Wire VS Wireless application in industrial application - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: hamdi.tn
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2014, 07:33:06 pm
content: So i saw a post in Texas instrument Facebook page ( they pay someone to be on facebook all day long ...) and it said that BLE (Bluetooth low energy) is the future for wireless sensing and data transmission in INDUSTRIAL field and i saw a comment on that post that say " how to answer mind that saying WIRE is the most reliable medium for such applications "I find this interesting to discuss and to know what EE designer think about future of wireless in industrial environment from cost / efficiency point of view.

author: dr.diesel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2014, 07:40:48 pm
content: Well, there is a huge variety of "industrial", but a couple of the places I've worked had 10KW UV lamps, which totally destroyed the 2.4Ghz spectrum. (even heavily shielded)Anything in the control realm would likely shy away from wireless, anything critical anyhow.

author: Artlav
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2014, 07:43:37 pm
content: Wireless is good for sensors, i presume.It won't do to cover the entire volcano in wires to connect up all the seismometers you need to put on it for safe operation.

author: hamdi.tn
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2014, 09:13:32 pm
content: Quote from: dr.diesel on December 03, 2014, 07:40:48 pmi talked to some manager here where i live, totally against any wireless transmission , in fact industry ppl here are against any thing not made by SiemensQuote from: Artlav on December 03, 2014, 07:43:37 pmseismometers are not industrial application, only an idiot or a suicidal will wire sensors around a volcano and stay close to them

author: dr.diesel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2014, 09:26:45 pm
content: Security would be another big concern. For example at the power plant, the control system is on it's own isolated network, with no remote access or any ties to the outside world. Even with PSK-AES blah blah with 2^4096 bit encryption and a dedicated team of security specialists, it wouldn't be allowed!

author: Neilm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2014, 10:02:22 pm
content: Quote from: dr.diesel on December 03, 2014, 07:40:48 pmAgain, it all depends. There are wireless controls for overhead cranes that shift >50 tons around. That had a continuous communications between transmitter and receiver. If the comms was lost it stopped.I have also seen areas (HV switch yards) where the field was so bad it caused interference on the cameras around. It also interfered with the USB to some of the equipment (then again - what doesn't). Switching to a Bluetooth link proved much more reliable.

author: hamdi.tn
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 03, 2014, 10:49:55 pm
content: Quote from: dr.diesel on December 03, 2014, 09:26:45 pmSure.For security concern too , i can't think about any emergency system ( emergency shut-down for example ... ) done by wireless comm.i think the most advantage of BLE for example, is small size and power consumption and those are not an issue for an industrial application since usually they use large machines with enormous power consumption, so i can't see the point of filling a production process with wireless sensor and a bit exaggerating to say it's the future of " industry " ... i understand that this is said for commercial purpose but some ppl seems to think that way.There any regulation that limit wireless emitter / receiver number in a single place , am talking here about the health effect of EMR , once someone asked me if it's possible to equip 1000 table with wireless counter that send to a server what 1000 operator have done in a day. well the idea not bad wasn't sure that 1000 antenna will not cook their brains

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2014, 03:11:04 am
content: Quote from: hamdi.tn on December 03, 2014, 10:49:55 pmWould you like emergency systems to rely on wire, instead? That's pretty unreliable in industrial environments, too. Whether an emergency system is wired or wireless, it only has a good chance of working when the big moment comes if it pings frequently when everything is OK, to ensure communication is reliable.Quote from: hamdi.tn on December 03, 2014, 10:49:55 pm"Large machines with enormous power consumption" is only one of a number of aspects of industrial systems. If you talk to industrial sensor people, many would like to be able to put large numbers of tiny, independently functioning, sensors around industrial areas. You will hear them use terms like "sensor dust". So, they need low power and either a small battery or some kind of energy harvester. A harvester would obviously be the preferred approach. They also need low cost. Industrial users are used to paying a relatively high price for their equipment, but if you want to spread sensors like dust the bill can rapidly grow.There is a lot of activity in the development of mesh and star approaches for this market. BLE has come rather late into this, but it is getting a lot of attention. Bluetooth had far too high power consumption before the BLE spec.

author: briselec
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2014, 08:48:01 am
content: pinged frequently?? Wired emergency systems are continuously monitored.And if the wiring in your industrial environment is unreliable I suggest you find a better electrician.Controlling machinery using wireless sensors running on batteries? I don't see that happening!Reason for lost production at 2 in the morning costing several thousand dollars :- flat CR2032 and the shop was shut.

author: Paul Moir
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2014, 09:00:17 am
content: Quote from: coppice on December 04, 2014, 03:11:04 amThis is a very good point. For example. in environments where metal detectors are used, excessive EMI cannot be tolerated. Not all industries are the same.Also, some sensors are "you must be able to know this" and others are "you ought to know this" or "it would be helpful to know this". In especially the last category, installing the wiring may exceed the cost of the value of the information. Secondly, the time taken to install the wiring may exceed the return you would get by knowing right now. Third in some situations wiring at all has very high costs or cannot be tolerated. Bluetooth to me seems pretty poor for this due to it's low range, but for other wireless systems it makes a lot more sense than installing several km of wire.It's a very wide field, so it's hard to generalize.