> Explosion-proof means that it won't cause an explosion
Wait, what? The implication is that their other cameras regularly cause explosions?
Wait, what? The implication is that their other cameras regularly cause explosions?
Some electronics use a spark gap as a form of surge protection:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spark_gap#/media/File:PCB_Spar...
None of that would be acceptable in an environment that requires intrinsically safe equipment.
The electronics also need to be carefully current-limited so there's no chance they overheat and cause an explosion that way too.
Explosion proof / flame proof enclosures don't prevent explosions. Their sole purpose is to contain the explosion and to ensure that the gases escaping from the enclosure do not ignite the surrounding atmosphere. The beauty of a flameproof enclosure is that I can put standard, non-protected electronics into an enclosure and use them in a hazardous area. It's a much more affordable way of deploying electronics into hazardous areas, rather than designing from scratch and certifying.
Non-explosion protected electronics... sure. All you need is an atmosphere of sufficient concentration and a spark with sufficient ignition energy OR a hot surface that is above the atmosphere's auto ignition temperature (think a hot resistor on a PCB). Some chemicals have absurdly low auto ignition temperatures or ignition energies. Engineers must spec equipment for chemicals they expect to encounter within the hazardous area. Engineers also have to factor in how often the flammable atmosphere will be present. All of this is spelled in out IEC60079 for Europe and RoW. US has their own standards.