which you prefer? i'm in need to replace my handheld calibrator (BT200) to the new one, any recomendation between Fluke or AMS?
it seems like the fluke is like an all in one device, who can read & measure for pressure, mA, and also RTD. but on another forum most of them recomend me with the AMS Trex, which i dont know the pros of that device over the fluke.

 

For an open discussion, a BT200 is Yokogawa's handheld Brain Communicator that talks over 4-20mA to field instruments.

I've never understood what Yokogawa's Brain communications involved. Is it a proprietary comm protocol for Yokogawa's instruments or is it merely a disguised name for HART? (Yamatake still uses DE, a proprietary protocol, and offers a handheld communicator for DE)

Depending on that answer, usability might be an issue with an proprietary protocol outside of HART. I don't know whether Trex or the Fluke handle anything other than HART.

If it were me, I'd probably throw Beamex into the selection process because they've actively competed in calibrations reporting for some time now.

I don't have personal experience with any of the three, but if were me, I'd be looking for the box that created the best paper/pdf reports with the least intervention because I have to generate my own reports using data-entry into a spreadsheet and Mensor bench calibrator. In the 3rd decade of the 21stt century, reports should be more automated than typing numbers into a spreadsheet.

 

For an open discussion, a BT200 is Yokogawa's handheld Brain Communicator that talks over 4-20mA to field instruments.

I've never understood what Yokogawa's Brain communications involved. Is it a proprietary comm protocol for Yokogawa's instruments or is it merely a disguised name for HART? (Yamatake still uses DE, a proprietary protocol, and offers a handheld communicator for DE)

Depending on that answer, usability might be an issue with an proprietary protocol outside of HART. I don't know whether Trex or the Fluke handle anything other than HART.

If it were me, I'd probably throw Beamex into the selection process because they've actively competed in calibrations reporting for some time now.

I don't have personal experience with any of the three, but if were me, I'd be looking for the box that created the best paper/pdf reports with the least intervention because I have to generate my own reports using data-entry into a spreadsheet and Mensor bench calibrator. In the 3rd decade of the 21stt century, reports should be more automated than typing numbers into a spreadsheet.

The BT200 only support some device from YOKOGAWA, and i think its not a disguised. As for beamex the price is 2x higher than the two, and i dont know if i should upgrade my others old device (temp and pressure calibrator). And as my statement above, they recomend the AMS Trex from Emerson, but i dont know what the pros for that device over the fluke.
And for Beamex whats the most important that i should choose this device?

 

I am not recommending that you buy a Beamex, I'm recommending that you evaluate it like you would evaluate the other two. It might be that a more expensive calibrator saves you time and effort and is worth, but you're the one to evaluate that.

I have no idea the scope of your calibrations tasks are. Things like:
How many cals do you do in a year?
What's required to do a cal, physically, for either temperature or pressure, all the steps involved and how does each calibrator handle that process?
Can a procedure (zero, 3 mid points, span and back) for a given tag be saved and used next time?
Is hysteresis calculated, displayed and reported? Can you configure how the error is reported?

Reporting: Can the unit compare previous as-left with current as-left?
Is the report format readable? (I saw one cal report that left off the eng units).

Portability: Does your calibrator need to be portable? if so, how does any unit function in a portable environment? power? batteries? line? Are the batteries COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) batteries or a proprietary battery pack?
If you do temperature transmitter calibrations. how quickly does the calibrators CJ respond in a situation where the calibrator is moved from one area (say, warm) to another (say, cold)?

General interaction things, like:
Is the display more readable on one than another (I hate black on grey LCD's, that in itself would be decision criterion).
Do you need a mouse to navigate or touch screen. Will the touch screen with gloves? Can you add a mouse if that's easier?

HART:
If you use HART what exactly does it take to add a DD file? Can you add a single DD (some devices require one add an entire 'updated' libary) Is an annual support subscription required? Is internet access required? Or is adding a DD just using a USB stick and some keystrokes? Or are you stuck with the DD library that the box comes with?
What about devices that only use DTM files (like for Pactware)? Does the box support DTM's?

Cost of ownership:
What is today's cost to get each module calibrated? (I'd get a firm, written quote from the service group on that). A year from now it'll be higher, but at least there's a comparison.

What are reasons the other forum recommends Trex?

When I bought the Mensor, I read both the spec sheets and the manuals for four different calibrators because that's what you live with after you buy it. I called each one's tech support with a purported "problem" of interpreting something from the manual. I never was able to connect to anyone at one company to get my question answered which took them off the list for consideration.

 

I am not recommending that you buy a Beamex, I'm recommending that you evaluate it like you would evaluate the other two. It might be that a more expensive calibrator saves you time and effort and is worth, but you're the one to evaluate that.

I have no idea the scope of your calibrations tasks are. Things like:
How many cals do you do in a year?
What's required to do a cal, physically, for either temperature or pressure, all the steps involved and how does each calibrator handle that process?
Can a procedure (zero, 3 mid points, span and back) for a given tag be saved and used next time?
Is hysteresis calculated, displayed and reported? Can you configure how the error is reported?

Reporting: Can the unit compare previous as-left with current as-left?
Is the report format readable? (I saw one cal report that left off the eng units).

Portability: Does your calibrator need to be portable? if so, how does any unit function in a portable environment? power? batteries? line? Are the batteries COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) batteries or a proprietary battery pack?
If you do temperature transmitter calibrations. how quickly does the calibrators CJ respond in a situation where the calibrator is moved from one area (say, warm) to another (say, cold)?

General interaction things, like:
Is the display more readable on one than another (I hate black on grey LCD's, that in itself would be decision criterion).
Do you need a mouse to navigate or touch screen. Will the touch screen with gloves? Can you add a mouse if that's easier?

HART:
If you use HART what exactly does it take to add a DD file? Can you add a single DD (some devices require one add an entire 'updated' libary) Is an annual support subscription required? Is internet access required? Or is adding a DD just using a USB stick and some keystrokes? Or are you stuck with the DD library that the box comes with?
What about devices that only use DTM files (like for Pactware)? Does the box support DTM's?

Cost of ownership:
What is today's cost to get each module calibrated? (I'd get a firm, written quote from the service group on that). A year from now it'll be higher, but at least there's a comparison.

What are reasons the other forum recommends Trex?

When I bought the Mensor, I read both the spec sheets and the manuals for four different calibrators because that's what you live with after you buy it. I called each one's tech support with a purported "problem" of interpreting something from the manual. I never was able to connect to anyone at one company to get my question answered which took them off the list for consideration.

FYI i'm not an experienced in this scope, i'm on electrical division but now got moved to Instrumentation division, cuz' the last two people from that divison retired a year ago, and now the tools that theyre handed to me are the BT200, altek rtd cal, and the pressure cal which i dont know the brand (they all old models), and now if i stick to BT200 it's hard for us if we're going to find replacement product for our transmitter, since the BT200 use Brain Protocol for YOKOGAWA only.

So for now i'm going to find a communicator that support HART, and it would be good if have documenting feature or paperless report. in that conclusion, most of them i ask on another forum recomending me to have an AMS Trex Emerson, and a few also recomending me to have fluke 754. For the Fluke 754, beside the simple HART function i know that it also has a measure / sourcing function for RTD, so i carry more less device to the field while performing calibration on the transmitter, it also shows the report on the screen but idk if i can transfer it?.

and for the Trex it give you the option to power the loop so i wont need power supply, and the diagnostic features which i dont what the function of it, i mean once u connect it to the transmitter did it give you the error list on that transmitter? it can also power the control valve positioner. but can it give u automatic calibration? i mean give the report on screen and share it to other device, like how much percentage that the transmitter error before and after performing cal like the fluke 754?
on my point of view the Trex has many updated DD on their site, so im sure it support most of the brand that using HART. But i also read that you must the support service to update your DD files (1 or 3 yr support package), not like the fluke that gave it free.

and now i'm confused which device should i choose? the Fluke 754 or Emerson AMS Trex? or maybe Beamex MC6?(but i will stay away with this device as for now cuz the price are 2x higher).

and can you guys give me info that the Beamex MC6 module are modular? i mean u can buy the basic things only like the HART or mA, and buy the pressure / temperature module on another time?

 

Thank you for clarifying that Yokogawa's Brain protocol is not HART and is a proprietary protocol.

Hopefully someone who has used one of these calibrators will show up and comment on your questions.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'automatic calibration of a positioner'. Smart positioners use internal sensors and an algorithm to determine end-of-travel positions. I doubt 3rd party calibrators are going to do that kind of task. There might be some function for recording/plotting the position feedback signal versus the input signal,, but I'm speculating, never having looked for that function in a calibrator.

Given the cost of a high end calibrator system like these, it's common in the US to get an on-site demo of a calibrator. I would strongly recommend investigating whether that's possible.

 

Hi Guys,

Interesting discussions. I would like to add a few comments here. Please note I am working at Beamex.

First, it is good to remember that the Trex is "only" a HART communicator, even a very good one. I mean you can not do a metrological calibration (or transmitter trim) with the Trex only, you will also need to have a process calibrator that has the required accurate measurement or simulation/generation. So you will end up carrying two devices...

The Fluke 754 has both HART communicator and a process calibrator and is a pretty good device, but the HART part is limited compared to Trex.

I think the Beamex MC6 is something you should look more deeply into. It has a good HART communicator and a very versatile multifunctional process calibrator (more functionality and accuracy than 754). The MC6 is also available as an intrinsically safe version MC6-Ex for hazardous areas. MC6 also supports FOUNDATION Fieldbus transmitters, if that is valid.
You asked about the modularity; MC6 is indeed a modular calibrator so you can select what functionality you want to buy it with, and also can add/remove options later on. As the price depends on modules, it is a bit difficult to compare, but it should not be twice the 754 price in a similar packet.
Also, the MC6 is a documenting calibrator, so results are stored in the calibrator's memory and transferred to calibration software (either Beamex's own or AMS).
Well, I guess I could continue pretty long on the MC6, but I will stop here
Please take a closer look into it, and have a chat with the Beamex technical sales.

Thanks,
Heikki Laurila
Beamex

 

I work with Heikki and cannot help myself in adding to this discussion (and note David_2 brought Beamex into this). Heikki makes the case for MC6 and my main comment is MC6 offers the combined functionality of the Fluke 754 (for calibration) and the Emerson AMS Trex (for HART DD communication). If this is considered, MC6 offers competitive pricing with fantastic accuracy and automation features. You can purchase a "basic" MC6 temperature/electrical calibrator with just the HART option and add pressure ports, modules and other options later. Beamex provides DD updates at no charge and you can perform an automated valve positioner calibration by sourcing mA and documenting the "% Travel" HART parameter.

One other comment about BRAIN. This is a very old digital protocol by Yokogawa that came out in response to HART. Honeywell also developed the DE protocol around the same time. These protocols are more like Foundation Fieldbus or Profibus than HART (faster communication speed for control applications) -- you must have a Yokogawa control system that can utilize BRAIN. These protocols are still supported for replacement transmitters, but if you need to replace a BT200, most likely you will need to purchase a used one. Neither Beamex, Fluke nor Emerson AMS support BRAIN (other than a keyed entry for a documented calibration).

Best regards,
Ned Espy
Beamex

 

Hi Guys,

Interesting discussions. I would like to add a few comments here. Please note I am working at Beamex.

First, it is good to remember that the Trex is "only" a HART communicator, even a very good one. I mean you can not do a metrological calibration (or transmitter trim) with the Trex only, you will also need to have a process calibrator that has the required accurate measurement or simulation/generation. So you will end up carrying two devices...

The Fluke 754 has both HART communicator and a process calibrator and is a pretty good device, but the HART part is limited compared to Trex.

I think the Beamex MC6 is something you should look more deeply into. It has a good HART communicator and a very versatile multifunctional process calibrator (more functionality and accuracy than 754). The MC6 is also available as an intrinsically safe version MC6-Ex for hazardous areas. MC6 also supports FOUNDATION Fieldbus transmitters, if that is valid.
You asked about the modularity; MC6 is indeed a modular calibrator so you can select what functionality you want to buy it with, and also can add/remove options later on. As the price depends on modules, it is a bit difficult to compare, but it should not be twice the 754 price in a similar packet.
Also, the MC6 is a documenting calibrator, so results are stored in the calibrator's memory and transferred to calibration software (either Beamex's own or AMS).
Well, I guess I could continue pretty long on the MC6, but I will stop here
Please take a closer look into it, and have a chat with the Beamex technical sales.

Thanks,
Heikki Laurila
Beamex

Hi guys.
Just a few comments. TREX is only a communicator and works to configure, not for calibration purposes. You can move calibration values, but would need the devices to apply the physical variables to the instruments or to move the valves. TREX can communicate only with HART devices, as well as Foundation Fieldbus devices (as an optional choice when ordering). Also, it can communicate with wireless HART devices. The advantage is that you can upgrade the communicator with Device Descriptors (DD) available either en fieldcommgroup webpage or in Emerson webpage.
On the other hand, the Beamex MC6 combines the capabilities of a calibrator with communicator and, besides Hart and FF, it also can communicate with Profibus-PA devices.
Fluke 754 is a documenting calibrator, and communicates in HART but is really limited. It can not be upgraded with the DDs, so the HART capabilities is only for the basic functions.
I own and use both, the Fluke 754 and TREX, and can tell you that they have their own functionalities and application. For calibrations, Fluke 754; for configurations, TREX. If need to calibrate FF devices, need to use both.
If you want equipment for a calibration lab, you would take a look to MC6, which, as said by HL, it is modular and can be added with internal and external modules.
Another communicator not very known yet is from E+H, Field Xpert SMT70, which is claimed to have interfaces for HART, Profibus PA, Modbus, FF, Wireless Hart, Profinet, and some other protocols.

Take a look to the following chart, it can be helpful, even is not complete, but includes the most known communicators and calibrators:
Emerson_AMS_Trex-Communicator-Competitor_Comparison_Matrix.pdf (tequipment.net)