For a signal that needs to be sent to 2 systems, is it better to use an isolator or an isolation barrier?
Thread Content
There are a dozen or so signals that need to be routed to two systems; previously isolators were used for this purpose, but now isolation gates are employed in place of them. Which option do you think is better?
The signal is divided into two; the first step is signal distribution, which involves splitting one signal into two using a signal distributor. Of course, some signal distributors have isolation capabilities.
All roads lead to Beijing; as long as a function can be achieved, any method will do. Consider reliability first, and then ease of installation ； There should be more channels for selecting spare parts ； Of course, a lower price is also an advantage. In my opinion, an isolator with a single input and two outputs is better. There are many optional models available, and they can be used with any manufacturer’s products even after many years.
A one-in-two-out isolator will do just fine; it’s not at all troublesome! We are all using one-input two-output safety barriers!
Why must the signal be divided into two?
Upstairs, of course, two locations need this model; if they share the same circuit, a problem in one location will affect the other. . Personal opinion Hehe
Our factory uses isolation fences with one inlet and two outlets
Reply to 5# king82050: Dividing a signal into two is often necessary for safety and operational reasons. For example, consider a very important temperature value: what if there is a problem with the card channel responsible for measuring it? By dividing it into two paths, it can be acquired through two different card slot channels. If there is a problem with data collection from one channel, it can automatically switch to collecting data from another channel. It’s the redundancy of the card channel. Additionally, if a signal needs to be sent to two different systems or positions, it also needs to be divided into two. It is often not allowed for a signal to be connected directly to two locations, such that if one connection is severed, the signal is cut off entirely. The hydrogen signal in the ammonia synthesis process is an example of this. It is a particularly important signal; to enhance production safety, it is also required to install two field instruments. It seems that signal separation is still a relatively inexpensive option.
The views of the people upstairs on the basic set
Hehe, isn’t there an isolation device that allows one input and two outputs now? It’s no trouble at all to replace it! !
The p+f safety barrier is really useful. As mentioned above regarding safety, it can only be addressed through redundancy; it’s not that issue anymore.