Search Results

Today, less than 5% of all data generated in the Consumer Packaged Goods (CPG) industry is analyzed for insights. This means that CPG manufacturing companies remain reactive rather than proactive in their approach to operations. Yet the answers to much sought after questions such as: “How can productivity be increased?, “How might operating costs be reduced?” And “How can the reliability of operations be improved?” are all within their grasp with the deployment of IIoT remote monitoring/condition monitoring. Yet the answers to much sought after questions such as“How can productivity be increased?” are within your grasp IIoT plays an important role in answering these questions because it enables CPG businesses to harness the richness of machine and production data over time, analyze it and gain insights to drive operational improvements. Condition monitoring of conveyor systems previously too costly to implement CPG production lines comprise of many small roller conveyor belts and hundreds of motors that drive these belts. Historically the problem for this industry was the cost of implementing condition-based monitoring on these motors was greater than the cost of the motors themselves. So motors were left to run to failure and only once the failure event had occurred would action be taken to replace them. This approach was crude and inefficient, and came with its own set of issues including: disruption, impact on productivity, wastage, and excess inventory. The end of roller conveyor motors running to failure With the emergence of IIoT, CPG manufacturers are now able to connect these motors to the Cloud for analysis using simple and very affordable wireless sensors. Condition monitoring of conveyor rollers, belt drives, bearings and other components of CPG machinery is now simpler and far more affordable. One simple IoT application for condition monitoring conveyors is to measure and monitor the temperature and vibration data from the conveyor motors themselves. Once monitoring has been implemented, trends such as wilder oscillations in vibration metrics and/or increases in temperature over time can be detected. Visualization of conveyor belt motor data over time yields insights By utilizing simple visual analytics it is possible for plant operators and managers to get answers to questions such as “Are all motors continuing to operate below a safe threshold in terms of vibration?”, “Are the motors exhibiting any unusual behavior in a sustained manner.” and “Is there a correlation with this in respect to temperature?” By studying the visual analytics, plant managers can quickly identify which conveyor motors are likely to fail and can schedule a planned shutdown to replace them. This is a very cost-effective and practical use of condition monitoring with IIoT to improve the cost of reliability. A bigger picture of the complete manufacturing environment At a higher level, this type of monitoring can also benefit the manufacturing company as a whole. Implementing IIoT condition monitoring solutions across multiple manufacturing facilities enables the comparison of each facility and its performance. Insights such as why one plant is more efficient than another or how operations might be scaled can be gleaned. IIoT monitoring, the Cloud and analytic technology offers manufacturing and production facilities a much bigger picture in terms of pathways to achieving a higher level of productivity and reliability of their operations.

The Zen series was designed as a data acquisition system for SCADA systems and PLC’s in the industrial arena. However it is quite different to the plethora of standard data acquisition products on the market. Much of the market is dominated by low cost, high sampling speed, multiplexed units. These were originally developed for controlled lab conditions and scientific use, and were typically connected to scientific packages like LabWindows™ and MATLAB. The Zen series architecture is built on industrial grade technology proven in the field for many years. So what’s the difference? First of all, the A/D type and sampling speeds are quite different. A PC card typically uses high speed SAR converters which have multiplexers on the front to increase channel count. Although you can get samples quicker, you may have to do a lot of post processing to get a usable reading. The multiplexer itself is not an ideal signal processing device and poses some challenges for the novice and expert alike. The issues relate to the time required for the inputs to settle on each multiplexer change, and how the input impedance of the signal can degrade performance. (Much has been written about this and is generally available, however it is beyond the scope of this paper to go into any further detail on this.) The analog industrial design engineer has known for many years that to get reliable results from signals that might travel ½ a mile through a plant normally requires a system that can distinguish low level signals from noise, which is sometimes an order or two larger than the signal itself. To combat this the integrating type of converters were invented. These include dual slope, voltage to frequency, and later the Sigma-delta converter. These A/D’s sacrifice signal bandwidth for noise rejection and rugged reliability. The Zen series has made use of the modern sigma delta A/D to become the workhorse of this new genre of SCADA accessories. However this is only the beginning of the story. Although the A/D is responsible for rejecting noisy signals like 50/60Hz hum, simply replacing the SAR converter with a sigma-delta converter in a multi-channel application would have little benefit. To really make a rugged industrial system requires every channel to be galvanically isolated from each other. This is exactly how the Zen series is designed. Every input channel is isolated magnetically and optically from all others. Each channel has its own A/D transformer and optocouplers, as well as important EMI filters. To really make a rugged industrial system requires every channel to be galvanically isolated from each other. Why use Isolation? Isolation solves many problems associated with industrial processes. Isolating power sources and sensor signals is the most effective method for eliminating undesirable ground loop currents and induced electrical noise. Some of the more common problems which isolation solves are: Cross Talk Cross talk is when the contents of one data acquisition channel appear on another. This can cause subtle to large measurement errors that can go undetected. The cause of this can be simply sharing a ground in where ground loop currents can flow depending on the size of the signal. This is converted to an unwanted voltage component by the impedance of the earth track. More subtly this can be due to a fast sampling multiplexer input capacitance and a “high” source impedance. Even a “high” impedance of only 100 ohms could be responsible for significant cross talk. Having an isolated channel with its own A/D stops these problems dead in their tracks. Cross talk is virtually unmeasurable between channels for isolated products in the Zen series. Read:  The drastic limitations of Sigfox and LoRa that nobody is talking about Common-Mode Voltage Each instrument will have a CMV specification relating the maximum voltage which can be tolerated on the inputs of channels relative to ground. A good way to visualize this is measuring a stack of 12V batteries typical in a telecom application. If you want to measure the cell voltage on top of the stack the negative of the A/D input will be 36V relative to the ground of the A/D. This is the common mode voltage. Now if, for example, the common mode voltage was rated at 50V, the system would be fine. However the + of the A/D in this case will be 48V – close to the 50V limit. If the voltage strays higher than the 50V limit due to noise or battery charging equipment, the CMV rating will be exceeded, which could distort and degrade the signal leading to an inaccurate reading or damage to the A/D. Having an isolated input practically eliminates this issue as the A/D ground will float up to the CMV. In this case the CMV limit will be the isolation break down voltage of the transformer and/or optocoupler. For example, the Zen series isolation breakdown barrier is above 3,000V AC, which is much higher than the expected CMV of most production applications. “The Zen series has broken the isolated price point to around $50 per channel – now there is no excuse not to isolate.” Common Mode Rejection Every time a measurement is made in the presence of a CMV a loss of accuracy will be encountered. The question is not if, it is how much. Going back to the stacked battery system we are trying to measure a 12V signal on top of a 36V common mode voltage. If you read the spec of your instrument you should find a DC CMR ratio. For a typical PC card A/D this could be 80dB. Now: 80dB = 20 log (VCMV in/ CCMV out) 80dB = 20 log (12V DC/ CCMV out) 10,000 = 12V DC/VCMV out VCMV out = 1.2mV error All in all, not too much of an error. However, if we now change the measurement by measuring the current drawn in the 48V system by using a 20mV shunt, the results now look like this: 80dB = 10,000 = 48V / VCMV out Error = 4.8mV (or 24%!) For a typical isolated system the DC CMR would be in the vicinity of 160dB or 100,000,000. Or in this case, 480nV – practically nothing. To add to this, AC common mode voltages are even more prevalent than DC CMV’s when you take into account noise sources such as unsnubbered contactors, motor brushes, inductive conducted and radiated electromagnetic fields (EMFs). Again, an isolated system has many advantages over a non-isolated system, as the isolated system will float to the common mode voltage. It’s not uncommon for an isolated conditioner to be able to measure the temperature with a thermocouple which is directly connected to a live mains feed. That is, the T.C. will be floating at 230V AC and still give a measurement accurate to 0.1°C! Furthermore, because high speed multiplexers are not used in the Zen series input modules, that the designer has the freedom of not having to worry about increasing the capacitance of the input. This opens the way for using modern feed through capacitors in common and differential mode EMI filters. These are designed to reject wideband noise and improve the CMRR. Not only that, but an inherent virtue of the isolated input is that the loop areas of any sensor wiring are kept to a minimum, reducing pickup. Conclusions The isolation of industrial signals preserves and protects valuable measurements, as well as expensive equipment, from the effects of ground loops, transient power surges, noise and other hazards present in industrial environments. In the past the only reason to purchase a non-isolating system was cost. Of course it is less expensive to have only a single A/D than 16 A/D’s, as in our 16 channel Zen units. However the cost of commissioning a system, and trying to work out cross talk issues and potential ground loop problems, will soon dissolve any savings made. That, combined with the added multitude of other protection benefits of an isolated system, really points to only one solution for the wise system integrator:  Isolate, Isolate, and if in doubt – Isolate again .

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)  are organic chemicals that are damaging to human health. Many VOCs are found in building materials and home improvement products and can off-gas (release their harmful emissions) into indoor air. Due to the risk to human health, VOC level compliance in consumer products is patrolled vigorously by Public Health Organizations. But in the recent past some companies have attempted to put profits before the health of their customers and it hasn’t turned out well for them. Here are some examples: Lumber Liquidators settles VOC non-compliance in flooring lawsuit for $36 Million dollars In 2017 Virginia-based Lumber Liquidators agreed to pay $36 Million to settle 2 class-action lawsuits accusing the company of selling laminate flooring containing dangerous levels of toxins. North America’s largest specialty retailer of hardwood flooring was heavily criticized in a  2015 report by CBSs 60 Minutes  for selling Chinese manufactured product that contained nearly 20 times the legal level of formaldehyde. It was estimated that “tens of thousands” of households in California and “hundreds of thousands” across the United States had installed the flooring. The report further alleged that the wood was falsely labelled as being CARB Phase 2-compliant, referring to the California Air Resources Board, which sets the standards for formaldehyde emissions in world flooring. Formaldehyde is a VOC and known carcinogen. It can cause myeloid leukemia and nasopharyngeal cancer at high levels and respiratory issues and well as eye, nose and throat irritation at low levels. Lumber Liquidators founder Tom Sullivan initially denied any wrong doing by the company, even going as far as  posting a rebuttal on Forbes.com  claiming a short-sellers conspiracy and that “Lumber Liquidators products are safe and only 15% of inventory is laminate from China”. But independent testing of a wide variety of samples showed the Chinese laminate averaged seven times the state standard and some were close to 20 times. Even today, the scandal continues to dog the company: as recently as Jan 21, 2020 shares in Lumber Liquidators Holding Inc slid about 10% after Morgan Stanley downgraded the stock to the equivalent of sell, citing competitive and operational headwinds stemming from the 2015 fallout. Benjamin Moore and 3 others settle allegations of misleading customers over VOC levels in “VOC-free” paints In 2017 four paint companies agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission (FTC) charges that they deceptively marketed products as emission-free or containing zero VOCs. The four companies: Benjamin Moore & Co, ICP Construction Inc, YOLO Colorhouse and Imperial Paints LLC were accused of misleading consumers over the VOC levels in their paint products. Some promotions even made explicit safe claims regarding babies, children and pregnant women all of which the FTC said were unsubstantiated. All of the paint products emitted VOCs during the painting process and while drying and the FTC said the companies did not possess the appropriate scientific evidence to prove their paints would not emit chemicals that could materially harm consumers. The FTC also claimed that the companies circulated misleading information to retailers selling their products leading customers to believe they may have been safer than they actually were. The wording in their adverts, packaging and TV commercials was called into question. Benjamin Moore’s TV ad showed painters in a nursery while a baby slept and included the voiceover: “If you want a paint with no harsh fumes; if you want a paint that is safer for your family and the environment, only this can. Natura by Benjamin Moore”. Imperial Paints claimed that its Lullaby paint was the “safest paint available” and “did not contain toxic chemicals”, and was “Newborn baby-safe. Pregnant mom-safe. Safe enough for kids to paint with.” ICP Construction claimed its Muralo BreatheSafe Paints were “free of VOCs” and “formulated with no harmful solvents and based on sustainable chemistry technology.” Ads claimed BreatheSafe was “ideal for nursing homes, schools, babies’ rooms and health care facilities.” To make matters worse both Benjamin Moore and ICP Construction displayed environmental seals on their packaging without disclosing to consumers that they had “invented” these and awarded them to themselves. In Benjamin Moore’s case, the company placed a “Green Promise” seal on its Natura paints but did not reveal that the official looking seal was in fact of the company’s own creation. ICP included an “Eco Assurance” logo on its BreatheSafe paints, giving the impression that the products were endorsed or certified by an independent third-party. In reality, the seal was created by ICP marketing department. The changes that were ordered for settling the case In settling the FTC charges, the companies agreed to four provisions designed to ensure they did not engage in similar conduct in the future. The companies were: Prohibited from making unqualified emission-free and VOC-free claims, unless both content and emissions are actually zero, or emissions are at trace levels, beginning at application and thereafter. Prohibited from making claims about emission, VOC levels, odor, and other environmental or health benefits, unless they are true and not misleading, and unless the companies have competent and reliable scientific evidence to back them up. Barred from providing third parties with the means of making false, unsubstantiated, or misleading representations about material facts regarding paints. Ordered to correct current unsubstantiated claims by sending letters to distributors, instructing them to stop using existing marketing materials and providing stickers or placards to correct misleading claims appearing on product packaging or labelling. Home Depot USA settles lawsuit for $8 Million over illegal VOC levels in paint In April 2013, Home Depot USA agreed to settle a lawsuit over VOC paint claims for $8 Million. The lawsuit filed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) alleged that the company sold thousands of gallons of paint and architectural coating that contained an illegal amount of VOCs – exceeding the limit of 50g of VOC per liter. The lawsuit was initially filed against Home Depot in July 2011. It came after Air Quality Management District (AQMD) inspectors found noncompliant paints at more than two dozen stores. AQMD said that the products were available at stores even after Home Depot management had been notified of the problem and that some of the products had been marked down for quick sale. Prior to the lawsuit, Home Depot had undergone SCAQMD investigations between September 2009 and April 2010; the agency had found violations in over 15 locations. SCAQMD alleged that Home Depot had continued to sell paint laced with illegal amount of VOCs even though it promised to have corrected the problem following a warning by the agency.

A  petition  is calling for the World Health Organization to act quickly to establish indoor air quality guidelines to reduce the spread of airborne diseases such as coronavirus. The petition which urges explicit guidelines around air humidity in public buildings is being supported by members of the medical and scientific community. Headed by Infection Control Consultant at Harvard Medical School, ASHRAE distinguished lecturer & member of the ASHRAE Epidemic Task Group, Dr Stephanie Taylor, the petition asks the Director General of WHO to: Review the scientific evidence related to indoor humidity and respiratory immune system response, viral transmission and virus inactivation, and; Produce guidelines on the minimum lower limit of indoor humidity in public buildings Scientific evidence shows that indoor air maintained between 40-60% relative humidity (RH) has significant benefits for human health. This is the optimal level for the human respiratory immune system and will reduce the spread of respiratory disease. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), it is thought that the  COVID-19 virus can spread  “through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes or talks.” According to a news release from the National Institutes of Health on March 17, these respiratory droplets seem to be detectable in the air for as long as three hours. “Humidification of indoor air gives people a simple means of actively combatting seasonal respiratory infections.” With regard to Covid-19 behavior in the 40-60% RH band, the airborne droplets containing the virus retain moisture and so become heavier and fall out of the air, allowing physiochemical reactions to deactivate the virus. However when RH is lower than 40% airborne droplets containing the virus shrink through evaporation making them lighter. This enables particles to float for longer in the air, increasing the likelihood of infection. The vast majority of respiratory virus suspended in dry atmospheres also survive longer and remain infectious for far longer than those floating in air with 40-60% RH. Dr Walter Hugentobler, MD, general physician, former lecturer Inst. of primary care at the University of Zürich, added: “Raising air humidity by humidification reduces the risk of virus spread in hospitals and other buildings at low-cost and without causing negative effects. “It can also be easily implemented in public buildings, both in private and workplace environments with relative ease. Humidification gives people a simple means of actively combatting seasonal respiratory infections.” The scientists argue that published guidance on minimum humidity would result in: Significant reduction of infections from respiratory diseases Thousands of lives being saved due to this reduction Alleviation of the burden on Global healthcare services due to seasonal respiratory disease World economies benefitting from less absenteeism Improved indoor environment and health for millions of people The WHO currently has guidance on  indoor air quality issues like pollutants  and mold but no recommendations for minimum humidity Take control of the air you breathe VOCs are ubiquitous in indoor air, the questions are: what concentration levels are in the air you breathe? and how long are you exposed to them? Using sensors to  sample indoor air quality  and  measure VOC concentrations  is the only way to know for sure.

In the last year there has been much discussion about the increasing demand for low power long-range wireless devices to serve the need of the  emerging IIoT market . This technology is collectively known as LPWA (Low Power Wide Area) and the main players (and unsurprisingly, those making the most noise) in this category are Sigfox, LoRa, CAT-M1 and NB-IOT technology. While evangelists for these respective technologies naturally claim that theirs is the one true solution, all is not as it seems. This paper discusses the issues surrounding Sigfox and LoRa specifically – another article will examine those around CAT-M1 and NB-IOT. The goal of LPWA technology LWPA technology used in Sigfox and LoRa is low cost, straightforward and requires no deep technical knowledge. The proposition is that LPWA devices can be deployed in the field without needing connection to a power source and will continue to function on battery power for around 10 years. Connected directly to a sensor (e.g. temperature sensor) or attached to an existing device (e.g. water or electricity meter) these LWPA instruments forward meaningful data to a base station which then transmits to the Cloud. Deployment can be handled by those with basic technical knowledge and skills (no engineering BSc required) and when the devices come to the end of their decade of service, they can either be disposed of, or have their battery replaced. How the issue of compromise compromises these LPWA technologies As with all technologies compromises have to be made to achieve the required results. Here are the notable ones. The first major compromise that both Sigfox and LoRa have made is to elect to create products that only use unlicensed ISM (Industrial, Scientific, Medical) radio bands. These radio frequencies are freely available for anyone to use (provided they obey their country’s RF regulations). For SigFox and LoRa, the use of free ISM radio bands avoids the otherwise hefty license fees required for exclusive use of frequencies. Additionally, through this method they have garnered an advantage over competitors like cell phone companies who may have spent billions of dollars buying licenses for exclusive use of frequencies. Read: The completely overlooked but drastic cost savings municipal water departments can achieve with this simple IIoT application But herein lies the downside: by using unlicensed radio bands, control over bandwidth is lost. Even players as big as Sigfox and LoRa cannot force users of the same frequencies to curtail their usage should it become harmful or disruptive for their customers. And with this volume of users no assumptions can be made about their behavior, making it impossible to make future predictions. So the question is, will these providers be able to guarantee quality of service in decades to come? Elimination of cell technology Both Sigfox and LoRa use simple radio designs which use less silicon and therefore cost less to make. These designs deliver signals over very long distances, eliminating the need for cell type technology as signals can be picked up from a few gateways scattered around a city (this is referred to as a star topology). In theory this reduces infrastructure costs enormously compared to cell technology but one of issues with this is that the devices continuously transmit on the highest power whether they need to or not (this is sometimes called “shout loud”) and has obvious negative implications for power savings, which will be discussed later. The benefit of the shout loud approach means data can be picked up by distant gateways, however, this could – in the end – limit the amount of connections and data in the network. Control of usage vs freedom of use One of the big differences between Sigfox and LoRa is that Sigfox controls the base stations themselves whereas LoRA allows anyone to set up a network. With Sigfox managing their own network they have some control over aspects like how many nodes are allowed to connect and the location of base stations. By contrast many LoRa deployments are demonstrated on a building-wide network, using it simply as a local collator of data. This is a direction that LoRa seem to be increasingly heading towards. This in some ways negates the benefits of reducing infrastructure costs by having long range devices. Using LoRa as a short range radio should at the very least deliver deep coverage across the building location. But what might be the consequences of such deployments using the unlicensed band? An unlicensed radio band Deathmatch? If this scenario is widely adopted and 10,000’s of LoRa networks appear in buildings throughout a city, what would be the result? Will they potentially interfere with each other? Will they cause problems with other networks including Sigfox who are competing on the same band? Research on this scenario is scant. However one paper concludes that this could potentially become a major problem for both these technologies. The paper:  Bad Neighbors? A comparison of LPWA technology options  suggests that LoRa and Sigfox do not play nicely together and that it is hard to predict the performance of both these systems, particularly if they intend to operate with many 100’s or 1000’s of concurrent networks in a city scenario. Understanding some of the other compromises related to low power operation will be my next topic.

Here we examine the history of the 3 serial interfaces used today and explore the common issues found with them and the benefits of each of the 3 different connections. RS232: Down but not out Once a standard feature on personal computers, the RS232 serial port was one of the first used to connect data terminals to mainframe computers. It remained in widespread use for serial communications between PCs, printers and other peripherals until the late 1990’s, after which it was superseded by USB. However, RS232 ports remain in use today in the industrial sector. RS232 Connection and Configuration Connecting a RS232 port to a laptop usually requires a RS232 to USB converter like our  Define Multicom . Typically they are used as programming ports to configure instruments and controllers, and are also used in  SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) systems . SCADA systems gather data from RTU’s (Remote Terminal Units) like controllers or meters, and then display the results on a PC. Here, RS232 ports are used for several reasons: There are many reported problems with RS485 cards. Instabilities caused by the Windows operating system controlling the flow of data leads to unreliability across many SCADA programs. To get around this, SCADA systems prefer an RS232 card (which does not have any flow issues) coupled with an external RS485 to RS232 converter like the  Multicom . RS232 cards are more readily available than RS485 cards. Another common application for an RS232 port is in small printer applications. Typically an instrument like a panel meter can drive a printer to print items such as weigh bridge dockets or to drive a cell phone modem. Issues with RS232 Connect what to what? There are three pins used for signaling on a RS232 system: Rx – Receiver Tx – Transmitter Gnd – Signal ground (There are other signals in the specification used for hardware handshaking such as RTS and DTR, but these are not used in Define Instruments products.) The original standard makes a distinction between a computer (master device) known as DTE (Data Transmission Equipment) and a slave device known as DCE (or Data Communications Equipment). The labeling of the DCE becomes an issue, in that the Rx of the computer must be connected to the Tx of the DCE, and vice versa.  As many instruments now can act as both master and slave (e.g. driving a printer), this leaves the quandary of how to label the device: DTE or DCE? Over the years, manufacturers have not shown consistency on this point. This has been further complicated by manufacturers of devices that are limited by their size opting to not use the official connectors of the standard (as they are too bulky). As a result, the system cannot be identified from the connector as DTE or DCE. Thus one is left without knowing which way to connect: Rx from the device to the Rx of the computer, or the Tx of the computer to the Tx line on the device. Employing trial and error is all that remains. Fortunately, incorrect connection of the pins is not damaging. If wrongly connected, the driver chips simply won’t work. Cross over cables are so named as they perform the cross over in the cable, and are a very handy addition to a technician’s toolkit. Caution is required when grounding the RS232 signal Most desktop computers ground of the RS232 ports are internally connected to earth. This presents problems if the DCE’s serial port is not isolated from all other signals. For example: a DCE serial port ground maybe referenced to another signal in a system which is not grounded. Connecting the grounds together in this case will short points together which are at different potentials, and more than likely cause damage to the PC or device. To get around this, the device’s serial port must be verified as a fully isolated design.  All Define Instruments RS232 ports are fully isolated.  If the port is not isolated, then one must use an external device that isolates the serial ports. (The  Define Multicom  can be used to galvanically isolate two RS232 ports.) Variable protocols The RS232/RS485/RS422 standards only relate to the hardware interface, not the software protocol required to make the buses communicate. There are numerous protocols (both open standards and proprietary) that exist in the market place. Hence one cannot assume interoperability between different manufacturers of “RS232” ports. Define Instruments supports a mixture of industry standard and proprietary protocols: Modbus RTU This protocol is widely used in industry and most SCADA packages and PLC’s have drivers for it. However a word of warning using Modbus: although the Modbus protocol is well published, every manufacturer can and does determine its own addressing scheme. This means the manufacturer must supply the addressing scheme, register type, and Modbus commands supported, for successful integration into a Modbus system. ASCII protocol The reason ASCII is popular is that it is easier than Modbus to write your own driver in a PLC or a PC. Define has its own protocol based on ASCII characters. Again, every manufacturer’s protocols – although similar – are not usually compatible. String outputs Define supports two streaming string outputs. In these modes every new sample is streamed out in ASCII to the serial port. A computer on the other end can easily disseminate the reading in between start and stop characters. This type of output is very popular in the weighing industry as it is used to drive computers, large displays and summing units. RS485: Still popular The RS485 port has been used successfully for many years, and while RS232 installations are in decline, the RS485’s popularity shows no signs of abating. The RS485 has many advantages over both RS232 and USB when it comes to applications in noisy industrial environments.  It was designed from the beginning to be tolerant of noise and forgiving of long cable runs . It achieves this by using a differential current drive output which has high immunity to noise. While RS232 installations are in decline, the RS485’s popularity shows no signs of abating. Another major advantage is that users can have more than one slave on the BUS. The original specification stated a maximum of 32 slaves, due to the leakage of the then driver chips. These days the chips have improved, and many can support up to 256 slave devices. The slave units are simply wired in a daisy chain configuration, meaning one port can talk to 256 slaves. This is great for large SCADA systems and comes at a very low cost to implement. Issues with RS485 Timing of the controlling BUS The RS485 signaling system uses two wires to achieve its drive: A+ and A- sometimes referred to as A and B, or D+ and D-. These two signals, along with a ground signal for reference, become the BUS. To achieve bi-directional communications like most protocols require, the BUS is shared between transmitting and receiving. So when one end of the BUS is transmitting it must take control, and the other end must release control and enter a listening mode. The timing of controlling the BUS is critical for a successful installation . If the transmitting side takes too long to release the BUS, the other side may start transmitting before the first has finished, causing the message to be corrupted. Many computer RS485 cards use the RTS signal in a standard PC UART to control the BUS. Unfortunately Windows then has to control this signal. Since Windows is not a Real Time Operating System (RTOS), the signal may be delayed (for a multitude of other operating system demands), resulting in garbled messages. The best way to eliminate this issue is to use an external RS485 to RS232, or RS485 to USB converter, like the  Define Multicom . Embedded devices like the Multicom take care of this issue. Misconceptions around the necessity of the ground connection A common misconception is that only the two signaling wires are required for a RS485 system and the ground connection can be omitted. This is incorrect. Even though the system may appear to work without the ground, its noise rejection and reliability is significantly degraded. When to use RS485 terminating resistors The RS485 standard is designed to work up to 10Mbits/s, while most industrial systems tend to work up to 115Kbits/s max (or a 100th of the maximum). Terminating resistors are required if using very high baud rates, as transmission line reflections from un-terminated ends can come back to be read mistakenly as a valid signals. A good rule of thumb is if the system runs up to 115K, one need not worry about terminating resistors. Labeling of the terminals The standard shows A and B. Unfortunately, early in the RS485’s history, a semiconductor maker mislabeled these pins on a RS485 driver IC datasheet. This caused mass confusion for manufacturers who referenced this datasheet and incorrectly transposed the pin labels. Some manufacturers noticed the error and amended their labeling. The consequence of this is that  there are many products which have incompatible labeling . The solution is to swap the wiring around (the same workaround as for the RS232). Define labels all its products as  D+ ,  D-  and  Sgnd . For wiring a system together, simply connect all D+ together as with D- and Sgnd. RS422: In decline The RS422 port was the predecessor to the RS485 port and is becoming less and less common today. The main difference is that the RS422 port has separate drivers for Transmit and Receive. Hence instead of 3 wires, 5 wires are required for a RS422 bus. Many of the same advantages of the RS485 BUS are retained in the RS422 BUS. Read:  How Engineers Find Information to Decide what to Specify and Buy for their Engineering Solution Conclusion This paper gives a bit of history of the three different serial interfaces commonly used today. It explains common issues found in setting up such a system and the benefits of the three different connections. Although both the RS232 and RS422 connections are in decline today, the many benefits of the RS485 connection will ensure that it will remain relevant for many years to come. The many benefits of the RS485 connection ensure that it will remain relevant for many years to come.

This infographic provides insights into how marketers targeting technical prospects in the manufacturing, software and engineer sectors are allocating their budgets, the channels they are using and the results they are getting. Drawing data from Engineering.com ’s 2018 report “ Budget Trends in Industrial & Technology Marketing ” this builds a picture of how engineers and other industrial professionals are responding to marketing messages.

This infographic reveals the information consumption habits of engineers during a buying cycle. It shows how they consume engineering content to help them make buying decisions. Based on data from Engineering.com ’s research study “ How Engineers Find Information ” 2018 this data reveals some surprising insights.

As you dig into the world of the Internet of Things (IoT) and it’s subset the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) you’ll encounter many abbreviations (like the two in this sentence). These get thrown around in a manner that assumes you already know what they mean and what they do. This can be frustrating, so let’s begin decoding these terms. What does MQTT mean and how does it work? MQTT stands for Message Query Telemetry Transport and it is a communication protocol.  But what does that actually mean? Put simply, it’s a language spoken by machines to other machines (machines that are connected to the IoT). And like any language it has its own set of rules, functions and formats. By machines I mean anything from domestic fridges, cars, and HVAC systems to industrial manufacturing robots, municipal wastewater systems and citywide streetlight networks (so pretty much everything!) Machines talking to machines is often referred to as machine-to-machine or M2M and there are many M2M languages of which MQTT is just one. How do machines connect to the IIoT Cloud? Newer machines may have native IIoT capabilities but the majority of machines require connection to an  IIoT Cloud Gateway  or some other type of  Cloud Interface  before they can communicate with the MQTT broker in the Cloud. When is MQTT used and why? MQTT is used to send data from a large number of machines to a single destination – the Cloud – where the data can be analyzed, interpreted and forwarded. The Cloud hosts an MQTT broker – an intermediary between machines and other machines and/or humans. And this is an important distinction as the machines aren’t actually talking directly to each other but via the broker. MQTT uses the concept of ‘topics” to organize its data and a publish/subscribe model to communicate the topics to other parties via the Cloud. For example: an HVAC system sends (or publishes) data on the topic of the “health” of its compressors to the Cloud. Any interested parties with approved credentials – machine or human – can subscribe to this topic to receive the information. Subscribers may include maintenance technicians (humans), parts procurement systems (machine) or servicing scheduling systems (machine). Suddenly every aspect of a machine’s life cycle is available for scrutiny and this represents an exciting and profound opportunity to connect to and act upon this information for fault finding, cost savings, improved efficiency and scheduling – which is why everyone is excited about the potential of the Internet of Things.

Over the last 12 months I have consulted on many IIoT projects for industrial companies across the U.S. These companies have varied from value-added distributors to systems integrators to end users. During discussions I have found it interesting to note reactions to the inclusion of IIoT in the application. One of the most common reactions forms the basis of this article. Typically it goes something like this… After discussing specific needs there would come a point in the conversation where I would mention Remote Monitoring and Control of Assets, to which the typical response was: “But we’re already doing this with our SCADA systems, what’s the difference?” This is an excellent question and the best way to answer is by comparing the two approaches.* For our comparison I have selected a recent  application in the Water/Wastewater industry . This system includes the Remote Monitoring and Control of a large water filtering station for irrigation in the Florida region. Remote Monitoring & Control in Water Filtering Station An RTU has been programmed to monitor and control the filtration system and by measuring the differential pressure across the filters, the RTU automatically performs a backflush of the filters when required. The RTU also monitors the flow rate and total flow of water and wastewater. From this information one can determine the general health of the system. Investigating the reasons for faults currently involves humans Occasionally, the unit in the field will trip out and stop working. The customer then has to send a technician to the site – a drive of around 3 hours. When the technician arrives, quite often the only action required is to reset the system, as most of the time this clears the fault. But what the customer really wants to knowis why the system tripped in the first place. And how necessary was it to dispatch a technician to the site? If a technician was not required, could the system be reset remotely? These questions can be only answered by looking at the data from the sensors before and after the trip event. And so using the traditional approach, a SCADA system must be installed to receive this data. As the system is usually deployed on hardware at the customer’s premises, the following must be considered: What level of reliability is required? Should it be running on Server Grade Quality devices? Should a backup power system also be installed? How much will this cost in capital and maintenance? Who will manage this system? Once these questions have been answered, the SCADA application can be built. It will of course require a data historian, the setting up of a mimic and possibly an add-on package to deal with the telemetry aspect of the modem etc. Addressing security within the SCADA system During the building of the system, security must also be addressed. The industry standard approach to this is to add a VPN connection between the SCADA PC and the RTU in the field. This requires using a powerful cellular router that has the capability to both perform the VPN function and to open a port in firewalls and connect to a DNS. Once the VPN is set up, the SCADA can be set to run mode and will begin polling the RTU in the field. As is clear, deploying this system is not for the faint-hearted It requires expert help from engineering or IT professionals and could take some time to set up and test. The IIoT approach In the IIoT approach, the first consideration is the choice of Cloud Platform Provider. This is an important first step as not all Cloud providers are created equal – I would consider this as important as selecting the correct hardware. In this example I have chosen the Xively platform as it has a powerful Connected Product Management feature (CPM) which allows organization of products in domains and sub domains, the importance of which will become clear later. A typical IIoT system uses a broker in the Cloud. I have chosen to use an MQTT broker as it is available in most Cloud systems. Coupled with this is the  Define Instruments Zen IoT RTU . The difference between this and the traditional RTU is that it is setup to deliver messages to the Cloud broker using MQTT. It uses a publish and subscribe model: the Zen IoT RTU will publish information like pressure and flow rate to the broker and subscribe to a control topic. Read:   The completely overlooked but drastic cost savings municipal water departments can achieve with this simple IIoT application Control topics are used to perform tasks such as turning on a relay in the RTU. The other major difference is that the Zen IoT RTU itself makes the connection to the broker and it does so in a secure mode using TLS and certificates. This eliminates all the issues related to setting up VPNs, DNS and firewalls. The only information that has to be provisioned in the IIoT RTU is the username and password associated with the Cloud account. The information is now sitting in the Cloud and in this location it is available to the humans and devices who have permissions to access it. The Cloud platform enables this by providing a rich set of APIs, rules-based engines and standard interfaces to CRMs and ERPs. For this application a dashboard is required to visualize the data. There are 3rd party dashboards available but in this instance a webpage was created to visualize the data using the REST API. This is akin to setting up the mimic in the traditional SCADA system. So at this stage in our comparison, the IIoT approach is obviously the simpler of the two to setup for a secure application. And one that avoids the headaches of server-side hardware. You do however have to pay a monthly subscription to the Cloud provider (around $1 per month for this application). Thinking into the future Let’s now examine a post-installation scenario. After a few months of using the system the customer comes back and says:  “The system is great! So great in fact that I want to roll it out to monitor the 400+ filtration systems I have throughout the country. And I have some changes…” The customer explains his clients would like to: See how much water they have been using See how much wastewater was lost Manually turn the system on and off by logging in to a website He further explains how he personally would like to: Know when the pump has completed 1000 working hours (to schedule maintenance) Be alerted via his CRM at the 800 working hours mark Lastly, he leaves this juicy tidbit: “I was recently speaking to a pump manufacturer and he asked if we could share with him some of the pump data so he could use it to improve his product. I don’t see any reason why not…” The IIoT solution provider can confidently accommodate these requests. He knows that his Cloud partner already provides CRM alerts as a feature, he also knows the Connected Product Management system is another feature already in place to provide different permissions to different users. All the IIoT solution provider has to do is: Make 2 new dashboards Create accounts for the new users Provision these credentials into the Zen IoT RTUs But where does the engineer come in? In actuality an engineer isn’t required at all An engineer isn’t required at all in the commissioning of the sites as an electrician can wire up the units in the field. After wiring, the electrician isn’t required to do much more, just turn them on, run through an automated test setup and ensure any issues are sent as alerts directly to their cellphone (the last part requires a little more work – but just a little). Employing the IIoT approach, the customer’s requests are a cinch to implement and it’s smiles all round. Not so for the SCADA provider. The SCADA headache Unfortunately, faced with these requests from the customer, they are plagued by a sense of panic and overwhelm. So many questions, ones like: Will the server be up to the job? Will it require an upgrade? If so, how much will that cost? With 400+ VPNs concurrently talking to the field devices, can the SCADA system handle it? How will all the permissions be managed to allow 400+ users to get information on the site Suffice to say that the IIoT system wins hands down when faced with a scaling issue like this. Not only that, the capital and development costs for IIoT are far smaller. As are the costs of expert professional help from engineers and IT specialists. Only the beginning But this application could just be the start of this customer’s IIoT journey. For example, the information obtained from the systems over time could be useful for improving the design as well as determining the real maintenance and running costs associated with such a system. Armed with this knowledge, a new business model could be evolved. Offering a maintenance agreement based on the water pumped, for example. Or partnering with a finance company to offer a pay-as-you-go service so clients are only billed for the actual water pumped. Read: The drastic limitations of Sigfox and LoRa that nobody is talking about In conclusion, the benefits of implementing an IIoT solution over a traditional SCADA system go beyond the immediate wins of cost, timeline and required expertise. It is also highly scalable and adaptable to customer needs in the future. Anything that gives such a level of security, peace of mind and readiness for what might be over the horizon is an undeniable asset to your business and to everyone else’s. * I have assumed that both approaches require a highly secure solution.

Clearing the fog surrounding fog computing Cloud Edge Computing or Fog Computing  is a concept related to the IoT (Internet of Things) and the sending of data to the Cloud. It’s best if we examine this concept alongside the other main cloud computing concept. For clarity we’ll name each after the 2 companies who are driving product development and innovation in each of the respective ways of thinking. The Amazon IoT approach Amazon advocate sending all data to the Cloud  for processing. This approach is very much a “capture everything and deal with it later” way of thinking. Of course, Amazon have the infrastructure to deal with the massive amounts of data that will issue forth and many believe that collecting as much data as possible is the most robust method for future-proofing whether this data is useful now or not. This “catch all” approach provides a safety net if in the future historical data is required. Nobody can predict the future but yesterday’s data may become a tool of competitive advantage in tomorrow’s world. Advantages of Send-All-to-Cloud: No data left behind (could be useful later) Big Data tools for centralized analysis The Dell IoT Cloud Edge Approach Dell believes that the future of IoT lies at the Cloud Edge . Unlike Amazon’s “grab it all” approach to data, Dell take a more pragmatic “take only what is useful and meaningful, then send it to the Cloud” perspective. This is the essence of Edge Computing. To conduct this cloud-edge processing of data, something has to be placed between The Cloud and the item collecting the data (placed at the Cloud’s edge as it were). This “in-between” item is known as an  IoT Cloud Edge Processing device  or a  Cloud Edge Gateway . It can also be termed a  Fog Computing Device  (the fog at the edge of the Cloud) Analyzing IoT data near to where it is collected cuts gigabytes from network traffic and keeps sensitive data inside the network. Advantages of Cloud Edge computing: Only the meaningful data is taken – lower data volume Calculations can be performed on the data before it is sent Lower bandwidth costs Realtime processing All this data, now what? In both of these cases the overriding thing to keep in mind is that it is not the amount of data collected that is valuable. The value of data is in how it is interpreted and how it is used. Cloud Edge Computing products View Define Instruments Edge Computing Gateways Cloud Edge Computing video

Volatile Organic Compounds are organic chemical compounds that negatively affect the environment and human health. They evaporate at normal room temperature and pressure and are present in both indoor and outdoor environments. Outside VOCs tend to affect the natural environment (and indirectly wildlife and humans) e.g. Smog but inside, exposure to VOCs can drastically affect the health of humans. Some VOCs are more volatile than others: those that evaporate faster are more dangerous and pose a greater risk. To provide clarity around VOCs and their risks the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adapted World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines to divide indoor organic pollutants into 3 classifications: Very Volatile Organic Compounds (VVOCs) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) The three classifications are all important to indoor air and are all considered to fall within the broad definition of indoor volatile organic compounds. Very Volatile Organic Compounds (VVOCs) VVOCs are the most dangerous class of pollutants and can be toxic at very low concentrations. Examples include propane, butane and methyl chloride. Propane Propane is the most commonly used VVOC and is highly dangerous. Typically it is shipped as a liquefied gas under its vapour pressure and used for heating and cooking. Many households use portable propane heaters to warm garages and utility areas while propane gas grills are used for barbecuing. Butane Used in an almost identical fashion to propane, butane is contained in items including camping stoves, lighters, torches, fridges and freezers. Butane is regarded as one of the more harmful volatile substances to inhale. Methyl Chloride Also known as Chloromethane, this is colorless, flammable, toxic gas that is widely used as a refrigerant but has many other industrial applications. Some examples include: as solvent in petroleum refining, a propellant in polystyrene foam production, a methylating and chlorinating agent in organic chemistry and as a herbicide. Exposure to methyl chloride causes a wide variety of issues from drowsiness and dizziness to seizures and comas depending on the level of concentration and duration of exposure. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Although less dangerous than VVOCs, VOCs are still hazardous to human health. Generally you are more likely to encounter VOCs as many are found in household products and VOCs may also be present in home or work environments . Exposure guidelines and thresholds for VOCs have been collated and published by the EPA. Below is a list of the most common VOCs. Formaldehyde This VOC is a known carcinogen. Formaldehyde is used to make resins for building materials, coatings for clothing fabrics, and paper. It commonly occurs in molded plastics, glues, lacquers, insulation materials and pressed wood products such as laminate flooring, plywood, fibreboard and particle board. Vinyl Chloride Used to make PVC plastics, piping, floor coverings and consumer goods, Vinyl Chloride is also known as chloroethene, chloroethylene and ethylene monochloride. The United States EPA IRIS program determined that vinyl chloride is “highly likely to be carcinogenic” and those residing close to factories that produce this chemical are at risk. The liver is the main toxicity target of vinyl chloride. Liver lesions and impaired liver function have been reported in workers exposed to low air levels over time. Carbon Tetrachloride EPA cites this VOC as “likely to be carcinogenic to humans”. Historically it was used as a dry-cleaning agent, a refrigerant and propellant for aerosol cans, and used in fire extinguishers and as a grain fumigant. Because of its harmful effects, these uses were banned and now Carbon Tetrachloride is only used in specific industrial applications. Toluene An important chemical used as a gasoline additive and to make nylon, plastics, solvents, dyes, inks and paints. Paints in particular are under scrutiny as both commercial office and home remodeling involves exposing people to this VOC through paint fumes. Low VOC and toluene-free paints are available. In recent years several paint companies have been charged with misleading consumers over claims of VOC free paint products. Acetone Used mainly as a commercial chemical solvent in consumer products and industrial processes, people’s exposure to acetone usually stems from use of paints, glues, nail polishes and particularly nail polish removers – either through home use or at consumer nail beauty bars. It also found in wallpaper and furniture polish. Isopropyl alcohol Used in making cosmetics, skin and hair preparations, pharmaceuticals, perfumes, lacquer formulations, dye solutions, antifreezes, and soaps. However, the most likely exposure to Isopropyl alcohol is via its widespread use as a cleaner and disinfecting agent. Hexanal Hexaldehyde is used as a flavoring in food production and as a fragrance in perfumes. Additionally it is used to create other chemicals that are used in the production of plastics, rubbers and insecticides. People exposed to moderate concentrations of Hexanal for a short time can suffer irritation of the nose, throat, lungs, eyes and skin. Longer periods or higher exposure result in a choking feeling, coughing and rapid breathing. Carbon Disulfide Also called Carbon Bisulfide, this highly volatile compound is used in the manufacture of viscose rayon and cellophane. It is also present in varnishes, solvents and insecticides. The most common source of human toxicity is via inhalation in an occupational setting. Semi Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) SVOCs tend to have a higher molecular weight and boiling point than VOCs meaning they are less likely to become a vapor at room temperature. However, this does not mean they are any less dangerous. The use of SVOCs in building materials, furnishings, electronics, and furniture is often proprietary – usually indicated by the term “additives” – therefore their presence and concentration is not required to be publicly disclosed. This represents a serious gap in information. Examples of SVOCS include: Pesticides Organochlorine pesticides, one more widely known as DDT was used extensively from the 1940s to the 1960s in agriculture and mosquito control. As neurotoxicants they caused severe health and environmental problems which led to them being banned. Chlordane Listed as a “probably human carcinogen”, this SVOC was used as a contact insecticide for lawns and crops until it was discovered that Chlordane was very persistent in the environment, surviving in soils for more than 20 years. Between 1983 and 1998 its only approved used was to control termites, then in 1988 the EPA banned all uses of it. Benzyl Alcohol Benzyl alcohol is used as a solvent, a preservative, and to make other chemicals. It is also used as a fragrance in perfumes and in flavoring, and is an ingredient in ointments and cosmetics. Also used in inks, as a photographic developer, and in dyeing nylon filament, textiles and sheet plastics. Fire retardants A significant source of SVOCs are flame retardant chemicals such as those found in fire extinguishers. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs or PBBs) are the most common of these. Take control of the air you breathe VOCs are ubiquitous in indoor air, the questions are: what concentration levels are in the air you breathe? and how long are you exposed to them? Using sensors to sample indoor air quality and measure VOC concentrations is the only way to know for sure.