What are the consequences of connecting an explosion-proof instrument to a safety barrier?

Isn’t this exactly the wiring requirement for instruments in explosion-proof areas?

A regular cable will do; the intrinsically safe type being used now increases costs and raises the required standard

It only wastes the safety barrier and increases costs; there are no other effects.

1. From a technical standpoint as well as in terms of actual performance, there are no issues with the intrinsically safe cables used for flameproof instruments. This is because the technical specifications for cables used for intrinsically safe signals (the term \"intrinsically safe cable\" is not accurate) are more stringent, with stricter requirements regarding inductance and capacitance compared to ordinary cables. 2. Installing a safety barrier on flameproof instruments brings no benefits at all, only disadvantages. Intrinsic safety instruments consume little electricity, and a fault in them will not cause explosive gases to ignite. The safety barrier is used to limit the amount of energy that reaches the instruments on site, ensuring that the energy transmitted there is not sufficient to ignite hazardous gases; this is what constitutes intrinsic safety. Safety barriers are necessary for intrinsic safety instruments – without them, a true intrinsic safety circuit cannot be established. However, in the case of flameproof instruments, when the instrument itself fails, the spark energy generated may ignite explosive gases. But since the thinner casing of such instruments is sturdy enough, any explosion that occurs inside does not leak outside, and thus it does not trigger the explosion of external explosive gases. This is the mechanism by which flameproof instruments prevent explosions. This explanation is that flameproof instruments are not like intrinsically safe instruments; intrinsically safe instruments require very little energy to function and fall within the category of intrinsically safe devices, whereas flameproof instruments necessarily require more energy than intrinsically safe instruments. Since safety barriers impose strict upper limits on the energy transmitted to the field, when a flameproof instrument is connected to a circuit via such a safety barrier, the energy constraints may prevent the instrument from functioning properly due to insufficient energy! This is a potential problem; it’s possible that some explosion-proof instruments require very little energy to function, and the addition of a safety barrier might not have any impact on them. However, this doesn’t mean that all explosion-proof instruments will be free from issues when a safety barrier is used – it’s just that the person in question was lucky enough not to encounter any problems. 3. By adding a safety barrier to the flameproof instruments, an additional element is introduced; from the perspective of fault analysis, this increases the likelihood of circuit failures, so there are no advantages at all – only disadvantages. In summary, it is highly recommended that the original poster remove the safety barrier!

Although a safety barrier is used, the wiring of this intrinsically safe instrument belongs to a \"non-related circuit\" and should be laid together with \"non-intrinsically safe\" circuits (or shared via a multi-core cable). The starting voltage of most transmitters is around 11V, while the output voltage of an AI safety barrier at full load is 16V; therefore, they can be used together. Note that some older flameproof transmitters have a starting voltage greater than 18V, in which case the lights will not light up. Worst-case scenario: You used a blue cable (blue is the color indicating intrinsically safe systems), and the maintenance personnel assumed that the \"intrinsically safe\" circuit was live and thus should not be plugged or unplugged. Since the transmitter is not intrinsically safe, sparks were generated, which ignited the gas. . . . :Q: I understand you are referring to the topic of “theoretical research”. In terms of actual use, apart from ensuring that the wires on-site do not mix with those of a “true intrinsically safe circuit”, the wiring inside the cabinet should also be kept in separate conduits, as it is not an intrinsically safe circuit. As for the so-called safety barrier, it functions essentially as an “isolator”, and it too needs to be installed separately. It will not be worth it and will cause trouble. @jiaguoyun

It’s a waste of money to use isolation barriers for intrinsically safe and flameproof devices. Isn’t using flameproofing a waste? 、

It’s best not to mix them up or use them improperly. It can easily cause failures in the intrinsic safety barrier

I said nothing; I just quietly moved a bench over to listen

After a safety barrier is added to the circuit of flameproof instruments, due to energy limitations, these instruments may fail to operate properly because the voltage and current are insufficient