For the sake of brevity, I’m going to refer to this type of device as a General Purpose SCADA Device, i.e. GPSD. No, wait, that’s already taken. How about “GPD2”, for General Purpose Digital Device (the “2” is silent)?
What I learned:
- OMFG this is painful. Hooking up a random new device is hard. My hat is off to the EIE team.
- Having control of both ends of the conversation (app-level protocol) makes things much easier.
- As a software person, did I mention the pain of talking to the real world? Gahh….really, why is it this hard?
- It was fun. Honestly, I’m someone who enjoys their work, but this was just ridiculously interesting. Jeff says it never goes away, that excitement when software makes something happen in the Real World.
- Cheap. This was insanely cheap. I was using 2 out of 16 general-purpose I/O lines. Parallax actually sells embeddable OEM versions of some of their more capable chips. Their latest product is a single-chip 8-core machine programmable using real languages and tools.
- Despite the feeling of being frustrated, the reality is that the majority of my time was spent learning about CygNet and relearning some elementary electronics. The vast majority of time was spent doing two things:
- Designing the protocol – my original design just streamed data out the serial port *and* responded to commands. Since the original device was a beeping, science-fictiony kind of meter, I changed it to a request-response architecture (at Derek’s urging.)
- Learning about the EIE stuff. Doug was out when I initially tried to get the GenRawMsg working, but it only took Sheri (and me) a couple of hours to get it working. I would also say that this is a testament to the fundamental sanity of the architecture
- The market for GPD technology is insane. Pricing makes no sense. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of supplier of hardware, software, and services. It’s like walking down 47th St. in New York, where all the random grey-market electronics vendors ply their trade. Everyone sells everything for less than everyone else, and yet people end up spending lots of money.
I’m assuming that there hasn’t been a shake-out because requirements/needs for IRL (In Real Life) data have been few and far between. I would expect this market to follow the same patterns of all digital tech markets to date. In the meantime, the more we know, the more likely it is that we’ll be able to pick some of the protocol/design/hardware winners in advance.
- Some of the CygNet UIs are hard to use. I can’t decide if they need to be this hard to use. I’m thinking specifically of the DEID/datagroup/UIS commands. Given the extremely high specificity of given devices, and the rarity of hooking up brand new devices, I’d be inclined to give this a pass, especially if we development some generic EIEs that allow protocol definition and specifications using simpler (and as yet undesigned and unimplemented) tools.
I haven’t used existing PLC/RTU’s except the Fisher 503 in training. As a result, my perspective on SCADA is informed primarily by my experience as a software designer and developer. It looks to me as though this is another one of those “push them off the cliff” situations where existing manufacturers feel that they’re in no danger of being supplanted by “toy” systems. This is the exact same argument applied to the telephone, computers, personal computers, automobiles, etc. I haven’t seen anything to suggest that this is any different, but I’m open to the idea.
There are dozens of protocols, at the very least. Every time I look one up, I end up diving into a rathole that invariably leads to 1980 and a statement like, “Company Foo, finding existing technologies inadequate to the task of manufacturing anodized, left-handed smoke turners, decided to team up with 4 homeless electrical engineers and design a protocol optimized for that task.” The result is the hodge-podge of protocols (hardware, software, application) currently in use. I’m not saying, by any stretch of the imagination, that these are unnecessary, or bad, just that the sheer number is terrifying to someone used to markets where there tend to be only a few dominant architectures.
What I have seen of the protocols and capabilities suggests strongly that these dedicated devices have a very long tail due to their industrial construction and simple nature. It’s not like they’re going away, certainly not in our market while petroleum costs are high.
At the same time, markets without existing or significant SCADA penetration will be more likely to turn to GPDs based on their lower cost to acquire and program. More importantly, the utter lack of flexibility in existing designs will push penny-pinching small companies with novel SCADA requirements in the direction of software-based systems, rather than systems limited/constrained by decades-old hardware designs.
to be answered at a Research Directions meeting. My responses are in blue.
- Should I continue to develop this device so that it can serve as a complete, end-to-end demonstration?
- Yes. In fact, I’d like to switch to a more sophisticated device. Note that the cost increase for hardware might be as high (hah!) as $120 for a Cubloc device (w/training) that provides “real” features found in existing RTU/PLC, e.g. ladder logic, large numbers of I/O ports, MODBUS, and floating point calculations.
- http://www.cubloc.com/product/01_01.php – products
- http://www.cubloc.com/product/01_05.php – starter kits
- Should we develop a “generic” EIE that supports cry-outs in addition to raw messages in both variable- and fixed-length versions?
- If we believe (and I do) that the future of SCADA involves devices considerably smarter and cheaper than traditional PLC/RTUs, then we’re going to want to be ahead of the curve in understanding how to best make use of these “generic” SCADA (or anything) devices.
- What about developing some “kits” that serve to demonstrate the wide applicability of SCADA-originated data? E.g. an environmental-monitoring “pod” containing sensors for temperature, GIS info, water quality, etc.
- This could be done as a side-effect of the prior two items. I know some environmental scientists who might interested in collaborating on the design and use of devices like this.
- Do we want to begin pursuing publication opportunities in industry trade rags? I have a hard time believing that any rational editor would pass up an article entitled, “The World’s Cheapest SCADA Device,” for instance.
- I think we should, but I don’t know anyone in the right industries, I think. I’ll be happy to write stuff.