Received-SPF: softfail
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.240.18.37; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com
Message-ID: <4D5E9324.3060003@nc.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 10:41:24 -0500
From: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
Reply-To: echristley@nc.rr.com
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100623)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: - Day dreaming...
References: <list-4874386@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-4874386@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dustin Lobner wrote:
> Sounds good.  I'm planning on a pair or maybe even 3 MS3 units with a 
> relay board going between them.  Basically, said board would 
> distribute any and all sensor signals so that all MS3s would see all 
> the signals, but the injectors and coils would be run by only one 
> MS3.  I don't yet know exactly what I'm going to do here, but the MS3 
> (with the expansion board) can run 8 injectors.  I'm thinking 2 or 3 
> per rotor, so that if any one injector goes down, it keeps running 
> OK.  The MS3 does the whole injector staging thing well, so that might 
> work.
The goal is to have independent systems.  You're description takes two 
or three computers that have been used in a variety of situations, and 
thus are fairly well shaken down.  Then you're going to route them all 
through a one off relay board.  The systems aren't really independent if 
they all rely on a single communication path or resource.