Contact us

Cost model · BeamCell® extractive vs paramagnetic O₂

What an oxygen measurement outage costs you

A paramagnetic analyzer is cheaper to buy and will stay cheaper to buy. The comparison turns on how often each instrument is out of service and what that outage is worth on your process, so both sides carry a failure rate here and you set both.

Paramagnetic O₂ analyzer

EUR
EUR
your own experience
EUR per failure
EUR per year
EUR per year

BeamCell® extractive analyzer

EUR
EUR
set your own, not assumed zero
EUR per failure
EUR per year
No suspended mechanical element and no consumable cell, so there is no equivalent to the cell replacement line on the left. The failure rate above is still an input rather than a zero, because every instrument fails eventually and a model that assumes otherwise is not worth reading.

Cost of losing the measurement

This is the term that decides the comparison, and it applies equally whichever analyzer failed. When an oxygen measurement goes down, what does it cost before it is back in service: process held, product quarantined, tool requalified, or nothing at all because a spare is racked next to it. On a safety-critical or high-value stream this number is often larger than the instrument. Set it to zero to see the result on capital and running cost alone.

EUR per failure, beyond repair
EUR per year, paramagnetic only
Shared assumptions and financing
count, applied to both
years
percent per year
display only, no conversion

Enter your figures above

The model runs as soon as the fields are filled.

From capital and installation

-

-

From routine running cost

-

-

From failures and outages

-

-

Cumulative cost of ownership, present value

Paramagnetic BeamCell Crossover

Cost breakdown, present value over the horizon
Cost line Paramagnetic BeamCell Difference
Request a quote for your O₂ measurement Tell us the background matrix, the range you need and whether the point is safety-critical, and we will tell you what an outage is realistically worth on that stream.

Method. Capital and installation fall in month zero. Failures are modelled as an expected cost accruing evenly across the year rather than as discrete events, so the curve is smooth and the result is an average across many installations rather than a prediction for yours. Calibration, service and interference costs accrue evenly. Everything is discounted to present value at the rate you set. The measurement point count multiplies both sides equally.

Read the three contribution figures rather than only the total. The paramagnetic analyzer costs less to buy and that does not change, so the capital line runs against the BeamCell in almost every configuration. If you set the outage cost to zero and the BeamCell still comes out ahead, the case stands on routine running cost alone. If it does not, the case depends on the value you put on continuity of measurement, which is a judgement about your process rather than a property of either instrument.

The starting values are illustrative placeholders, not published prices for any product and not a quotation for any competing instrument. Nothing here prices measurement range, detection limit, response time, background composition effects or certification scope. Those are usually the reason to choose one measurement principle over another, and they are worth a conversation before a cost model is.