The evolution process of paperless recorders

The development of recorders has a history of several decades, and as important data recording instruments, they have been widely used in various industrial fields, especially in the field of process control. It is a commonly used secondary instrument in automation instruments and an extremely effective tool for recording and storing data.

Throughout the development process of recorders, they have roughly gone through three stages: traditional mechanical analog instruments, paperless recorders, and networked multifunctional paperless recorders based on virtual technology.

Before 1995, mechanical pen and paper recorders were mainly used, which used a recording pen to draw curves on recording paper in order to record and save data. Due to its complex pen head servo system and numerous mechanical moving parts, its reliability is poor. At the same time, mechanical recorders have inherent defects such as a single display mode (curve recording), difficulty in subsequent data processing, and high long-term operating costs (requiring regular replacement of recording paper and ink).

In 1992, the Instrumentation Exhibition was held in Beijing, and British P&G and German B&H companies respectively showcased their new concept of paperless recorders. Domestic disciplinary companies were keenly aware of this significant market opportunity and therefore carried out imitation development. In 1996, a paperless recorder appeared in China, which used microprocessors, LCD screens, and semiconductor memory to overcome the shortcomings of mechanical recorders. It has become an undeniable fact that paperless recorders have replaced mechanical recorders.

In the following decade of development, domestic products dominated the paperless recorder market overwhelmingly, and domestic and foreign products were roughly at the same technological level. Although the products of foreign companies such as Honeywell and YOKOGAWA have more exquisite craftsmanship than domestic products, with an accuracy of ± 1.5 ‰ better than domestic products' ± 2.0 ‰, the price of more than 4 times is still daunting for users.