,” May 2014, at bit.ly/TtyRX0.)
It puts things into the right perspective regarding understanding and management of technology on the constituencies involved in a fieldbus project. I’m getting tired of the "woe” stories (and would love to use a tougher word for it).
I also believe vendors (DCS and instrument) need to come to a better understanding on how to fulfill basic requirements, such as delivering one measurement value, plug-and-play, via fieldbus. That has happened — at least with ProfibusPA profiles.
You are making a strong argument pointing to the proprietary solution from the side of the DCS. What would, in your opinion, silence the spreaders of fear and doubt?
Even a few of the largest proponents of fieldbus technology are tremendously under the gun to deliver additional plant performance. It appears that many operators and maintenance people have not yet applied all the technology to reap diagnostics from the devices and use that information to increase plant availability and quality of product.
Other customers report that they’re going back to 4-20 mA because it’s just too hard to exchange a device with Foundation fieldbus. That means to me that most instruments are used in their very basic form off the shelf. And most control systems don’t support a simple replacement strategy. That, however, is way beyond the point where Pepperl+Fuchs can have a significant influence.
I really want to move things toward fieldbus. Your thoughts are appreciated.
I’m looking forward to more from you.
Andreas Hennecke
[email protected]
