This morning I read of a fire in Santa Rosa, CA. While it will likely be months before they get to the bottom of it, the limited facts presented by the newspaper article are very concerning.
Such devices are normally monitored via computer 24 hours a day by the Key Biscayne, Fla.-based company, and a laser system determines when the beans are done and the roasting terminated, Weisberg said.
But lessee’s are responsible for maintaining Internet connections, as well as proper cleaning and maintenance of the roasters to ensure there aren’t stray beans or other combustibles where they shouldn’t be.
He also said the machines should not be used unattended, and said operators are warned in particular about periodic updates to Microsoft Windows that can lock up hardware needed to make the system work.
No doubt the manufacturer had some type of over temperature device on the heater assembly as it would be required for UL or NRTL approval. BY the same token, over temperature devices while they do protect the heater, and provide some level of fire protection are no guarantee one wont have problems. Even more so, if the system is controlled with an embedded PC.
For systems operating at low temperatures and or long process times, the heating elements will never ever reach process material combustion temperatures in normal operations. In such cases something as simple as a thermal fuse is adequate for protection, provided it is located and sized appropriately. Such a fuse would then disconnect the heater elements if a system failure were to occur.
In other cases, due to process speed, or the need for higher temperatures, it is exceedingly likely the heater surface temperature will be higher than the combustion temperature of the process material. While a thermal cutout is still a must to protect the heater elements, if combustible materials contact the heater surface, fire is likely to occur. In such cases, the mechanical design must be such to keep combustible material from the heater, and/or provide for an environment where a fire can’t start, or be self extinguishing. This can be pretty challenging.
Then to add insult to injury, there are often compelling reasons to use an embedded PC to control the process. From a bean counter point of view, adding a second controller, and thirdly, an thermal over limit device seem overkill. Why not let the PC directly control the process? It could monitor the system for over temp conditions, it can shut things down, and it can even send off an email if a problem occurs. Why should we add the cost of 2 more devices?
The problem… PC’s do a multitude of things, add in unattended operating systems updates, and there is a significant probability that the PC will lock up sooner or later. If the PC is the solitary control device, and it locks up the following is likely. The heater outputs will either go full on, or full off, and its impossible to predict which will occur. Being the PC is locked up, it cant detect over temperature conditions, should the heaters be full on. Being the PC is locked up, it cant send out an email, or SMS telling of the problem. The end result… if the PC locks up, with the outputs powered down, no problem. On the other hand, if it locks up, with heaters at 100% power, they are likely to over temp the process, and may reach the combustible stage. Thus at a minimum, a secondary overtemperature protection device is a must. Ideally though, the actual process would be controlled external to the PC, such that all the PC does is deliver a set point value to the aforementioned controller.
On the other hand, even with a dedicated control system apart from the pc, and tertiary over temperature protection… good mechanical design as mentioned before is required. Combustible material build-ups in the wrong area is beyond the ability of the pcs, secondary controllers, or tertiary overlimit devices to prevent fire.






