>> Interesting article, Mark.  I think it supports use of
>> fuses, and redundancy in critical circuits.

> The word "fuse" appears nowhere in the article.

   True enough, but the implication is there.

Q: What do you call a current-sensitive protective device
for an electric circuit, that may not be restored "on the
fly"?

A: A fuse.

        There is a world of difference between "may not" and "can not".

        I think of it in similar way to the low oil pressure cut-out that they put in VW Rabbits for a few years. (Perhaps they still do.) When the oil pressure dropped below a critical value for a selected time period, the circuit would turn off the engine automatically.

        What I don't like about this system is it gives you no control or options. With a warning buzzer or an idiot light, you can choose to ignore it if the consequences of not moving the car are greater than the consequences of running the engine with no oil. With the auto shut off, you cannot run the engine regardless of the circumstances.

        In general, the system saves a lot of engines. There are specific instances, however, when it would be prudent to ruin the engine to get the car to move some distance. (An example would be if the car were in the path of a railroad train.)

        A fuse is like the auto low pressure oil cut-off. It cuts off power and then you live (or die) with the result.

        A circuit breaker gives you the option of resetting it. It might be worth the risk of a wiring fire to get the engine to run just one minute more to get over the trees. You don't have this option with a fuse.

        That is why there are CBs in commercial aircraft, even though the "standing orders" may not allow resetting them.