[ RadSafe ] Interlock question

[Ted de Castro]

Do you have a schematic?  I'd be very interested to see it.  I was 
experimenting with a similar design concept because despite the 
vulnerabilities of these devices in a static state - that can indeed be 
self checking in a dynamic circuit.  The issue lies in not simply the 
devices that sense the condition - but in the requisite logic to resolve 
that into a useable answer in a redundant and failsafe manner.

On 10/30/2014 6:40 PM, jjshonka at shonka.com wrote:
> Fermilab had an interesting interlock system which replaced the micro switches that Ted might prefer and instead used two pairs of coupled photodiodes and photo detectors embedded in the hinge.  When the hinge was closed, the diodes and detectors were aligned.  They were run with square waves (I think) at a different frequency than AC (60Hz in US) and 90 degrees out of phase so that the door was checked at twice the frequency.  This is much better than micro switches which can be shorted out and appear to be closed, and when properly operating only indicate closed unlike the Fermi system which was interrogated many times per second.
>
>
> Joe Shonka
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from Windows Mail
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Ted de Castro
> Sent: ‎Thursday‎, ‎October‎ ‎30‎, ‎2014 ‎4‎:‎23‎ ‎PM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks Bob - I'll look that over.  Yet my question is still with regards
> to more primitive electronics - discrete logic, gates, buffers etc. be
> it TTL or CMOS or whatever.  These are vulnerable yet not as engineered
> and thought out as a safety certified PLC - but certainly less
> complicated and don't involve software.
>
> I don't see a compelling need to employ such in interlock circuits and
> thus prefer to stay with the tried and true, and easy to analyze and
> test, switches and relays.  It doesn't matter if failure is more
> frequent - if by design that failure is failsafe - and better yet
> detectable.
>
> Like I said - I couldn't get consensus on that from the writing
> committee on ANSI N43.2.  Its hard to say why.
>
> ted
>
>
>
>
> On 10/30/2014 11:21 AM, Bob May wrote:
>> Excellent discussion on interlock design and functionality. There is a Rockwell publication at the following link: http://discover.rockwellautomation.com/Files/PLC-vs-Safety-PLC-Fundamental-and-Significant-Differences.pdf that discusses PLCs versus Safety PLCs. It won't change your mind if you are not a fan of electronic systems but it is informative and points to the international standard IEC 61508, "Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems".
>> Bob
>> _______________________________________________
>> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>>
>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>>
>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu