But I am inline with Instrument Ex e
But I am supporting Instrument Ex i
When somebody is discussing or group of people are discussing the requirement of Instrument with Ex d protection then I am against those opinions. Ex protection was developed by group of manufactures, then it was introduced to oil and gas company and officially endorsed by professional association or institution. It was like a mandatory since then. There was always money involved by motivation even though they said it was driven by safety concern. Technology was created to overcome the “ANXIETY” about safety but it was sold, it was not free, it will cost you more because you didn’t want somebody get killed or plant exploded and production stopped. This is an anxiety business.
We can have a worry feeling if it does make sense our understanding. But we do not need necessarily to lay down our anxiety on safety to a technology that provide excessive protection. On the other side, the company man who is his anxiety nerves is being inducted by the Ex people, feels maximum protection is necessarily to be put in place. Then the word “explosion proof instrument” shall be installed on certain hazardous location. I do not agree on explosion proof instrument shall be installed on hazardous location. But I agree that instrument shall be cut its energy to avoid explosion. The term explosion proof instrument describes that instrument does explode and then the explosion must be contained inside a proved container box. Instrument does not explode. Once again Instrument does not Explode.
Some people may says Instrument may explode if it is too hot. If it is too hot it is nothing to do with the explosion proof. If it is too hot then we need too work on Temperature Class. By applying Temperature Class on instrument it cuts possibility to become hot and hotter. The concept of temperature class is the certification to limit the instrument maximum temperature it can produce. We cut the hot energy that instrument may produce. Instrument can not Explode.
Some other anxiety people are still do not believe that Instrument can not explode. They says that some instrument are electrical equipment that may cause the excessive current goes to instrument and may cause explosion. So then the concept is energy limitation, practically current limitation. We are not allowing current to become a cause of explosion. In transmitter it works, but in solenoid we still need to work on technology about current limitation concept. Once again we cut energy that may cause an explosion. We shall never ever allow instrument to explode. If we allow instrument to explode then we give chance electrical people to introduce their technology: EXPLOSION PROOF Ex d.
Electrical equipment such as MCCB, MCB, yaaa…. It does Explode. It does ignite SPARKS. Electrical people can not deny that their MCCB produce SPARKS. It is exploding during the contact process. Even the lighting switches on hazardous area, it produce SPARK. Electrical have no other means rather than created Explosion Proof technology Ex d. Electrical cannot avoid explosion.
If you compare lighting switch to Limit Switch. Lighting Switch does explode, Limit Switch it does not explode. Limit Switch on SDV is only contact status, it is low current, it does not explode, it does not require Explosion Proof protection. Lighting Switch of electrical system is cutting current, it does explode, it does. Hence, electrical needs to think Explosion Proof Ex d if they are installing Lighting Switch on hazardous area. Once again INSTRUMENT DOES NOT EXPLODE.
Bojonegoro, 4 April 2024
Nova Kurniawan
A Brief Story of My Projects & Thoughts 