X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [24.25.9.102] (HELO ms-smtp-03-eri0.southeast.rr.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c5) with ESMTP id 922080 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 02 May 2005 09:17:04 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.102; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from edward2 (cpe-024-074-189-178.carolina.res.rr.com [24.74.189.178]) by ms-smtp-03-eri0.southeast.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with SMTP id j42DGFY5028098 for ; Mon, 2 May 2005 09:16:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <007301c54f19$1f664560$2402a8c0@edward2> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: To Fuse or not to Fuse Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 09:16:16 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0070_01C54EF7.982298E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0070_01C54EF7.982298E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Since this is the umpteenth time that the fuse vs CB topic has come up = (not just on the rotary lists but aircraft list in general), and = certainly won't e the last, I decided to do something different than = just spout my views on the topic. I surfed the net and see if I could = find anything on it. Here are some of the URLs I found of interest. This guy actually did some tests and found among other things that a = fuse rated capacity can slowly degrade with repeated high current flows = even if below its burst point. But, read it and draw your own = conclusions. http://www.campbells.org/Airplanes/AirplaneCircuitBreakersVsFuses.html This one has an interesting summary, but since they are presented by the = makers of CB can be considered Biased http://www.adverc.co.uk/technical/technical-fuses.asp Another maker of CB propaganda, however they do point out that you can = not test a fuse since it is destroyed if it proves it works at the = specified rating where as you can a CB http://www.ammagazine.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/features/BNP__Features__= Item/0,2606,111238,00.html Here is Bob K's and his well reasoned argument FOR fuses http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev9/ch10-9.pdf It appears that there is as much debate outside the aviation community = (or more) about fuses Vs CB. It appears to me the CB is winning there = simply because of convince rather than any technical advantage - That = is once the problem causing the short is fixed, you simply reset the CB = rather than trying to find a fuse of the right rating and shape to = replace the blown one and possibly sticking in the wrong fuse. And you = know Americans - convince before all else {:>) - At least that's the = way it appears to me. Ed Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson@carolina.rr.com ------=_NextPart_000_0070_01C54EF7.982298E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
Since this is the umpteenth time that = the fuse vs=20 CB topic has come up (not just on the rotary lists but aircraft list in=20 general), and certainly won't e the last, I decided to do something = different=20 than just spout my views on the topic.  I surfed the net and see if = I could=20 find anything on it.
 
Here are some of the URLs I found of=20 interest.
 
This guy actually did some tests and = found among=20 other things that a fuse rated capacity can slowly degrade with repeated = high=20 current flows even if below its burst point.  But, read it and draw = your=20 own conclusions.
 
http://www.campbells.org/Airplanes/AirplaneCircuitBreakersVsFuses.= html
 
This one has an interesting summary, = but since they=20 are presented by the makers of CB can be considered Biased
 
http://www= .adverc.co.uk/technical/technical-fuses.asp
 
 
Another maker of CB propaganda, however = they do=20 point out that you can not test a fuse since it is destroyed if it = proves it=20 works at the specified rating where as you can a CB
 
http://www.ammagazine.com/CDA/Article= Information/features/BNP__Features__Item/0,2606,111238,00.html=
 
Here is Bob K's and his well = reasoned =20 argument  FOR fuses
 
http://www.= aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev9/ch10-9.pdf
 
 
It appears that there is as much debate = outside the=20 aviation community (or more) about fuses Vs CB.  It appears to me = the CB is=20 winning there simply because of convince rather than any technical = advantage=20 -  That is once the problem causing the short is fixed, you simply = reset=20 the CB rather than trying to find a fuse of the right rating and shape = to=20 replace the blown one and possibly sticking in the wrong fuse. And = you know=20 Americans - convince before all else {:>) -  At least that's the = way it=20 appears to me.
 
Ed
 
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary=20 Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson@carolina.rr.com
------=_NextPart_000_0070_01C54EF7.982298E0--