SCADA, Telematics & GPS Technologies

Well here we go again. I just read some editorials in the latest issue of CONTROL magazine. Greed and ego are proving to trump logic and reason once again. Users need a standard, a single open protocol standard for Wireless communications. In existence today with products being marketed offering this capability are Wireless HART…. that’s it. The Honeywell wireless is a proprietary protocol that Honeywell is batting to shove down the throats of the ISA100 committee that have been gathered for three years now trying to develop a standard. While the battle has been quietly, and sometimes not so quietly, been raging in the ISA100 committee, Wireless HART has been working hard and growing its installed base. By the end of 2008 there will be even more products offering it, including the measurement instrumentation giant Endress & Hauser and Emerson Process. I’m with them, Wireless HART is the way to go… and so is wireless in general.

Source: Monitor Technologies

To build the most robust and secure wireless devices, suppliers build according to an approved standard. Wireless Internet communications, for example, all comply to the familiar IEEE 802.11 (b, g, and n) standards. Currently, both the HART Communication Foundation (HCF, Austin, TX) and ISA (Research Triangle Park, NC) are involved in putting forth an industrial wireless standard at the basic “bits and bytes” level (i.e., sensors) (see sidebar, “Which wireless?”). HCF released its standard, WirelessHART (HART generation 7), in September 2007. To date, ISA is continuing to develop a draft of its standard, officially noted as ISA 100.11a (often referred to as SP 100).

Both organizations aim for global acceptance, including by the pharmaceutical industry, which thanks to the move toward quality by design, is preparing for increased in-process monitoring. Both HCF and ISA agree that a wireless standard is the right step to advance process automation and communication. Both are aware they are competing to achieve the same objective. And of course both would argue that their standard is the most beneficial, robust, and secure. Read more on this article.