Dear all I have a problem in that I cannot find any information on the electrical testing of field

instrumentation such as pressure transmitters and flow transmitters in the field ( 4 to 20 mA) supplied
through either barriers or by galvanic isolation. Intrinsically safe. I would guess that as the energy is
limited by the barrier then one could just hook up a test meter and measure the milliamps at the
instrument end and apply the pressure to the capule, measure the current. Can this be done in a Div O
area as in theory there is not enough energy to cause a explosion. Or is this regarded as bad practise.
Pepper and Fuchs do write yes in one of their blogs buit as yet I have failed to find a definative answer
from our compex guys and tend to err on the side of caution and think no. difficult I know but I would
appreciate any definative answers.

Ernest C. Magison has written 4 editions of Electrical Instruments in Hazardous Locations.

The chapter below is from the 3rd Edition, 1978, pages 253-254.
Maintenance of Intrinsically Safe Systems
One feature encouraging use of intrinsically safe systems is the ability to calibrate, adjust, and perform
routine service in the Division 1 location while the equipment is energized, without obtaining a "hot"
permit. The principle limit to what can be done in the field is availability of intrinsically safe test equipment.
Because portable, battery-powered equipment must withstand drop tests without becoming ignition
capable, there is not much such equipment available. As a general rule, this author feels that no test
equipment should be used anywhere on the Division 1 side of a barrier unless a "hot" permit has been
obtained to ensure that the Division 1 location is not hazardous. Even if some test equipment is suitable
for Division 1, unless there are stringent procedural safeguards, it is not unreasonable to expect that use
of "special" equipment will soon lead to indiscriminate use of whatever is available.
On the nonhazardous side of a safety interface element or barrier, use of any test equipment is
unquestionably safe if it contains no voltages higher than the safety interface rating.
There is no consensus yet about using oscilloscopes or other devices containing high voltage. Some
would say "not without a `hot' permit." Others argue that an oscilloscope used by a technician will signal
its own failure, and that before a high voltage can be applied to the circuitry, it will be obvious that the
oscilloscope is malfunctioning, and it will not be used. This author agrees that if the oscilloscope or similar
apparatus is always attended while connected, the probability of failure which could make the intrinsically
safe circuits ignition capable is extremely low. A cogent counterarguement is that oscilloscopes and
related trouble-shooting devices are often left connected for long periods. This is especially true when
attempting to locate the cause of malfunction in digital systems. When this situation applies, and constant
attendance is not guaranteed, prudence indicates that no such apparatus should be used without a "hot"
permit.
Because intrinsically safe systems are safe despite opens, shorts, and grounds in the field-installed wiring
and two faults in the system, the system will almost always fail to perform its function long before safety is
compromised. Therefore, corrosion, weathering, shock, vibration, and other influences that may degrade
the integrity of an explosion-proof system are functional, not safety, concerns if the system is intrinsically
safe. THERE IS ONE EXCEPTION! Corrosion of the grounding conductor from the safety barrier does not

always produce obvious malfunction. Periodic verification that these ground connections are sound is
essential. Inspection frequency must be tailored to the severity of the environment.
The most likely way for an intrinsically safe installation to be violated is by modification without reference
to the original design parameters. If a new device is needed to make the control scheme work better, it is
easy to wire it into the loop without checking to see whether the limiting inductance or capacitance are
exceeded or without determining that the new device is approved for use in the existing loop. Of
especially high risk are additions to panel wiring that violate separation between intrinsically safe and nonintrinsically safe circuits.
Reinspection of the installation can perhaps minimize this kind of negative improvement, but the best way
to avoid any of them is insistence that all modifications are checked against the original design
parameters and are recorded in the design documentation.

The authors of Practical Electrical Equipment and Installations in Hazardous Areas (Elsevier, 2005) give
testing some coverage - a 16 page chapter, Fault Finding and Testing, which includes a couple pages on
use of mulitmeters and uncertified test apparatus through a barrier, among other topics.