Re: [foxboro] Foxboro Instrumentation Question
- From: <BillW@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 11:24:05 -0600
I have mixed feelins as well. Mixed between upset and trully angery.
Where is this news about FOXCOM coming from? We are close to 90% FOXCOM
including SRD991 valve positioners and we have not heard this new from
Foxboro. I am particularly upset because our system is relatively new -
5 years old. All the while we were putting in our system we requested
to get away from FOXCOM and to a standard protocol even though it meant
mixed protocols. All we ever got from Foxboro was excuses to why they
could not provide a standard protocol and assurances that the FOXCOM
would remain the backbone of the I/A systems. If this rumor is true, I
hope Foxboro is thinking through the migration route for us customers.
But I do agree that the opportunities that exist if Foxboro goes to a
standard protocol are exciting. The digital transmitter world has been
great, but -- this little FOXCOM box we have been living in will unfold
into a much larger, friendly world.
Bill Walters
Chief Engineer
Sinclair Oil Corp.
-----Original Message-----
From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Roger Smith
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 10:53 AM
To: 'foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: [foxboro] Foxboro Instrumentation Question
I have mixed feelings about this. We have a fair number of DP
transmitter with FOXCOM, so I hate to see the support start to wane.
However, if Foxboro is truly embracing industry standard communications,
then I'm all for it. Hopefully, not only will they provide Foundation
Fieldbus, HART, Profibus, etc. for their instruments, but also the
hardware and software tools on the IA side (IFDC like, etc.) to fully
exploit the capabilities of these busses.
Roger B. Smith
Process Control Engineering
Department of Watershed Management
City of Atlanta
2440 Bolton Rd., NW
Atlanta, GA 30318
404.350.4952
-----Original Message-----
From: Esteban Xandri [mailto:exandri.agua@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 9:34 AM
To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [foxboro] Foxboro Instrumentation Question
I am also really concerned and annoyed about Invensys's decision of
getting rid of FoxComm. I knew about it, when I was told that new mass
flowmeter CFT50 does not have any support for FoxComm (we read
densities, temperatures, etc through FoxComm). Deprecating FoxComm will
bring us lots of troubles, and I guess that tools like IFDC will go
useless under this scenario. I would like to know others users opinions
about this issue.
Regards
EFX
-----Mensaje original-----
De: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]En
nombre de Alan Weldon
Enviado el: jueves, 03 de junio de 2004 15:31
Para: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asunto: [foxboro] Foxboro Instrumentation Question
Gentlmen,
I know this is an IA list but I have run into an issue with Foxboro M&I
that is interesting to say the least.
The issue is that Foxboro has discontinued their Remote Indicator
RDM10-P-FDZ. This indicator is used with Foxboro transmitters that are
in Digital mode (ie. Foxcom). If you have a transmitter mounted in a
pipe rack and want the operator to be able to see the transmitter
reading at ground level you would use an RDM10. By discontinuing this
item it leaves us with no way to display a reading remotely to the
transmitter.
What I find interesting is that Foxboro says that the RDM10 is a very
low use item. The inference is that we are the only user. I find this
hard to believe. Surely there are others out using Foxcom to talk to
their instruments. If I can't communicate digitally there is no reason
to buy Foxboro instruments.
To my knowledge there are no 3rd party solutions since there is not a
4-20 mA signal available when the transmitter is in digital mode. I am
looking for any suggestions or input that anyone might have.
Thanks in advance,
Alan D. Weldon, PE
Sr. Process Control Engineer
Hunt Refining Company
(205) 391-3345
=20
_______________________________________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________________________________
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
-- No attachments (even text) are allowed --
-- Type: application/ms-tnef
-- File: winmail.dat
_______________________________________________________________________
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:
