月份: 2013 年 11 月

Inherent Conflict

The dynamics of a service business and innovative product business are dramatically different. Established product companies tend to emphasize the practices and culture they know best when they move into services. The tendency is to find synergies based on their products that become the recommended solutions for customers. Additionally, it can be more difficult for a product company who provides services to be the champion for the customer when there is a problem with the product being implemented.

Ideal Product Company Focus

I believe that product companies should always be striving to eliminate implementation and operations labor with improved and innovative automation technology. There is an inherent conflict by having a company that provides services and products.

Innovation

I believe that companies who aspire to grow from services are in a sense making a statement that product innovation cannot be achieved to further automate. I think a major goal of product companies should be to use technology to compete with service providers. Consider the history of copiers where Xerox dominated the market and had a massive service organization. A group of Japanese companies changed this with copiers that could be installed and serviced by the user. In the automation industry, open network protocols have certainly enabled systems to be applied using best of breed sensors.

Is it possible?

Is it possible for an automation vendor to be effective at products and services? Maybe, but there have been a number of large computer companies that tried to offer services and products eventually becoming total service providers or went out of existence.

On balance, the use of a totally independent service provider may be in the best interest of the user.

refer to:http://www.automation.com/portals/factory-discrete-automation/can-automation-vendors-serve-two-masters-products-services

Acrosser Technology Co. Ltd, a world-leading industrial and embedded computer designer and manufacturer, announces the new AES-HM76Z1FL embedded system. AES-HM76Z1FL, Acrosser’s latest industrial endeavor, is surely a FIT under multiple circumstances. Innovation can be seen in the new ultra slim fanless design, and its Intel core i CPU can surely cater for those seeking for high performance. Therefore, these 3 stunning elements can be condensed as “F.I.T. Technology.” (Fanless, Intel core i, ultra Thin)

The heat sink from the fanless design provides AES-HM76Z1FL with great thermal performance, as well as increases the efficiency of usable space. The fanless design provides dustproof protection, and saving the product itself from fan malfunction. AES-HM76Z1FL has thin client dimensions, with a height of only 20 millimeters (272 mm x183 mm x 20 mm). This differs from most embedded appliances, which have a height of more than 50 millimeters.

The AES-HM76Z1FL embedded system uses the latest technology in scalable Intel Celeron and 3rd generation Core i7/i3 processors with a HM76 chipset. It features graphics via VGA and HDMI, DDR3 SO-DIMM support, complete I/O such as 4 x COM ports, 3 x USB3.0 ports, 8 x GPI and 8 x GPO, and storage via SATA III and Compact Flash. The AES-HM76Z1FL also supports communication by 2 x RJ-45 gigabit Ethernet ports, 1 x SIM slot, and 1 x MinPCIe expansion socket for a 3.5G or WiFi module.

Different from most industrial products that focus on application in one specific industry, the AES-HM76Z1FL provides solutions for various applications through the complete I/O interfaces. Applications of the AES-HM76Z1FL include: embedded system solutions, control systems, digital signage, POS, Kiosk, ATM, banking, home automation, and so on. It can support industrial automation and commercial bases under multiple circumstances.

Key features:
‧Fanless and ultra slim design
‧Support Intel Ivy Bridge CPU with HM76 chipset
‧2 x DDR3 SO-DIMM, up to 16GB
‧Support SATA III and CF storage
‧HDMI/VGA/USB/Audio/GPIO output interface
‧Serial ports by RS-232 and RS-422/485
‧2 x GbE, 1 x SIM, and 1 x MiniPCIe(for3G/WiFi)

 

Product Information:
http://www.acrosser.com/Products/Embedded-Computer/Fanless-Embedded-Systems/AES-HM76Z1FL/Intel-Core-i3／i7-AES-HM76Z1FL.html

Contact us：
http://www.acrosser.com/inquiry.html

Industrial automation systems are performing more tasks and doing so more quickly, more accurately, and in harsher environments than ever before. They are becoming connected tools with substantially more computing and communication capabilities, allowing them to interoperate with other devices. As they evolve and proliferate, these systems put new demands on their computing technology. Rugged COM Express modules not only meet the computing needs of today’s rapidly changing industrial landscape, but also protect the investment to meet tomorrow’s performance needs.

At the dawn of the “Industrial Internet,” the ante is being upped for modular embedded systems. More and more machines are being connected, many in remote and challenging environments such as oil and gas, locomotives, transportation, and ship-propulsion systems. To meet the demand for more data in less time, these systems must work faster and longer. Accelerating with the demand for data is the evolution of computer processors. But businesses can’t afford the downtime required to replace processors, or the expense of replacing the carrier board when upgrading the processor. According to a 2006 Department of Energy study, idle industrial machinery can cost as much as $800 per minute.

refer to:http://industrial-embedded.com/articles/rugged-increasingly-connected-world/

With the FAA and EASA adopting aviation standards such as DO-178C and ARP4754A, UAV software developers should familiarize themselves with these standards, particularly when transitioning to model-based design.

Few applications place more importance on verification, or prescribe more process guidance, than aviation. The FAA and its European equivalent, EASA, provide guidance using standards such as ARP4754 for aircraft systems and DO-178B for flight software. These standards are often used outside of civil aviation, in whole or in part, for applications including military aircraft and land vehicles. Adoption for UAV programs is rapidly growing because of the FAA’s recent decision to require UAS and OPA certification via FAA Order 8130.34A. UAV systems are heterogeneous, and not restricted just to flight software. Therefore, other standards are used such as DO-254 for hardware and DO-278 for ground and space software.

However, these standards are more than a decade old and are showing their age. For example, they lacked guidance on modern development and verification practices such as model-based design, object-oriented technologies, and formal methods, at least until the nascent DO-178C standard was developed. So the FAA and EASA have worked with aircraft manufacturers, suppliers, and tool vendors to update standards based on modern technologies (Table 1). Rather than significantly modify the standards, they created technology supplement documents.

The impact of the new standards to UAV developers using model-based design is especially significant. Before describing this, an introduction to model-based design is appropriate.
Introduction to model-based design

With model-based design, UAV engineers develop and simulate system models comprised of hardware and software using block diagrams and state charts, as shown in Figures 1 and 2. They then automatically generate, deploy, and verify code on their embedded systems. With textual computation languages and block diagram model tools, one can generate code in C, C++, Verilog, and VHDL languages, enabling implementation on MCU, DSP[], FPGA[], and ASIC hardware. This lets system, software, and hardware engineers collaborate using the same tools and environment to develop, implement, and verify systems. Given their auto-nomous nature, UAV systems heavily employ closed-loop controls, making system modeling and closed-loop simulation, as shown in Figures 1 and 2, a natural fit.
Testing actual UAV systems via ground-controlled flight tests is expensive. A better way is to test early in the design process using desktop simulation and lab test benches. With model-based design, verification starts as soon as models are created and simulated for the first time. Tests cases based on high-level requirements formalize simulation testing. A common verification workflow is to reuse the simulation tests throughout model-based design as the model transitions from system model to software model to source code to executable object code using code generators and cross-compilers.

refer to:
http://mil-embedded.com/articles/transitioning-do-178c-arp4754a-uav-using-model-based-design/