Product maximum ratings are based on statistical failure rates - we’re confident that the vast majority of Ping Sonar Altimeter and Echosounders will work correctly at 300m depth, but below that it becomes more likely that a failure will occur. I don’t believe we have a theoretical guaranteed collapse/malfunction pressure, but it likely wouldn’t be particularly helpful anyway because the actual failure points of individual devices will vary somewhat based on minor manufacturing or assembly differences.
Operating beyond the stated depth rating might work, but it also might not, and if you choose to do so and have a device failure then that’s a misuse of the product, so isn’t something we can be held responsible for.
I’m not sure about these points, so I’ve referred them to the responsible engineer and will get back to you when they reply. Would you be able to clarify what you mean by “a registry certificate”?
I’m not familiar with that PLC, but it would depend on whether it can handle a 9600 or 115200 baudrate TTL Serial input (or USB input using our BLUART, or some other signal protocol like RS-485/RS-232/RS-422 with an appropriate converter/level shifter (you can search for “UART to RS-485 converter” or similar)).
As is discussed on the product page, communication with our Ping devices is done using the Ping Protocol. We have reference implementations available for C++, Arduino, and Python, but unless your PLC can run C++ or Python code (unlikely) then you’ll likely need to make your own implementation that can parse and send the relevant Ping Protocol messages.
“a registry certificate” means certificate from a Register (like ABS, BV or DNV-GL).
The maximum working depth is 200m, but the Register requires that the transducer must withstand a maximum of 351m before it can be distorted/collapsed or cracked/broken so We need cable and transducer still watertight at 351m depth.
I will working with our technical engineer about PLC S7-1200 Siemens.
Thanks for those details, I’ve got some responses after some discussion with the responsible engineer:
No we don’t have any certifications with those organizations.
What’s the application?
It’s likely that 350m would be ok (I’m told we tested beyond that during development), but as mentioned we can’t provide guarantees for anything beyond the stated maximum.
It’s perhaps worth noting that the Ping has an upcoming revision which changes it to use our new epoxy-less WetLink penetrators (the relevant size for the Ping isn’t released yet). That won’t impact the crushing strength, but would at least eliminate any depth concerns related to penetrator epoxy failure. I’m not aware of any plans to increase the depth rating after that revision, but fewer failure modes can’t hurt.
Fair enough. Feel free to ask any follow-up questions if something is unclear with the implementation requirements (perhaps best in a separate dedicated thread)