Re: [foxboro] FCP's vs. ZCP selection on new projects
- From: "Boulay, Russ" <russ.boulay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 07:37:44 -0400
Remember the fast ethernet is between ZCP270 and the FCM100 not FBM's
Both the ZCP and FCP scan their fieldbus at 2mb
FCP is directly connected thru baseplates so fast ethernet is
irrelevant.
ZCP thru switches 100mb to the FCM only
ZCP has it's distances advantages.
FCM's do a lot of the fieldbus work so ZCP has more freedom.
FCP can go long distance by deploying FCM2f2, FCM2f4 or FCM2f10 (2,4 or
10 km respectively.)
The FEM100 allows the FCP to talk to 128 200 series FBM's
As PSS states, sizing applies. 64 FBM's for continiuos control, 128 for
monitoring. So real operational number falls in between that range per
sizing
-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Corey R Clingo
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 1:51 AM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [foxboro] FCP's vs. ZCP selection on new projects
I've been watching this whole FCP vs. ZCP discussion with some interest.
It seems to me on the surface that control system vendors today are
going =
to a model of more controllers with fewer I/O cards per controller, I =
presume to "reserve" more power in the controller for advanced
algorithms =
as well as simplify the system architecture (particularly if they don't =
allow I/O remote from the controller at all). Of course as you split
your =
plant amongst more controllers, the amount of peer-to-peer you end up =
doing probably increases. I wonder how the industry in general is
dealing =
with that (besides going to faster networks, of course).
I don't have any CPs right now that have more than 61 FBMs, but if the
FCP =
is limited to 64, I would likely split a 50+ FBM CP40 up into two FCPs
if =
I were going to use those, just so I could have a few more spare I/O.
I'd =
probably end up doing some more P2P though to effect that split. P2P
has =
worked well for me in the past, but I use it sparingly. Is it any
better =
on the FCP than, say, a CP60?
Like Tom, I like the ZCP's capabilities and the FCP's form factor.
Corey Clingo
BASF Corporation
"Johnson, Alex P \(IPS\)" <alex.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> =
Sent by: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
08/13/2007 11:11 PM
Please respond to
foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To
<foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject
Re: [foxboro] FCP's vs. ZCP selection on new projects
I'll give it a try.
Re: I guess the FCP's were initially developed as a lower cost
alternative.
True. They were also expected to serve as a way to enter new markets
once they are self-hosting.
Re: It is my understanding that the the FCP's have the same
horsepower with the exception that they don't have fast =3D
Ethernet fieldbus communication. =3D
True enough, but a lot of the I/O performance of the ZCP comes from a
strong co-processor in the box plus the parallelism of the FCMs.
Re: 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
The original plan was to offer three CP270s:
1) Field mounted (FCP) for use in situations where the controller would
be
Field mounted.
2) Z-module (ZCP) form factor to allow the reuse of the cabinets and =3D
power supplies owned by our installed base.
3) Rack mounted (RCP) which was to be - basically - ZCP in a DIN rail
mounted tin can.
We built the first two. I suppose one could argue about the product mix,
but we felt the ZCP was important to the installed base.
Clearly as we look forward to new CP hardware, the mix may change.
Re: PSSs
The specification sheets are correct.
Re: Does Foxboro have plans to release a CP in the FCP form factor that
uses
a Fast Ethernet Fieldbus?
Not in the near term.
Re: Has Foxboro considered increasing the number of FBM's that a ZCP can
communicate with?
It has been stressed test well beyond 128, but we don't see a compelling
reason to increase the published limit on the ZCP. =3D
Most new jobs find the FCP to offer a better $ per I/O point ratio.
Moreover, even in the installed base, a large number locations are
interested in using the FCP to free space in their rack room. An FCM
takes the same space as an FCP so unless there is a truly compelling
reason, most folks don't use the ZCP. They remove the old racks and use
the FCP.
Given the above, we've worked to improve the $ per I/O point ratio of
the FCP as being the best short-term approach for our clients.
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
=
=
_______________________________________________________________________
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
Other related posts:
