Talk:SCADA
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Correct Gadz, I noticed it and I didn't change it. Probably the differences between PLCs and RTUs are becoming less clear in time? I think Communications between centres ("SCADA" or "DCS") becoming faster and simpler, protocols like ICCP, make the difference between scada or dcs less important and -indeed- the whole thing could as well be called Control Systems. --HaPi 20:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
oh, by the way, I removed all links that can easily be found by googling. I humbly apologise if by doing so I hurt someone's business, if I removed a link from a sponsor of this site I'll put it back personally. --HaPi 20:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Also , the article seems to merge the definitions of SCADA and DCS. Traditionally SCADA consisted of RTUs and Master Stations over Geographically Distributed areas. It was defined as a Supervisory Control And Data Aquisition system which included both RTUs, Master Stations and the communications networks in between. These days a few Marketing gurus from companies like Wonderware and Citect have branded the HMI's as SCADA.
PLCs were more associated with DCS systems and were closed loop systems. Feedback from field IO was expected to be immediate where SCADA was traditionally expected to log field changes and send them back in bursts (though not always the case).
Today Control Systems combine the technologies from SCADA systems, DCS systems and internet technologies to form all sorts of hybrid solutions that have more do to with engineering control system solutions and less about the technical definitions that gave birth to these technologies.
In essence SCADA ain't SCADA anymore. It would be better to call them all Control Systems.
Gadz
Modbus is not a SCADA product, it is a communication protocol like Proflibus. Wonderware is a better example of a SCADA product
(Gary84 said -- Wonderware is more of an HMI product)
Contents |
[edit] *Nice* work
I've just inlinked this page from NOC; please let me say that this article, while on a topic that's a touch esoteric, is *very* well written. In today's environment, I'm not sure you'd wanna feature it (no sense giving the Bad Guys<tm> any extra ideas, but still... Nice job, all. --Baylink 07:02, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Possible copyright infringement?
Look at this page: http://ref.web.cern.ch/ref/CERN/CNL/2000/003/scada/
- Please apply the {{copyright}} template to the article if a copyright may be infringed. -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 22:31, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
There's also parts copied straight out of http://www.divergentcontrologic.com/SCADAMain.htm. The rules are "Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement)." As far as I know this article doesn't give any credit back to the author. I suggest putting this article up for speedy deletion. Rejnal 03:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Glib ?
In Manufacturing SCADA usage is driven by cost saving achieved through automation. Most SCADA packages can deal with many different controllers so perhaps just quote Control Industrial Processes such as Civil Engineering; Trafic Lights/Mass Transit; Process Control (Automation of Manufacturing)etc. Again in Manufacturing SCADA systems are used to bring together several autononimous controllers (perhaps from different manufacturers)and present the process information to operators in a concise standard manner; independantly of the controllers own interface. Use of TCP/IP as a communication link is on par with the use of RS232, RS485 links or optic fibre. Also note that OPC is fast making SCADA front ends easier to implement across open systems; again the underlying communication architecture is irrelevant.
[edit] Clarity of definition
I came to this page because I've never heard of SCADA before. I'd like to finish reading the first couple sections and have some idea of what is SCADA and what isn't SCADA. All computers are control systems. All computers do communications. All computers have inputs and outputs. What special and unique features are required to earn the SCADA moniker?
Is it the fact a set of industrial and/or scientific tools are involved? Could email software be considerd SCADA? Could an SNMP controller? What about a home network using X10 devices?
Ebyrob 01:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. Reading this, I felt like I was reading about Ice: "Ice is cold. Ice floats. Ice has fourteen phases:... Ice can be an insulator, in the following ways..." and the article never got around to mentioning that ice was the solid phases of water. The article says a very great deal about SCADA, but not much about the definition of SCADA. --TreyHarris 12:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] External links
All those links make the article look like an advert. Are they all really necessary? Kevin 07:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree, and these links are not necessary. I'll take them out in a few days, unless someone comes up with a good reaso to let them be. --HaPi 12:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a very good discussion of SCADA though as usual tending to blur SCADA and DCS - may be what it requires is a 'simple' explanation at the top - I came to this page after checking the DCS page and adding what I hope may be a clarifying difference between SCADA/PLC and DCS - and yes I work in a job where I have to deal with both SCADA/PLC solutions and DCS solutions.
DCS implies a top down factory wide solution to a process. The process is whatever the factory as a whole makes (ok in refineries there will be autonominous units that equate in practice to seperate factories). Alarms and reports are generated by the DCS
SCADA/PLC implies a bottom up solution - frequently ending up in an accidental fatory wide solution. Alarms are generated by the individual PLC's. Reports are generated by querrying the PLC's
Petedtm 21:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Future trends in SCADA
Is this section really appropriate for an encylopedia? It seems like someone's predictions and opinions and not what Wikipedia is about. Also, I don't agree with it but lets not argue opinions here. -Crunchy Numbers 16:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
