Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.102; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com
Message-ID: <000301c6f4b8$4d8d3f20$2402a8c0@edward2>
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-1490039@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Fuse Ratings for Wiring??
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 22:26:15 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Some very good points and information, Chad.

My personal experience (a number of years flying military aircraft as an 
electronic warfare officer) has clearly shown you can have circuit breakers 
trip due to a temporary condition, reset the circuit breaker and have a 
functioning system - not always, not necessarily the major of times, but it 
does happen.  One thing is  absolutely for certain - when a fuse blows there 
is no resetting.

I also use fuses - so I am not against them by any means.  I think there is 
a place for fuses and a place for circuit breakers.  I look at military 
aircraft, airliners, business jets, etc, and I have yet to see a fuse - only 
circuit breakers - covering the cockpit walls (I'm certain there are fuses 
there someplace, but they are certainly not very visible {:>)).  I can not 
help but wonder why these type of high value aircraft use circuit breakers 
rather than fuses.   Circuit breakers are in essence  no more than a 
mechanical switch  (we all use those I believe) activated by heat rather 
than a finger.  But, this debate could (has and will) continue into the 
future, for sure.

 I fully agree with you  that each approach has pros and cons.   I 
personally will believe in the fuse approach (for crucial system) when -I 
see all the circuit breakers gone from military aircraft and airliners - and 
replaced by fuses  {:>).   Who knows - that may already be happening as I 
have not been in an airliner since my homebuilt was completed in 1998.

I do use fuses in non-critical areas, but put my trust in good quality 
circuit breakers in system critical areas.  Certainly not trying to convince 
anybody to follow my lead - we're all capable of making those important 
decisions in a manner which address our own personal Risk Profile.

.Thanks for your input on the topic, Chad.  Different viewpoints are what 
keeps us all mental alert and reassessing our positions on approaches.

Best Regards

Ed
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chad Robinson" <crj@lucubration.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 9:32 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Fuse Ratings for Wiring??


> Ed Anderson wrote:
>> One thing  I have never really understood  regarding  fuses (or CB for 
>> that matter) is  - why you would use a fuse/CB with the rating set to 
>> protect the wire!!!   If you have a system operating off a power wire, it 
>> is highly likely that the wire will flow much more current than the 
>> system requires by quite a bit.  So if you select a fuse or CB rating 
>> that protects the equipment then automatically it will protect the wire.
>
> [Dons asbestos suit...]
>
> EXCLUDING motor loads or items that may have broken limit switches, if 
> something goes wrong IN the device that would cause it to blow a CB or 
> fuse, I don't see many cases where you're actually protecting the device - 
> it's already busted by the time it triggers an external protection 
> mechanism, no? If there's a short in the wire the device will just see 0V, 
> which doesn't hurt it, and a fuse/CB won't protect against over-voltages 
> and spikes. What else would the device see that the fuse/CB would protect 
> it from?
>
> When you need protection, each method has pros and cons.
>
> Fuses are much more reliable than CBs. If you repeatedly blow a CB, or if 
> you blow it with enough current, it can actually weld its contacts. Every 
> time it pops you shorten its lifetime. They're also much lighter, a tiny 
> fraction of a CB's price, and 10-100x (or more) faster.
>
> However, fuses require very careful planning. "Nuisance trips" are common 
> when they're under-sized, and it's not always easy to avoid this - precise 
> data on expected draw for a given device is often sketchy at best, and 
> even if it's available, issues like peak usage or inflow (required to 
> properly size a fuse/wire) are rarely addressed well. A CB is better in an 
> environment where you just really aren't sure it's the right size, because 
> it lets you keep resetting it when you're pushing against the limit.
>
> I try to avoid extremist views. I don't think just one or the other is a 
> really appropriate strategy. A fuse is ideal for non- and semi-critical 
> loads - you can protect more wires without spending a fortune or having a 
> ridiculous panel, so you aren't tempted to cut corners and put all your 
> devices on a single breaker. You can easily fuse every piece of avionics 
> you have with a separate fuse, and it's unlikely any of these will blow 
> unless you have very poor wiring skills. This eliminates single points of 
> failure, where one critical breaker pops and you lose the whole panel. 
> Fuses for these loads also keeps the panel clean, so I can focus on 
> critical items.
>
> On the other hand, motor or other inductive loads that might have a lot of 
> inrush, might have a failed limit switch, might be a pump that could face 
> line blockage, or might be deliberately designed to trip a breaker as the 
> INDICATION of a limit (such as the IVO electric prop) are much better 
> suited for CBs. You also want a CB in any case where you can't identify 
> the precise normal and peak draw of a device.
>
> In defense of Nuckolls, take a look at his actual wiring diagrams, and 
> you'll see that they are NOT clean of CBs. His crowbar over-voltage setup, 
> ground power link, and a few other areas all use CBs, because these are 
> areas where trips are part of the plan. You can read his words whichever 
> way you care to interpret them, but the diagrams speak for themselves.
>
> Regards,
> Chad
>
> --
> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/
>