WirelessHART Versus ISA100.11a: a Serious Conflict Appears to Be Developing

Related Vendors

DÜPERTHAL Sicherheitstechnik GmbH & Co. KG

TURCK GmbH

EagleBurgmann Germany GmbH & Co. KG

BASF SE

PROCESS: Rather than attempting to reach a common position, attitudes with regard to wireless standards appear to be diverging. Yokogawa, at least, recently declared its clear preference for ISA100.11a. Correct me if I’m wrong, but were representatives of the Japanese manufacturer not also at the table when NAMUR tried to find consensus on a common solution?

Morr: Representatives from Yokogawa were at the table and clearly expressed their support for efforts to find convergence. We will continue the dialogue with Yokogawa to find out more over the background to this reaction.

PROCESS: Mr. Schwibach, you presented a field test for WirelessHART components at the last NAMUR meeting. What role did, in particular, the two different standards play in this?

Schwibach: The objective of the test was, primarily, to examine the benefit of wireless sensor networks in our production processes. With this in mind, we contacted all manufacturers well in advance and offered to prove their developed devices and solutions in a field test. The only available solutions on the market were WirelessHART products when the field test started in spring 2009, products with which we could verify our application cases. Right from the outset, we have always involved all suppliers in discussions and at all times we pointed out that we were examining the technologies in a neutral manner based on the criteria defined in NE124. No products based on the ISA100.11a transmission protocol have, to date, been made available to us. The major demands regarding the interoperability of the available devices can, however, only be fulfilled by a uniform standard.

(ID:23174050)