Has anyone out there had any experience dealing with both Entek and CSI software to do an actual hands-on long-term comparison?
We're in the process of evaluating each one to develop an on-line continuous monitoring vibration program. We're presently using CSI with a 2120 for manual data collection but an Entek/Rockwell salesman has convinced an engineer in our plant that Entek is the way to go. I know a lot of people have probably run into this dilema before when starting up a new condtion monitoring program.
Any comments would be welcome.
Thanks,

We use SKF Prism4 software and CMVA55/60 micrologs. Any opinions?

I chose to purchase Entek/Rockwell, due to many factors. Largely local support, and integration into factory IT infrastructure, CMMS, and future development of continuous monitoring.
Can't speak to long term use.
Should have up and running soon.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hbechard:
Has anyone out there had any experience dealing with both Entek and CSI software to do an actual hands-on long-term comparison?
We're in the process of evaluating each one to develop an on-line continuous monitoring vibration program. We're presently using CSI with a 2120 for manual data collection but an Entek/Rockwell salesman has convinced an engineer in our plant that Entek is the way to go. I know a lot of people have probably run into this dilema before when starting up a new condtion monitoring program.
Any comments would be welcome.
Thanks,

---

Hi, I have been using CSI since the early 90's. At present we have two 2120-2 and have to seperate stand alone data bases. Due to Y2K issues we were forced to change an old Scientific Atlanta surveillance system and ended up with Entek. We do not have any of there portable analysers. We have 10 of the En-watch units that are 16 channel mux boxes perminitly wire in the feild. They can only do single channel data collection. We view the data with the Odssey soft ware.
I wouldn't give away the CSI analyser for an Entek. I don't think they are up there yet. As for the soft ware. I prefer to use the CSI for parameter setups and lay outs etc (though that's maybe becuase I learned on that). There are some of the display features in the Entek I would like to see in the CSI, But there are a lot of CSI features I would like to see in Entek.
Don't know if this is of any help, but I would be very reluctant to give up CSI.
Regards Trev

As service providers we come accross many sites using various online systems. Both CSI & Entec have their positive and negative points. For ease of use and broad capability I do not think you can better the CSI system at this time. I have seen two of their 4500 online systems used in anger at an alumina refinery in the SW of Western Australia and they are performing as per the manufacturers specification. Cost is high as are all products from CSI but their reliability is proven in our service based business where the 14 units we use get knocked around a fair bit by different technicians and the gorillas in the mist (airport baggage handlers). Support for both hand held & the online systems (hardware & software)is critical and this is most likely what will ultimately determine your choice of instrument provider. Make sure the support network and local dealer are available, know how to operate and trouble shoot the product and are not just agents trying to sell product.
Regards
Fritz

Dear hbechard,

In my experience the use of one system over another is entirely down to the needs of the user, how much they need to know about the system they are monitoring and how well the user can collect and analyse the displays.

I have used both of the systems, which you have asked about.

I have used hybrid systems that combine the online monitoring from one company and the hand held data logging software from another and in some cases the hand held unit itself is sourced from a further supplier.

Do you really want to deal with more than one supplier? When you call one with a problem they would ultimately shift the blame to the competitors equipment.

The best systems available combine the hand held data logging software with the online systems thus saving cost and providing ease of knowledge transfer relating to the operation of the software and ultimately the troubleshooting.

Note that the support from one "local" contact can substantially differ from company to company irrespective of the larger parent company reputation.
I do not work directly for either of your selected companies of interest and as you have not discussed the application/Industry being monitored I guess that you are looking for a general rule of thumb.

If we ignore the cost and just look at the systems themselves you should acknowledge that when a system of components is designed around one another the end result is always better than a "custom" build. NB (particularly where the suppliers are competitors).

My prior dealings with EntekIRD/Rockwell have proven sticky when the subject of support and after sales service comes up. The gentlemen in question did not like the use of any competitor equipment on "his" site. The software proved to be easily manipulated and due to onsite enthusiasm the settings of alarms and filters were easily changed. This could however apply to any system. This is not a reflection on all of their support engineers and neither should you take this as the norm. I only suggest that you ensure that the associated support contract is bullet-proof.

CSI have a good set-up that I have found easy to work with and set-up from scratch. The units are user friendly and the software can be used effectively by someone with Technician level abilities without complications and future tie-ins with oil and process data is easily implemented. The online monitoring system of CSI also proves to be as flexible as other systems however the tie in of a high-speed video scanning system would definitely point towards an ABB system for me.

A pure vibration monitoring with a mimic display can be developed easily.
If you are looking at bearing monitoring specifically and you are looking at the total system then you should also consider the SKF systems.

I ultimately believe that if you are looking to build upon your existing abilities within your sites of interest you would at first glance get more "bang for your buck" from continuing with CSI for a totally integrated familiar system.

To expand your personal knowledge and abilities the use of a secondary system would be advantageous.

For the best custom-built solution you want to involve independent guidance on a step by step, bearing by gear basis.

Change for change sake is not always good sense. If the Entek guy believes that his system is better than CSI or SKF then have him prove it.

Oh and one thing to remember is that CSI automatically removes the first couple of "bins" which is why they appear to have less ski-slope on their spectral data, it is nothing to do with 'better' processing.

Enough food for thought for now
CE

** Vendor Warning **

There is another option:

DLI Engineering

http://www.dliengineering.com

Main benefit of DLI is the automated diagnostic system and efficient methodology that allows you to screen much larger numbers of machines in less time and obtain better results. We offer specific machine fault diagnostics with severities and recommendations, not just alarms. Software is easily set up using software wizards and can be configured and maintained by "non experts'.

Collecting data and doing an FFT is not rocket science - the question is - what do you do with all of the data and how do you efficiently convert it into actionable information? Then, how do you get this information into the hands of those who need it? These are DLI's strengths. We receive 6,000+ machine tests / month and handle these with just a few engineers.

Customer support is excellent (we are mostly engineers, not salesmen)

Our wireless and wired online systems are plug and play with the portable systems.

The DCX data collector is an industrial tablet PC and data collector in one unit - meaning that your data collector is also your computer and therefore you have everything you need with you all the time (including the diagnostic report while you are still at the machine). Upgrades are also easier and much less expensive. There is nothing comparable to this on the market.

Web based analysis is available so you no longer need to buy alot of software licenses and teach advanced software to managers who only want answers. Now they can get their answers using a standard web browser.

Finally, all of our products were designed for our own use to support our own service work. If these products make us more efficient, correct and successful, they'll do the same for you.

I wouldn't have placed a blatantly promotional post on this forum, but since the topic is comparing brands I thought it acceptable to mention that there are better options out there.

Dear hbechard:

Vendor Warning!

Please have a look at the online monitoring systems made by MAARS, Inc.

www.maars.com

We are a bunch of ex-CSI guys that do online vibration and process monitoring systems.

Our systems are in use all over the world in applications as diverse as gas turbines to draglines. We offer full FFT, waveform, trends, orbits, tranisent analysis, balancing, etc. in our systems.

Feel free to call me when you get the chance and I will be happy to discuss your application.

Sincerely,

Buddy Lee
President & CEO
MAARS, Inc.

865-212-0006

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan F:
** Vendor Warning **


"...not salesmen" ???

---

trust the "i'm not a salesman" crowd to try to sell you something rather than answer your question.

Sorry Alan. Could not resist.

CE

We here at Entergy Nuclear Northeast prefer CSI over Entek in 4 out of 5 sites. Decisions to purchase CSI over Entek were made when plant were independently owned and not under the Entergy Corp umbrella.

At our twin unit site, Indian Point we have both systems; since both units were once owned by different companies. We have had many problems with uplaoding & downloading data from our Entek data collectors. Our technicians prefer CSI Data Collectors to Entek as both newer & olders models have more capability. Our Level II Vibration Analyst, Jimmy Fleitz, pefers CSI and that is the system we are keeping and upgrading. You may contact him at 914-736-8359.

The Negatives:
CSI salesman have an attitude; they have the best and know it. It is understandable why your engineer prefers talking to Entek sales people.

As an untrained user of both softwares, Entek software appears easier to move around in and get basic vib data on plant equipment. Understand that I am the Engineer that evaluated different systems and bought CSI 10 years ago
Kevin Curley
914-736-8365

Consultant Engineer...I'm actually a Senior Engineer, not a sales person. (so there!)

And FYI - alot of these types of discussions are begun by vendors or salesmen who do not identify themselves as such. In other words, I should be applauded for identifying my affiliation - I could just as easily pretend to be someone I am not. No offense taken though...

I use both at work, but have been a CSI user for much longer. The major problem with Entek is that to collect 1 accel, 1 velocity trend, 1 accel, 1 velocity spectra, and a waveform is 5 separate measurements, when you can get all this info in one go with CSI. Takes ages, plus loading/unloading data and routes takes between 10 and 15 minutes each time, and the batteries don't last all day.

Get a FULL demo before you proceed with entek, this is my opinion only you will understand, I know people who prefer Entek too. Maars is good also for the online stuff like they said.

quote:

---

Originally posted by tthew:
"The major problem with Entek is that to collect 1 accel, 1 velocity trend, 1 accel, 1 velocity spectra, and a waveform is 5 separate measurements, when you can get all this info in one go with CSI. Takes ages, "

---

I totally agree with you, collecting each reading in turn does take longer and is a pain when you are pushed for time. What I would say however is that by collecting each reading in turn in situ it is easier to identify concerns imediately rather than having to transfer the collected data to the supporting software and then complete the preliminary analysis. Even with the option on some data collectors of collecting a selection of data simultaniously you can be compromising the settings for secondary and tertiary data. As any of the training companies will tell you, it may even be desired to collect two or more frequency/resolution combinations against the velocity data of one data collection point.
This is perhapse drifting off the core question posed of which vendors equipment is best for an online system? but, as I said originally the ability and technical ability of the; technicians/engineers/consultants/salesmen involved steers the decision process. If you were wanting to purely highlight a concern of excessive casing vibration the use of a vibration pen may even be enough.

As you are all technically skilled, I am sure you would wish much greater knowledge about your surveyed assets. It does come back to the discussion of what are you looking to collect.

hbechard....
Please clarify the application, Paper mill, steel, power generation, Oil & Gas, Textile, .....

It may be that you need to consider a system that combines process data and vibration data along with images and other input.
Is there any existing scada systems, Vibrometer, Bently Nevada, or similar that you need to link into for a total health evaluation of your machinery?
Do you need RF systems for remote monitoring?
Do you have a desire for a system that only sends in data based upon existing alarms that are predefined?

The more information about your system needs that you provide the easier it is to give valid guidance.

regards
CE

I have been a user of most of the major systems over time including CSI, Entek, SPM, SKF and Bentley.

Approx 5 years ago we set up our own consultancy and decided to go against all of the popular wisdom and opted for Pruftechnik instead. The system we have chosen does not have all of the high end capacity of the CSI collectors (likely the best in the market) nor does it have the ultimate capability of the Entek software (better in our opinion than RBM Ware). However we made our choice on a number of criteria:
1) It did everything that the vast majority of users will ever require at a fraction of the cost of CSI or Entek.
2) being a smaller player in the vibration field they are more reactive to client needs.
3) There are no Esafe or other agreements to sign so that you pay vast sums of money each year to keep the system up to date and fix software bugs and the like. If you add 5-10 years of support costs into the equation, the total cost of ownership of either of your systems becomes extremely high.
4) The equipment is considerably lighter and more ergonomic to use, which should be a high level selection criteria, unfortunately though the person selceting the system often doesn't have to carry it around for eight hours a day so a datapac or a 2120 doesn't get seen for the OHS issue that it is, being a weighty brick that produces neck and back problems at worst or reduces productivity at best.
4) It is simple to use (3 buttons on a Vibscanner, a couple more on a Vibexpert vs 26 on a datapac) meaning its easy for non expert users to pick it up load in a route and get a measurement.
5) The software is a fully windows compliant system so it is simple to operate with minimal training and the simpler the system the more likely it is that it will actually get used.

We make a good living by disposing of second hand systems that we find all over the place that were purchased with the best intentions but gather dust and the most common reason given is the difficulty of use, the second most common is upkeep costs. The best advice that we can give is to forget the hype, widen the search to look at other alternatives and be extremely critical in deciding what you really need to measure rather than what may or may not have the most features. Buy a system that is simple, flexible and has no lock in contract features (note even Microsoft don't charge you to fix bugs in their software) and use the money that you save in the process to adequately train your staff via companies such as Update International, or investigate additional technologies such as laser alignment, oil analysis and thermal imaging.
Vibration should only be a small (but important) component of an effective overall CM program. After all, the way it is most commonly applied, it is an "end of pipe" solution used to detect faults and changes, rather than a technology to prevent them from happening in the first place, and thats where the real money gets saved.

Good luck whatever you decide.

We are currently using both CSI and Entek products; there are advantages and disadvantages for both. How you use the tool may be the more important factor of success. However, I do prefer an "open" database (one reason I dislike Apple computer products) to a closed database.

In the future all of us need to be able to use any data collector with our vibration software. We should push the vendors hard for this.

VENDOR

I suggest also a look at Commtest, as user (and reseller) of various systems over the years I have found that they have good instruments and good software especially with the expert system, they now have a online system that is modern.
http://www.commtest.co.nz/
Olov

If you currently use CSI and are thinking of going with the Odyssey software then.....
Your primary issue is going to be in reading the data from CSI into Odyssey. Each have different data file formats which are proprietary.

Odyssey does have several data collector interface options. However, like in the case of the SKF collector, the CMVA10 is the last interface level and limits the usability of any SKF collector that came along later.

What collector level and features does Odyssey provide? Will you be able to use PeakVue as a datpoint setup in Odyssey? What kind of problem will CSI's limited TWF file size feature cause?
How will the AP sets translate? Have you tried to use the MIMOSA interface???

If you go the CSI hardware and Odyssey software route and want full functionality of both then expect to spend some real money.

Your options would be:
Try to get CSI and Rockwell to communicate to each other the hardware format. Or how to read from the data base, which would require having to have RBMWare and Odyssey, and knowing that Odyssey will only import in data values as RMS values.

Have someone build a data converter which would read from one database. Probably as costly as Odyssey alone.

Someone in your org has to identify all these issues and get them resolved before spending any money.

AND I mean SEE the results NOT be TOLD that it works because I have customers that know that this not the case. This is why I own the "SKF2Entek" conversion utility.

Been there done that and it is not an easy walk.

Regards

I meant to add that this is only looking at trying to use a data collector from one and software from another. You could always have one for online monitoring and another for the walk around and troubleshooting work.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: S.Hatfield,

I began vibration analysis on the CSI brand 7yrs ago, then 12 months ago changed jobs and now use the ENTEK equipment. Like so many others have said, there are pro's and con's for each of their software pacages. But for me CSI 2120 is a far better data collector than what we now have from ENTEK enpac1200. The 2120A 2 channel can do all that we needed with one collector, but you will need to spend the money.

quote:

Like so many others have said, there are pro's and con's for each of their software pacages. But for me CSI 2120 is a far better data collector than what we now have from ENTEK enpac1200.

Why wouldn't we start now counting pro's and con's for CSI vs. ENTEK. My input:
CSI 2120-2 analyzer: pro's
1. PeakVue demodulation method (superior for slow speed).
2. Reliable hardware.
3. Expert system option.

CSI software pro's
1. AutoCorellation coefficient function.

CSI software con's
1. Not truly windows program.
2. Little bit cumbersome to use.
3. Not flexible for different screen layouts.
4. Trending capabilities are limited to preselected in the AP bands.


Originally posted by tthew:

quote:

"The major problem with Entek is that to collect 1 accel, 1 velocity trend, 1 accel, 1 velocity spectra, and a waveform is 5 separate measurements, when you can get all this info in one go with CSI. Takes ages, "

As far as I know CSI takes a TWF measurement just once for 1 avg (unless a special TWF is called for, in which case TWF is collected again with different parameters) and then everything else (spectrum, trend, plots with different data units) is being calculated in the RBMware. Spectrum also could be calculated in the box. Why would ENTEK do it differently?

I also know that loading-unloading is not a problem with ENTEK if serial communication is NOT used.

quote:

As far as I know CSI takes a TWF measurement just once for 1 avg (unless a special TWF is called for, in which case TWF is collected again with different parameters) and then everything else (spectrum, trend, plots with different data units) is being calculated in the RBMware. Spectrum also could be calculated in the box. Why would ENTEK do it differently?

I think it's hardware vs. software integration that is the issue. Entek believes hardware integration, meaning collecting and processing the data in situ for each parameter is a more accurate method. Processing in the software would be used with a DAT recorder for example. I don't know CSI's software enough to understand what processing method they use.