Comparison between digital flame detectors and image flame detectors

The so-called digital flame detector: the term \"digital\" is not accurate here; what the original poster meant was digital signal. In reality, it’s not the case that the flame detector itself generates digital signals – a signal converter is required. The signal converter outputs both digital signals and 4–20mA signals, but this 4–20mA signal is divided into several segments, each with a different meaning. Both of these signals can be used for alarm or interlocking. Flame video monitoring: Its main purpose is to transmit the video signal from the furnace chamber to the control room, allowing for the observation of the combustion process in the burners. This is very intuitive, and operators really like it. Today, video surveillance systems also come equipped with image recognition software; if the burner goes out, an alarm signal can be generated. This feature was not available in the past – it is the result of advancements in software technology. Such systems are relatively expensive, and it is recommended that this alarm signal not be used in interlock mechanisms, as it is not a directly measured signal and there is a possibility of false alarms or missed alerts.

Thank you for your help. Could you please go into more detail? For example, how many sections is it roughly divided into? I plan to use this topic to write a report discussing the differences between these two types of flame detectors. Thank you again for your assistance

The standard signal should be an output of 0–20mA. A typical classification is as follows: Fault: 0–1mA; Normal: 4–6mA; Fire alarm: 15–18mA. The signal ranges may vary slightly among different manufacturers