Talk:Profibus

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Early comment[edit]

Why the Profibus standard says that it has a RS-485 transmission technology (Differential mode)?. If It would be true, Why the terminator of Profibus has voltage (5 Volt)?. What happens if the nodes have different earth?, obviously there will be current between them due different earth.

Profibus does use RS-485. The cable shield is used as RS-485 signal ground to prevent variations in earth potential.(EARTH NR) As an extra precaution Profibus also specifies that a 10mm^2 protective earth cable shall run in parallel with the profibus cable, and bolted to the chasi of every Profibus device. (!)

The 5V pin in the Profibus connector is not used in most cases. It can be used for active termination, or to power profibus diagnostic tools which connect directly to a Profibus device. Brolin (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OSI vs Profibus[edit]

Layer 7 is nog used in Profibus DP and PA with the DPV-0 to DPV-2. Layer 7 is only used in Profibus FMS in a special FMS layer. view official literature (book): The New rapid way to Profibus DP (by Manfred Popp & www.profibus.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.87.99.30 (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, cannot parse the above. Please elaborate. W Nowicki (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Openly published"[edit]

Profibus is not openly published, IEC charges ~300 USD for the standard. --Dsamarin1 (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More behind the scene of EU and German government funded standards[edit]

And open source Profibus implementation PBmaster (http://pbmaster.sourceforge.net/) has been torpedoed by long term hidden patents bomb kept in the secret by big players who has drain German government and European Union funds to standard preparation and then directly during the last step of publication included mines into the mandatory standard occupied territory. See https://www.controleng.com/articles/clarification-sought-on-patent-protected-parts-of-iec-61158/ . They speak about "Fair, reasonable licenses sought", but when PBmaster project provided real open base for base for research and education at universities, the people connected to PROFIBUS & PROFINET International (PI) started to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) that they have right to sue our university for providing open solution of Profibus protocol. This is explanatory example what should not be allowed to corporations like SIEMENS and others. Due to subordinate and probably even funding paid position of some representatives of our university (prof. Zdeněk Hanzálek to name some of them) in the organization they has dismantled and block projects for more than 10 years. But all possible patents claims has already expired for original standard and proponents of FUDs moved to gold mine other European Union funded fields in NDA and closing area, so the original projects and sources can be again made accessible to broad public. (I think that some information and references should get into main article) Ppisa (talk) 09:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Profibus ist a well proven and stable technology. The organization accepts if somebody is implementing Profibus and sells it in his products. I know more than one manufacturer who did this without any explicit license required. So the technology is in practice open to everyone. The mentioned university was and is free to sell the developed Profibus technology. I was involved in this discussion: what is not accepted is to provide a code with no responsible owner who is in charge to ensure the quality of the implementation and maintains the technology on an open source platform. On an open source platform nobody is in charge to ensure the quality of the software. This restriction ensures an ongoing stable technology. This was the idea behind the ongoing fight against an open source software for Profibus. It is not a question of openess, it is the question who is responsible if an automation system fails.--Felser (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So great, after 10 years I know the name of responsible person. I have interest and (I think) even right as consultant and donator of hardware and Linux and Windows RS-485 drivers inventions from my company PiKRON from open source uLAN projects to discuss the fate of the project. I have helped many people at university with ASPC chips and integration with m683xx and other stuff for years. But when the FUD of lawyers action came then nobody has been willing to reveal me and contact me with the source of FUD and suppression. The claim that somebody can prevent you to implement international standard as open-source was false and nasty.... Or point me to some relevant law. Anyway all patents have passed and Profibus as technology is passing away now as well. If you speak about risks of harmful influence, than that is the aspects which I fully respect. You have right to protect Profibus trademark and logos which declare compliance. The project is named PBmaster, no trademark infringement, there is no problem to reference only standard number from the project, you have right to ask for remove Profibus world where is used against trademark. You may have right even ask to remove sentence like "Profibus compatible or like", but I am not sure about that. You do not have right according to all my knowledge for what happened. If you have real interest into non destructive debate, I would be happy to continue with you on PBmaster discussion page. But we can continue there as my time allows. And yes, I know what is safety, we have designed four generations of infusion systems at company, some referenced and used on RTEMS operating system leaflets as example of its use in advanced medical systems. So I have no problem to add bold warnings that project is a playground for students and enthusiasts and that for real use it has to go through certification and I would even myself express strong doubt if implementation in Linux kernel can be safe enough without FPGA card. But if the project moved on, we would have provided such implementation if there has been demand. On the other hand Linux kernel in fully preemptive variant on x86 when motherboard is not broken by SMI achieves far under 50 usec max latency times into userspace.... Anyway, yes it is not lockstep secure system as I and my colleague from PiKRON company designed for prof. Hanzálek and his activities at Porsche... So I am fully aware of limitations... But that all is fair discussion. What happened was FUD based enforcement and hiding, from your side or prof. Hanzálek or somebody other in the chain and I declare it highly unfair. If you can explain and or even support with evidence that it was result of bad timing and bad luck, then great. But I have very bad experience with some people involved at the end after 25 years of service to them and I am convinced finally that it is not only unfortunate timing and bad luck but their modus operandi to gain maximal income and power highly above merci with projects, people and cooperative efforts. I have no actual plans with PBmaster for me now, but it is work which should be archived and available. I have many other project with much more welcoming environment ongoing now. Ppisa (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]