What’s the difference?
In “Edge computing, fog computing, system control and IoT: Is
this a recipe for disaster?” (Control Design, April 2 019, p17, http://www.
controldesign.com/articles/2019/edge-computing-fog-comput-
ing-system-control-and-iot-is-this-a-recipe-for-
disaster), thank you for that description. I’ve
been struggling to see the difference, as well,
between edge and remote I/O. Your expla-
nation has nally helped clear a bit of
the sludge out of the way.
Susan Schaefer, pre-sales application engineer,
Vertech (www.vertech.com)Wait on wireless
Rick, you are right on the money, so to speak, in “Is wireless
safety an oxymoron?” (Control Design, March 2 019, p14, http://www.
controldesign.com/articles/2019/is-wireless-safety-an-oxymo-
ron). Wireless is a wonderful technology but, at present, just
can’t cut it when it comes to SIL type applications. It is even
being punted in control applications. To liken it to a similar
impasse, I have very strong feelings about industrial-control
systems connecting to and relying on the IoT. I wrote an article
several years ago on LinkedIn expressing my concerns. These
concerns are reality, with daily hacks
and compromised produc-
tion facilities being the norm.
Getting back to wireless, I would
love to see a bulletproof wireless-
based system. What a fantastic
technical development this would
be. Sadly, I think that we will all
have to wait for this. I will watch out
for your future articles in anticipation.
Charles Palmer, process control specialist, lecturer, Charles Palmer ConsultingGet out
“Think outside the cabinet” (www.controldesign.com/ar-
ticles/2019/think-outside-the-cabinet) is a brilliant article,
guys. There’s so much potential savings with the use of supe-
rior engineering design. Quite naturally the products chosen
have to be top class, as in Bosch-Rexroth’s case. I really like
your line of thinking and will attempt to use your concepts
on future projects.
Charles Palmer, process control specialist, lecturer, Charles Palmer Consulting5G dangers
Regarding the online news article, “5G tech market to report-
edly overtake $248,462 million by 2 028” (www.controldesign.
com/industrynews/2019/5g-tech-market-to-reportedly-over-
take-248462-million-by-2028), besides making privacy a thing of
the past, which is never discussed, there is credible uncertainty
about its effects on biological systems.
“Putting in tens of millions of 5 G antennae without a single
biological test of safety has got to be about the stupidest idea
anyone has had in the history of the world.” -- Dr. Martin L. Pall,
PhD and professor emeritus of biochemistry and basic medical
sciences at Washington State University
5G is predicted to be particularly dangerous for each of four
different reasons. With the extraordinarily high numbers of
antennae that are planned, the very high energy outputs which
will be used to ensure penetration and the extraordinarily high
pulsation levels, 5 G is predicted to be particularly dangerous to
all biological groups, which includes you and me.
In spite of horrendous consequences, the telecommunica-
tions industry argues that 5 G radiation will be mostly absorbed
in the outer 1 or 2 mm of the body, to lay claim that we don’t
have to worry about the effects. There is some truth to that, but
there are also some caveats that make any conclusions made
from that much more suspect.
In any case, these surface effects of 5 G will have especially
strong impact on organisms with much higher surface-to-vol-
ume ratios. Consequently, it is predicted that many organisms
will be much more impacted than we will. This includes insects
and other arthropods, birds and small mammals and amphibia.
It includes plants, including even large trees because trees have
leaves and reproductive organs that are highly exposed.
Based on this, it follows that there will be major ecological
disasters as a consequence of 5 G. It may also cause vast con a-
grations because EMF exposures make plants more ammable.
If that is not catastrophic enough, let’s get back to humans.
The industry has also made claims that more conventional mi-
crowave-frequency EMFs are limited in effect to the outer 1 cm of
the body. We know that is not true because of the effects deep in
the human brain, on the heart and on hormone systems.
There are a number of independent studies that show that
even though developing fetuses are very deep in the body of
the mother, and, according to industry rhetoric, they should
be highly protected from the EMF exposures, they are not.
The magnetic parts of the EMFs have been known for decades
to penetrate much more deeply than do the electrical parts.
The magnetic elds put forces on mobile, electrically charged10 / May 2019 / ControlDesign.comfeedback
Ultrasonic XX software allows
easy set up and customization.
Reliably detects small objectsand curved surfaces. (^) For mobile
equipment and material handling.
http://www.tesensors.com/XXSonic
Made in the
USA
Simply easy!
Does your ultrasonic sensor
stop working at the most
inopportune moments?
Regardless of the application, machine builders know that faulty or
insufficient detection usually means downtime and loss of revenue.
The new line of Ultrasonic Sensors from Telemecanique Sensors
sets a new benchmark for Ultrasonic sensing technology; in regard
to their reliability, their immunity to electromagnetic interference,
and their reduction of cross talk when multiple sensors are used.
An Ultrasonic Sensor from Telemecanique Sensors may be the only
thing to keep you - and your business - from “hitting a wall”...
Who should you trust for your ultrasonic sensor solutions?
CD201905-Telemecanique.indd 1 4/22/2019 10:14:49 AM
CD1905_10_11_Feedback.indd 10 4/29/19 9:40 AM