G
Greg Goodman
> I guess I wasn't clear on this point at all.... RS-232 is envisioned as STRICTLY a > programming port. Ethernet is envisioned as both a programming port and a > networking port. I suppose if you were a glutton for punishment, you could use the > RS-232 port as a networking port somehow (rs-232/rs485 adaptor) but why bother. > Ethernet hardware is cheap, common, and worlds faster than anything you could > hope to achieve under RS232/485. I take this to mean that your protocol is not for use in any environment where you can't run ethernet cable. We can't use it to communicate with wellhead pump-off controllers via radiomodem, or with SCADA components on satellite offshore drilling rigs. We can't use it in a pipeline's unmanned custody transfer stations, which report their data periodically by modem dial-out. We can't even use it to communicate sensor data from the top of a transmission tower to the SCADA system at the tower's base, since running cable up the tower is prohibitively expensive, and short-haul modems are a common solution. Or have I misunderstood your constraint? -- Greg Goodman -- Chiron Consulting -- [email protected] -- (713) 869-6876 _______________________________________________ LinuxPLC mailing list [email protected] http://linuxplc.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxplc