Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 21:40:32 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-5086119@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.130.116.53; envelope-from=hwasti@lm50.com
From: Hamid Wasti <hwasti@lm50.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Re-doing my panel - carefully thinking through failures
References: <list-5084606@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-5084606@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

rwolf99@aol.com wrote:
> Having said that, no electronic unit will work without power.  Now you 
> look at internal backup batteries, redundant power sources, multiple 
> generators/alternators, duplicate paths for power, no single point 
> failures, and perhaps other things which are totally separate from the 
> unit itself.  In this sense, the non-TSOd unit and the TSOd unit are 
> equally reliable.
What you are saying is that in a system with multiple 
alternator/batteries and isolated/redundant busses, a TSO's system and a 
non-TSO's system can equally survive an adverse event like a lightning 
induced power surge or an alternator caused voltage surge. I would 
strongly disagree with your conclusion.

Hardening a system against these events requires money. It requires 
money in engineering resources to design it and money to test the 
design, all of which needs to be amortized over every unit sold. Then 
there is the cost of additional components added solely for hardening 
the system. Having been down that path a few times, having seen the bill 
for lab testing and the costed bill of materials, I can tell you that we 
are NOT talking pocket change.

Will a company that does not need to meet a TSO spend that money and 
increase the price of their system? How many actually do that? How many 
just claim that their system is "capable of meeting the TSO" but they 
have never actually bothered to test it?

Regards,

Hamid