Re: [foxboro] Shorthand for loopback connections (was:Inhibit alarms; NOT)
- From: Corey R Clingo <corey.clingo@xxxxxxxx>
- To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 10:43:03 -0500
Yes, we have to. Our current operational philosophy requires access to
more parameters than our graphics-building folks have time to put custom
displays in for. If graphics were only built by those that had
configurator access, and those same folks were dedicated to DCS
maintenance, we could probably get around this by controlling graphic
access, but that is not the case in my plants.
Corey Clingo
BASF Corporation
brad.s.wilson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent by: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
09/05/2006 10:28 AM
Please respond to
foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To
foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject
Re: [foxboro] Shortahd for loopback connections (was:Inhibit alarms; NOT)
I presume that you must allow user access to the default block displays. I
have taken away the ability of the operators to access the defaults, so
connecting the parameters back onto themselves is not an issue. The few
parameters that I need the operators to access are available through
custom
displays or overlays.
Brad Wilson
Process Control Engineer
ExxonMobil Chemical Co
Edison Synthetics Plant
732-321-6115
732-321-6177 fax
Brad.S.Wilson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________________________________
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:
- » Re: [foxboro] Shorthand for loopback connections (was:Inhibit alarms; NOT)
