Received-SPF: softfail
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.102.122.148; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com
Message-ID: <427941D5.1090500@nc.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 17:42:45 -0400
From: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050317)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Circuit breaker article( redundancy power)
References: <list-932759@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-932759@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

WALTER B KERR wrote:

>
> You do not have to have more than one level of redundancy to basically 
> eliminate any chance of total failure of the system with failures in 
> the 1000 hour range such as fuses as long as the pilot has time to try 
> the backup system? I will take reduncancy ever day of the week 
> compared to a single CB circuit albeit it I have parallel master 
> switch circuit breaker's but I do not intend to reset one as long as 
> the other is working :>)
>  
> I know we are not changing anyone's veiws on CB vs fuses, but it has 
> been an interesting dialogue.
>  
> Bernie
>  
>

Parallel circuit breakers?  I don't think I'm understanding that quite 
right.

-- 
         ,|"|"|,                                    |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===----        Dyke Delta         |
        o|  d  |o          www.ernest.isa-geek.org  |