The FCP270 uses FEM100's to go beyond 32 FBM's With the FEM100 only one pair is allowed. 4 ports going to 4 basplates each. So, FEM100 is trying to do all the work. So, number per sizing spreadsheet will vary from 64 to 128 FBM's depending on what your asking the FCP to do. The ZCP270 can use multiple pairs of FCM100's to split it's fieldbus load. 32 FBM's per FCM100 Multiple FCM100's drops the I/O load on a ZCP Thus allowing more FBM's -----Original Message----- From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kinsinger, Matthew R Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 7:58 AM To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [foxboro] FCP's vs. ZCP selection on new projects I took a class at Foxboro last week. We were interested in the new V8 =3D stuff and learning about IACC so I only took 2001V8. Alan Leslie, the =3D person teaching the course, made it very clear the FCP270 now supports =3D 128x 200 series FBMs and 64 100 series. I notice many of you are still =3D focusing on the original 32 then 64 200 series supported. =3D20 With the 128 supported, is the FCP still using FEM's instead of FCM's? =3D Is that the limiting difference? Matt Kinsinger Process Control Engineer=3D20 PPG Barberton 330-825-1208 -----Original Message----- From: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] =3D 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. =3D It seems to me on the surface that control system vendors today are =3D going=3D20 to a model of more controllers with fewer I/O cards per controller, I=3D20 presume to "reserve" more power in the controller for advanced =3D algorithms=3D20 as well as simplify the system architecture (particularly if they don't=3D20 allow I/O remote from the controller at all). Of course as you split =3D your=3D20 plant amongst more controllers, the amount of peer-to-peer you end up=3D20 doing probably increases. I wonder how the industry in general is =3D dealing=3D20 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 =3D FCP=3D20 is limited to 64, I would likely split a 50+ FBM CP40 up into two FCPs =3D if=3D20 I were going to use those, just so I could have a few more spare I/O. =3D I'd=3D20 probably end up doing some more P2P though to effect that split. P2P =3D has=3D20 worked well for me in the past, but I use it sparingly. Is it any =3D better=3D20 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>=3D20 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 =3D3D Ethernet fieldbus communication. =3D3D 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 =3D3D 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. =3D3D 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 =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