Wireless WINA with FF?

[spragujl]

The report back from the ISA Exhibit/conference is that industrial wireless stole the show. We are users, and very interested in wireless for continuous process control & monitoring, especially at remote well and pipeline sites. But we thought it was too early - plus we want a solution that's consistent with our current HART/Foundation Fieldbus direction. Is it the right time for users to join WINA or any other wireless consortium? Can users make a difference with the pace and standarization of industrial wireless?

Jim Sprague
Aramco

[jberge]

There were many different wireless solutions on the show floor at ISA - all incompatible no doubt since they not only a few different physical layer solutions but also absolutely no idea why you need to standardize the application layer and user application.

I suppose what FF should consider is to pick on physical media and simply map the FMS application layer on top of it.

Don't forget that HSE already works with wireless Ethernet today.

On the same note, how do users feel about wireless transmitters and valves? The wireless technology is improving by leaps and bounds, but the batteries are still bad. The only way to make batteries last more than a year is to communicate very seldom and at very low speed and short distance. Would users put this stuff into the plant if it existed?

[rezabejd]

I see limited use of wireless. The technology as I understand it, is far from being a candidate for the mission-critical applications where we use FF. Sounds great for tank farms, where wiring costs a lot per point, and updates need not be every second or two. I think it has promise for all the "nice to know" diagnostic values, like a vibration monitor you can slap on a motor or pump to alert you when it gets really bad, then pull it of for use on the next one.

On the other hand, if I already have a FF network in the plant proper, why would I fool around with mixed protocols and interfaces?

John Rezabek
BP Amoco