Re: Does he really mean redundant switches or do you pass both the A and B busses through a single switch? = Redundant. It's hard to draw everything using ASCII text. Re: Is this a supported Foxboro method? Yes. The picture on page 5 of PSS 21H-1B10 B3 (Z-Module Control Processor 270 (ZCP270)) is supposed to represent both options. If you look in B0700AN-B, Z-Module Control Processor 270 (ZCP270) User's Guide, in Section 1 on page 6 shows a picture that is clearer. In short, it is supported. = BTW, did you really think I'd recommend an unsupported configuration? Regards, Alex Johnson Invensys Systems, Inc. 10900 Equity Drive Houston, TX 77041 713.329.8472 (voice) 713.329.1700 (fax) 713.329.1600 (switchboard) alex.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -----Original Message----- From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of tom.vandewater@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 10:35 AM To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [foxboro] FCP's vs. ZCP selection on new projects Gaylon, Many thanks for your perspective. My contention is that even though the four baseplate limitation is gone on the FCP's, I will be surprised if you will be able to host more than 64 FBM's on one of them while getting the control performance you desire. I will be interested in hearing from you about this. Are you already using FCP's or are you just planning to begin? You said: "... the FCPs seem to be the future direction for CPs" I'm curious to know what you have heard from Foxboro about this. I don't think the ZCP form factor is here to stay, at least I hope not, but I do think the future will be an Ethernet fieldbus to each individual FBM segment, (100MB/s E-Net to 2MB/s RS485. Is there anyone out there using FCP's with more than 64 FBM's? If so, can you let us know about their performance as shown in the STATION block? I do like the FCP form factor and even the RS485 dedicated bus for robustness but I don't think Foxboro can optimize the fieldbus communication enough over a 2MB/s RS485 network to host 128 FBM's successfully. If Foxboro finds a way for an FCP to achieve similar fieldbus loading performance to the ZCP I'll be on board. You are absolutely on target about the potential problems of the Ethernet fieldbus across the MESH switches. I just saw Alex's response about using a dedicated switch per ZCP and it's associated FCM's. That is the 1st mention I've heard of that but it raises more questions. Does he really mean redundant switches or do you pass both the A and B busses through a single switch? Is this a supported Foxboro method? Are there users that have already implemented this strategy? The Ethernet fieldbus IS a double edged sword. But if I need multiple FCP's per process and have peer-to-peer between CP's, my control of the process is still dependent on the MESH/Ethernet communication, (FCP-to-FCP), to be effective. It was no different than when we used 10 CP-10's to control our processes across the nodebus. The nodebus had to be there for us to operate, and for the most part, it was. Have you experienced times when your ZCP's lost communication with your FBM's because of network storms? We experienced a network problem just before we upgraded our switches to the latest firmware revision but things have been good since then. In order for the MESH to be viable those kinds of problems will have to be resolved. If you lose MESH communication the operating techs also lose their window to see what the FCP's are doing so my thought is that running the fieldbus over the MESH switches isn't as critical as it sounds. Thanks again Gaylon for jumping in and keep us posted. =3D20 Tom VandeWater Control Systems Developer/Analyst Dow Corning Corporation Carrollton, KY USA -----Original Message----- From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hicks, Gaylon F Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 10:22 AM To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [foxboro] FCP's vs. ZCP selection on new projects Hi Tom, We have several ZCP270s installed and running, but for new projects we are using FCPs now that the four baseplate limit is gone. The reasoning behind this is that the FCPs seem to be the future direction for CPs, and you avoid some grief and potential grief associated with the ZCP Ethernet fieldbus. The ZCP Ethernet fieldbus complicates life from a network standpoint in that it doubles the number of ports required on your switches. Also, from network storm vulnerability standpoint, the FCP plays much nicer. The concern on the ZCPs is that the Control and Fieldbus networks for a ZCP are one flat network (there are some improvements coming along with VLANs, and maybe QOS/prioritization in the FCMs/ZCPs, but not quite yet), and during a network storm you can drop a lot of packets between your FCMs/FBMs and ZCPs. Depending on your process, this might or might not be a problem. The FCP architechure is more like our old familiar pal the Nodebus/Fieldbus, with the 2MB fieldbus isolated (and protected) from the Wild Wild Mesh. Unless we have an application that needs the quick-and-easy fiber ethernet fieldbus that you have with the ZCP, we will probably stick exclusively to the FCPs in the future.=3D3D20 Anyway, that's my two cents. Alex, have I mis-stated anything too badly above? =3D3D20 Thanks, Gaylon Hicks TVA - Browns Ferry NP -----Original Message----- From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of tom.vandewater@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 8:26 AM To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [foxboro] FCP's vs. ZCP selection on new projects Alex, Here are some questions. The answers may be interesting to all of the list members. Like Adam, we also had a preference for the FCP's because they had a compact form factor and could be mounted on baseplates along with the rest of the 200 series I/O we were installing to replace 100 series FBM's. I guess the FCP's were initially developed as a lower cost alternative. It is my understanding that the the FCP's have the same horsepower with the exception that they don't have fast Ethernet fieldbus communication. Adding that capability would make the FCP's a lot more flexible and would make it easier for them to communicate with multiple distributed segments of I/O in the same way as the ZCP's PSS 21H-1B9 B3 found on Foxboro's website lists this as the current communication capability of the FCP270. Supports up to 32 of the 200 Series FBMs Supports up to 64 of the 200 Series FBMs with a Fieldbus Expansion Module 100 (FEM100) Supports up to 64 of the 100 Series Fieldbus Modules PSS 21H-1B10 B3 found on Foxboro's website lists this as the current communication capability of the ZCP270. Supports up to 128 of the 200 Series Fieldbus Modules (FBMs) when using the FCM100Et Fieldbus Communications Module Supports up to 128 of the 200 Series FBMs, 100 Series FBMs, or a combination 100 Series and 200 Series FBMs when using the FCM100E Fieldbus Communications Module Questions follow: Does Foxboro have plans to release a CP in the FCP form factor that uses a Fast Ethernet Fieldbus? Has Foxboro considered increasing the number of FBM's that a ZCP can communicate with? Additional background information that may be helpful in understanding the reason for asking the questions above: Because of the timing for our projects and the FCP's initial limitations of communicating with only 32 200 series FBM's per CP we went the route of ZCP270's. They work fine but they take up a lot of space in our racks because of the depth of the ZCP modules and the bulky form factor of the old 1x8's needed to mount them. We now have six sets of Fault Tolerant ZCP's. Many of our processes initially used about 10 CP10's to control a single process. From our experience we could expect the CP-10's to handle about 10 FBM's before they became loaded. CP-30's made it possible to handle about 30 FBM's. CP-40's about 60 FBM's and we now operate some of our CP-60's with 120 plus FBM's. =3D3D3D20 We always try to maintain our CP's "Total Control Cycle" usage at or below 70% as seen from the CP Station block parameters. Now that we have six pairs of Fault Tolerant ZCP's in operation controlling six of our processes, (used to require about 60 CP-10's), it is obvious that the ZCP270's could easily handle more than 128 FBM's in our application environment. Thanks for any response, Tom VandeWater Control Systems Developer/Analyst Dow Corning Corporation Carrollton, KY USA -----Original Message----- From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adam.Pemberton@xxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 1:38 AM To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [foxboro] FCP's talking 100 and 200 series simultaneously? All knowing list: =3D3D3D20 I'm planning to do an upgrade from remote Fieldbus (from CP40A's and B's) and Cluster to FCP270's talking to the cluster. I want to be able to move to 200 series FBM's in the future for new I/O and also eventually replace the cluster. =3D3D3D20 My question is do the FCP270's support talking to both 100 series and 200 series FBM's simultaneously and if not will it in the future? I know that ZCP's do but I have a strong preference for FCP's. =3D3D3D20 Assuming the answer to one of the questions is yes, will we be able to use the existing FCP baseplates or will need new ones? =3D3D3D20 Regards Adam Pemberton -Site Electrical & Control Systems Engineer -20MW Geothermal Project Manager (Temporary) Lihir Gold Limited Ph: +675 9865 655 Fax: +675 9865 666 Trunk: 314 (or 9865200 pause 314) Mob: Nogat Postal: Australia: GPO Box 905, Brisbane, QLD 4001 PNG: PO Box 789, Port Moresby, NCD =3D3D3D20 =3D3D3D20 =3D3D3D20 _______________________________________________________________________ This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html =3D3D3D20 foxboro mailing list: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro to subscribe: =3D3D3D mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3D3D3D3Djoin to unsubscribe: =3D3D3D mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3D3D3D3Dleave =3D3D3D20 =3D3D20 =3D3D20 _______________________________________________________________________ This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html =3D3D20 foxboro mailing list: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro to subscribe: =3D3D mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3D3D3Djoin to unsubscribe: =3D3D mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3D3D3Dleave =3D3D20 =3D20 =3D20 _______________________________________________________________________ This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html =3D20 foxboro mailing list: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro to subscribe: =3D mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3D3Djoin to unsubscribe: =3D mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3D3Dleave =3D20 = = _______________________________________________________________________ This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html = foxboro mailing list: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro to subscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3Djoin to unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=3Dleave = Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this electronic message and any attachment(s) = to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) and = may contain confidential, privileged or proprietary information. If you are= not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately, delete a= ll copies of this message and any attachment(s). Any other use of the E-Mai= l by you is prohibited. _______________________________________________________________________ This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html foxboro mailing list: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro to subscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join to unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave