Subscriber Discussion

Intrinsically Safe Cameras Vs. Explosion Proof

Avatar
LLOYD O'MEALLY
Oct 14, 2016
IPVMU Certified

Anyone has any paper or similar documentation on the above comparison. Cost? functionality? longevity?

Avatar
Brian Rhodes
Oct 14, 2016
IPVMU Certified
U
Undisclosed #1
Oct 15, 2016
IPVMU Certified

Do you have any particular type of equipment to compare?

Because, IMHO, they are usually seen on different equipment types. I.S. is typical for low voltage applications, say a walkie-talkie or a mini-dome fixed camera, whereas E.P. devices are higher power, like a high-speed ptz or a motor etc.

Every hazardous area device would like to be intrinsically safe, but it may not be possible depending on the energy density at the device. If so much power exists so that a fire could start in the vessel, then it must be designed to contain it, hence E.P.

I.S. equipment designed to prevent any sparking/exploding within itself.

E.P. equipment is designed contain any sparking/explosion within itself.

(1)
Avatar
LLOYD O'MEALLY
Oct 18, 2016
IPVMU Certified

Thanks for the posts. However, it seems to me that the industry emphasis is on EX-P rather than IS when considering hazardous locations.I may be mistaken in my impression, so if there is anyone who has specific experience with an IS installation in a PTZ service, then I'll be only to happy to get that feedback.

U
Undisclosed #1
Oct 18, 2016
IPVMU Certified

...an IS installation in a PTZ service.

I don't think its necesarily because of emphasis, rather due to praticality. A PTZ (high spoed) many need to draw 25W or more. That is a lot of power to contend with, and insure that it never can arc.

That's why at those levels I think its easier/cheaper for mfrs to make equip to contain rather than prevent.

Does it have to be a ptz?

What's your concern on the approach vs the result?

New discussion

Ask questions and get answers to your physical security questions from IPVM team members and fellow subscribers.

Newest discussions