Is such a construction method reasonable? Namur sensor

Thread Content

This post was last edited by syxx23b on 2019-6-16 at 12:51. It involves an automation project with nearly a thousand Namur proximity switches/magnetic switches, as well as a large number of ordinary DI/DO/AI/AO components. Explosion-proof rooms have been built around the production line; the production line itself is located inside these explosion-proof rooms (in the hazardous area), while a dozen or so control cabinets (IO stations) are situated in the safe area outside the explosion-proof rooms. All intrinsically safe signals are proximity switches in the Namur format; due to their large number, isolation barriers are not considered. The Siemens ET200SP is equipped with a Namur input module. My question is whether it is reasonable to connect an intrinsically safe Namur signal to this Namur input module alongside a regular DIDO module on the same rack. Siemens will never tell you that this is reasonable, after all, in addition to this, Siemens also has specialized explosion-proof IO systems. But I think there’s no problem with carrying out construction this way; after all, an intrinsically safe proximity switch is, in simple terms, nothing more than a low-voltage limit device. I’d like to hear from professionals.