X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 50 [XX] (67%) URL: contains host with port number (33%) HTML: title tag is empty Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 10:04:03 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from smtp107.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.198.206] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.8) with SMTP id 2039740 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 12 May 2007 10:01:49 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.142.198.206; envelope-from=whiskeyb@sbcglobal.net Received: (qmail 53614 invoked from network); 12 May 2007 14:01:06 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE; b=lMgoj2F+39YpNv2hlvVo+2kPGBgMbbPj/f4nUVPTQ/2H5SfRpkoRJJk2gogueDQ4BfgfXNkueEvxwkO4NC/CIriLGthNo3Ay2LQAR7XZ4993cc/JvsWhMQgFmP3t3vleQdAMZfCHrRd1kDGt5SK7pFQH4H60P3mwXu0AIej1jC4= ; Received: from unknown (HELO PhiPounder) (whiskeyb@sbcglobal.net@75.26.171.133 with login) by smtp107.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 May 2007 14:01:06 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: oDOtzroVM1koNQXvGaSGbJRvRUFYGOAxUkerxp3NhLjB.S0GoEBoX0XsSumoce7xJqks123eV6_agx7U8DIbZfhl8jXCXLI6m0SIK62z8o24h6YTIO4- X-Original-Message-ID: <005e01c7949d$bbedab00$6601a8c0@PhiPounder> From: "Wally Bestgen" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: IVPT fuel system X-Original-Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 06:59:17 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_005B_01C79463.0EB45180" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_005B_01C79463.0EB45180 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hamid, I disagree. It does not provide a 'no fault" indication only a fault = indication and an indication of a fault is an additional layer of = safety. If I were to use you logic I wouldn't have an annunciator panel = at all. If you don't like the idea don't put one in. enough said. Wally ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Hamid A. Wasti=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 6:24 PM Subject: [LML] Re: IVPT fuel system Wally Bestgen wrote:=20 You are correct. It does not preclude mechanical failure of the = solenoid. I does provide and additional layer of safety over the a = system that does not have the fault detector.=20 I would disagree. The fault detector does provide the indication of = the presence of one of the potential faults. However, a "no fault" = indication does not mean that there is no fault. Instead it means that = there may still be a fault with the system, just not the one improbably = one this device is looking for. A fault detector ought to err on the = side of creating false positives. A fault detector whose "all is well" = signal comes with a whole lot of fine print about the likely fault = mechanisms that are not covered does not promote safety -- it promotes a = false sense of security and that is all to often one of the links in the = accident chain. An open coil is not very likely unless there is poor workmanship or = poor design in specifying an incorrect coil (intermediate duty coil for = an always-on application for example). If one is worried about the coil = going open (or not getting energized) one ought to address those areas = first. Regards, Hamid -- For archives and unsub = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html ------=_NextPart_000_005B_01C79463.0EB45180 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hamid,
 
I disagree. It does not provide a  = 'no fault"=20 indication only a fault indication and an indication of a fault is an = additional=20 layer of safety. If I were to use you logic I wouldn't have an = annunciator panel=20 at all.  If you don't like the idea don't put one in.  enough=20 said.
 
Wally
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Hamid A.=20 Wasti
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 = 6:24=20 PM
Subject: [LML] Re: IVPT fuel = system

Wally Bestgen wrote:=20
You are correct.  It does not = preclude=20 mechanical failure of the solenoid.  I does provide and = additional=20 layer of safety over the a system that does not have the fault=20 detector. 
I would disagree.  The = fault=20 detector does provide the indication of the presence of one of the = potential=20 faults.  However, a "no fault" indication does not mean that = there is no=20 fault.  Instead it means that there may still be a fault with the = system,=20 just not the one improbably one this device is looking for.  A = fault=20 detector ought to err on the side of creating false positives.  A = fault=20 detector whose "all is well" signal comes with a whole lot of fine = print about=20 the likely fault mechanisms that are not covered does not promote = safety -- it=20 promotes a false sense of security and that is all to often one of the = links=20 in the accident chain.

An open coil is not very likely unless = there is=20 poor workmanship or poor design in specifying an incorrect coil = (intermediate=20 duty coil for an always-on application for example).  If one is = worried=20 about the coil going open (or not getting energized) one ought to = address=20 those areas first.

Regards,

Hamid

--

For archives and unsub =
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
------=_NextPart_000_005B_01C79463.0EB45180--