Electrical transmission or interconnection systems – Switching systems – Condition responsive
Reexamination Certificate
1999-10-28
2002-05-21
Fleming, Fritz (Department: 2836)
Electrical transmission or interconnection systems
Switching systems
Condition responsive
C307S130000, C307S326000, C361S191000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06392318
ABSTRACT:
FIELD OF INVENTION
The present invention relates to an emergency-stop circuit, which is an integral part of the typical industrial machine. More particularly, this invention relates to a centralized switching system and method for an emergency stop circuit.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
In industrial equipment, the traditional emergency-stop circuit consists of a “self-latching” relay that contains a number of closed (kill) switches which are connected in series, and when any one of the switches is opened, the relay is de-energized. Power is restored when all kill switches are closed, and a “motors-on” momentary switch (e.g., push-button switch) manually closes the contacts of the relay. The relay contacts are the last link in the serial chain of switches that energizes the coil of the relay. It is self-latching in the sense that when the motors-on switch is released, the contacts are in the coil energizing circuit that keep them closed in the first place. The coil energizing circuit is referred to herein as the emergency-stop circuit.
A robust, traditional circuit may have many kill switches in the emergency-stop circuit. These switches are typically distributed all over the machine. For example, lever-type switches are installed on door panels, so that power is killed (i.e., shut off) when one of the doors opens. This is referred to as the normally open configuration (NO), which means that the switch must be tripped to conduct. This kind of kill switch is the first to be defeated in practice. It is often taped or strapped closed so that a door may remain open during operation of the machine. (A common purpose for the defeat is debugging by a maintenance technician.) When there are several doors defeated in this manner located throughout a large machine, the probability is higher than desirable for a maintenance technician to inadvertently leave a switch defeated and return the machine to what will be unsafe use. Also, the cycle of taping/strapping and removal thereof causes wear and tear on the lever-type switch for which it was not designed.
Other types of kill switches used in the industry include over-travel switches. These switches normally operate in the closed configuration (NC), which means that tripping of the switch opens the circuit. These switches include lever-type, magnetic, infrared, or the like. To defeat over-travel switches, the switches are temporarily removed, terminals jumpered, mounting screws loosened, and brackets are slid out of the way. This also creates opportunity for mistakenly leaving kill switches defeated (or misaligned) throughout the machine when it is returned to service.
Another example of a kill switch is an air pressure switch sensing an air line that delivers required air to an air bearing spindle. In a demonstrating test, or debug mode, the machine may be run without the spindle running (no air supplied or air temporarily unavailable). This requires the jumpering of the kill switch during such time. Afterwards, forgetting to re-enable the switch allows running of the spindle without air, which leads to hardware damage.
Evidently, safe use of the traditional emergency-stop circuit requires experience and diligence on the part of the maintenance technician who attempts to temporarily bypass sections of the circuit in order to test or debug the system. Oversight due to distribution of the switches over numerous parts of the machine/device can cause him to forget to re-enable a kill switch before returning equipment back to duty.
Additionally, in order to test and debug, the technician must also disable certain devices whose power is controlled by the emergency-stop circuit. There is no straightforward, universal way to do this other than disconnecting the power to the device. This may be easy in some cases or not possible, very cumbersome, or unsafe in others.
A final consideration for these testing and debugging methods is the time required for a technician to trace through a machine in order to determine where to disable a kill switch or where to disconnect power to a device. Additionally, managerial time may be spent generating documentation in order to aid the technician's task. This becomes apparent when one considers a factory floor that possesses a vast array of one-of-a-kind machines, all of which utilize some variant of the traditional emergency-stop circuit. Here, hypothetically, each circuit possesses essentially the same topology but utilizes different components that are located in different places and connected by a slightly different wiring scheme.
In spite of this, implementation of traditional emergency-stop circuits that are intrinsically “safe” is certainly feasible and has been done for many years. There are reasons for the apparent success. It is a simple circuit, even though it is distributed throughout the machine. It well established. There are few components. But these are also the reasons why the circuit has not matured.
Typically, experienced engineers are reluctant to add new parts and kill switches to the circuit in an effort to “keep it simple.” In developing prototypes or one-of-a-kind machines, important kill switches such as a watchdog circuit and a computer ready are often omitted. Also, some kill switches having solid state outputs (e.g. NPN) do not fit into the serially connected topology. Each requires an extra part, such as an intermediate electro-mechanical relay, whose contacts are in the kill switch chain, and whose coil is controlled by the solid state output. Because of this, sensors employing solid state outputs are avoided, and their less reliable mechanical counterparts are used instead.
Essentially, there is a mindset among skilled engineers concerning the altering of the traditional circuit's topology. Typically, the skilled engineer begins a new project assuming that he will use the traditional circuit. Valuable time is spent on other areas and is not devoted to re-engineering the architecture for the traditional circuit or evaluating its expanded role in the project. In fact, it is not obvious to the skilled engineer to change the traditional circuit in any way in order to add functionality that can be safely incorporated within it. Such functionality, if implemented, is therefore left to be distributed throughout the remainder of the system, intermingled with unsafe subsystems such as the computer.
When implemented, for example, secondary outputs, such as amplifier “enable” or “inhibit” signals, are not usually incorporated into an emergency-stop circuit. If driven at all, a software program running on a computer having optically isolated digital outputs usually drives them. Furthermore, other feedback signals, such as “status” or “fault” signals, are not used in emergency-stop circuits as kill inputs. This is generally because each signal is in a non-conducting state when the circuit is killed, which prevents the traditional circuit from restarting. If used at all, these feedback signals are likewise connected to the computer for the purposes of monitoring.
Designing in this way fosters subtle system-wide shortcomings, which can permit potentially unsafe or undesirable operation. Resulting failures or odd performance is not attributed to the emergency-stop circuit, since its simple circuitry and lack of substantial functionality are not directly responsible. Consequently, effort is typically not expended to evaluate its functionality.
One of the shortcomings becomes apparent when the traditional system enters into a power-loss period, which generally begins when the emergency-stop circuit is killed and ends when all residual power has been dissipated. During this brief period (e.g., 2 sec.), uncontrolled motion of motors can occur for some designs, because the motors are not being controlled, yet they are still technically powered by residual power in the system. In order to suppress this, designers have used the computer-controlled secondary outputs (enable, inhibit) in conjunction with the emergency-stop circuit to simultaneously cut power and disable the connected devices. This wor
Eigenpoint Company
Fleming Fritz
Saliwanchik Lloyd & Saliwanchik
LandOfFree
Programmable emergency-stop circuit does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Programmable emergency-stop circuit, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Programmable emergency-stop circuit will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2877800