Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.19.112.12; envelope-from=jwvoto@itlnet.net
Message-ID: <001901c554bc$4c55bf80$01741340@JWVOTO>
From: "Wendell Voto" <jwvoto@itlnet.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-937169@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: EC2 redundancy
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 12:26:09 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


----- Original Message -----
From: "WALTER B KERR" <jbker@juno.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 8:23 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EC2 redundancy


> Jim S wrote:If we've mostly agreed that we're sizing fuse/CB to protect
> the wire and
> not the component, what would be the point of redundant feeds to a
> common power line inside the box?
> What failure mode are we protecting against with this scheme? ... Jim S.
>  -----------------------------------------------------
>
> We are protecting against a defective fuse such as Paul had or a direct
> short in one of the lines that has blown a good fuse. The other line will
> continue to operate the EC2 if you have diodes to prevent a backfeed. Of
> course you wish to separate the wires to prevent the burning one from
> destroying the 2nd one.
>
> Bernie
>
If one line is shorted and they are tied together in the box, then both
lines - fuses or breakers - will see the short fault and trip.

Wendell