Hi Joe,
Start with UL 913. Then go to CSA, UL or FM sites and search on the
topics, "intrinsic safety" "hazardous locations" "hazloc".
Also, on the Safety Link, you will find a link to a 6-part tutorial on
this subject . Search on the term "intrinsically safe" or "crouse-hinds"
<www.safetylink.com>
Regards, Art Michael
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* International Product Safety Bookshop *
* Check out our current offerings! *
* <http://www.safetylink.com/bookshop.html> *
* *
* Another service of the Safety Link *
* <www.safetylink.com> *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 2 Sep 1999 j...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Hello All:
>
> I am hoping that some of you can help me gain an understanding of the
> requirements for "intrinsic safety" for communication wiring that is used in
> a manufacturing environment.
>
> My background is in telecom and ITE, not factory automation. However, I have
> been asked to assist a client with developing some communication technology
> that will be used for sensors and controls on a factory floor.
>
> My client tells me that for communication wiring that is used in a factory,
> there are requirements for "intrinsic safety" of the wiring. Among other
> things, there is reportedly a test where connections are made and broken in
> an atmosphere that contains explosive gases. Since any sparks generated from
> the make/break of the connections could ignite the gases, it is reportedly
> necessary to design the communication scheme in such a way that no sparks are
> generated.
>
> When I asked where these requirements are documented, I was told that there
> is no written standard for intrinsic safety. Rather, the system must be
> submitted to an independent agency for review, and this agency will evaluate
> the system according to their own (internal) criteria.
>
> Now, coming from a background in ITE, I find this hard to believe. In the
> ITE world, we have documented standards for safety such as UL 1950 in the USA
> and EN 60950 in Europe. I find it hard to imagine that there are no
> comparable standards for factory automation.
>
> Can any of you clarify this issue for me? Where does the concept of
> "intrinsic safety" come from, and how is compliance determined? I am
> interested in addressing this issue for both North America and Europe. Any
> assistance you could provide would be greatly appreciated.
>
>
> Joe Randolph
> Telecom Design Consultant
> Randolph Telecom, Inc.
> 781-721-2840
>
> ---------
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
> jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
> roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
>
>
>
---------
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
