FIT build - Attempt Two.
10-17-2009, 02:22 PM
#142
You easily persuaded Julian. What are you going to do when your told Sundown amps stink for SQ and it's back up with a little information to "prove" it!
I've use breakers and fuses in my car. They both work and will both protect your car just fine. I would agree that fuses are superior in the way they work, but only marginally. And if you like to tinker with your system a lot, breakers are a little easier to deal with.
I've use breakers and fuses in my car. They both work and will both protect your car just fine. I would agree that fuses are superior in the way they work, but only marginally. And if you like to tinker with your system a lot, breakers are a little easier to deal with.
I've got both here - once I try both and the difference is marginal, then I'll stick with what ever works the best.
As for Sundown only time will tell - don't judge a book by it's cover Fozzzy.
Sometimes in life you have to tell people what they want to hear or they just won't shut up till you do what they say.
Last edited by avidedtr; 10-17-2009 at 03:34 PM.
10-17-2009, 02:39 PM
#144
Actually, if you buy decent quality ones, the variance is very minimal from their rated capacity.
I assume you mean the USE of fuses is over rated?
yeah, so are decent brakes, headlights, wipers, seatbelts.....
bah, fuses are for wusses!!!
...just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it wont....
I assume you mean the USE of fuses is over rated?
yeah, so are decent brakes, headlights, wipers, seatbelts.....
bah, fuses are for wusses!!!
...just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it wont....
Last edited by MTT; 10-17-2009 at 02:45 PM.
10-17-2009, 02:52 PM
#148
Interesting read (not mine obviously)......makes me need to research further of course....ocd sux.
Circuit Breakers vs. Fuses: Some Hard Fact
Although I don't want to defend circuit breakers ("CBs") over fuses, per se, there are many broad assertions on the subject (e.g., "Fuses are more precise, faster acting, and more simple (sic) which increases overall reliability many times..."). These assertions are supported neither by empirical data nor testing, so I decided to find out for myself.
The problem with comparing CBs and glass filament fuses is that the original engineering specs used for fuse selection in our aircraft are apparently not available. If you try to order a fuse from Fletchair, for example, you'll be told to buy one from Radio Shack--which is exactly what most people do. So, comparing the Radio Shack fuse to a Klixon CB (for example) is impossible because one doesn't have any reference performance data for the fuse. (Besides the voltage/current rating, the only marking I could find on Radio Shack fuses is "Made in China.")
The assertion that fuses are "more precise" means, I assume, that CBs have a wider activation range. It's worth observing that it's possible to select a CB whose activation ranges are identical to that of a fuse. (There are some exceptions, but they're micro-amp fuses, or other form factors not relevant to our planes.) Manufacturers' data suggest that fuses have a faster response time, but either device's response time is suitable for most aircraft applications. More on this later.
Using a programmable, recording constant-current generator (borrowed for a long weekend from a corporate laboratory that shall remain nameless), a friend and I conducted some casual (but systematic) tests on high-quality Klixons circuit breakers vs off-the-shelf fuses made by Littlefuse, the world's number one maker of fuses (or so they claim). Our goal was to test a fuse widely available to aircraft owners against a Klixon CB with similar specifications.
For fuse engineering data, we used the data from Littlefuse. We selected "Aftermarket Products Series," because that's what pilots would buy for replacements. The organization of data sheets at the web site was opaque, so we used 318 Series with form factor 3AG, the spec sheet for which is at http://www.littelfuse.com.
For Klixon engineering data, we used http://www.ti.com/mc/docs/precprod/docs/acb.htm, which is Klixon's (i.e., Texas Instruments) engineer's selection page for thermal circuit breakers. There's a table on the left giving all the "series" of Klixon CBs. Clicking on any series provides all the performance data for that series, including a table giving its thermal/time/current performance. (An explanation of the terms used is at http://www.ti.com/mc/docs/precprod/docs/tech-notes.htm#cb.)
We tested four values: 1, 5, 10, 15 amps. Tests were performed at an ambient temperature of approximately 65F. We tested how closely each device's activation point matched its rated value, and how fast it reacted to an application of current in excess of its rating. Our results show that CBs and glass fuses with similar specifications perform very similar in typical aircraft usage scenarios (see next paragraph). The only remarkable difference was the surprising phenomenon that I refer to as "thermal memory"; that is, when the devices were repeatedly cycled to 80% of their rated currents using a ON/OFF duty cycle of 20/10 minutes, the average activation current for the 1- and 5-amp fuses decreased PERMANENTLY while the equivalent CBs recovered to rated value. Practically, this means that in a stressful situation, the current rating of these fuses decrease slightly each time the fuse is subjected to a current near its rated value. Although we didn't perform enough testing cycles to determine whether this behavior eventually "bottoms out," we conjecture that this might account for the occasional unexplained blown fuse we sometimes find in our aircraft at startup.
Due to the 0.100 second resolution in our testing equipment, we were unable accurately to compare the response times of the devices to a massive over-current condition such as would result from, say, a short circuit. That is, when we applied 10 times the rated current, both devices reacted within 0.100 seconds. This time suggests that either device would be adequate in applications where the goal is to protect circuit power wiring as opposed to protecting the circuit itself.
MY CONCLUSIONS: Given a circuit where the goal is to protect the circuit wiring...
Here are some of the reasons one might prefer circuit breakers over fuses:
* Obvious indication of failure (both visual and tactile)
* Resettable (not necessary to carry spares)
* No chance of substituting wrong value spare
* Not subject to form breakage (e.g., breaking glass)
* No filament to break (low current fuses are especially fragile)
* Easy to disable circuit for troubleshooting
* Lack of "thermal memory" (defined above)
Here are some of the reasons one might prefer fuses over circuit breakers:
* Inexpensive
* Widely available
PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS
When/if I redo my panel, I'll unhesitatingly use Klixons (ones with lugs that can be soldered directly to the bus bar).
For anyone who thinks I'm nuts for spending the time to do this, consider I had both the fuses and the breakers on hand. Moreover, the test equipment was miraculously programmable, enabling us to run unattended tests on four devices simultaneously. Since my friend was expert at operating the test equipment, our total time investment amounted to two hours--at most.
Circuit Breakers vs. Fuses: Some Hard Fact
Although I don't want to defend circuit breakers ("CBs") over fuses, per se, there are many broad assertions on the subject (e.g., "Fuses are more precise, faster acting, and more simple (sic) which increases overall reliability many times..."). These assertions are supported neither by empirical data nor testing, so I decided to find out for myself.
The problem with comparing CBs and glass filament fuses is that the original engineering specs used for fuse selection in our aircraft are apparently not available. If you try to order a fuse from Fletchair, for example, you'll be told to buy one from Radio Shack--which is exactly what most people do. So, comparing the Radio Shack fuse to a Klixon CB (for example) is impossible because one doesn't have any reference performance data for the fuse. (Besides the voltage/current rating, the only marking I could find on Radio Shack fuses is "Made in China.")
The assertion that fuses are "more precise" means, I assume, that CBs have a wider activation range. It's worth observing that it's possible to select a CB whose activation ranges are identical to that of a fuse. (There are some exceptions, but they're micro-amp fuses, or other form factors not relevant to our planes.) Manufacturers' data suggest that fuses have a faster response time, but either device's response time is suitable for most aircraft applications. More on this later.
Using a programmable, recording constant-current generator (borrowed for a long weekend from a corporate laboratory that shall remain nameless), a friend and I conducted some casual (but systematic) tests on high-quality Klixons circuit breakers vs off-the-shelf fuses made by Littlefuse, the world's number one maker of fuses (or so they claim). Our goal was to test a fuse widely available to aircraft owners against a Klixon CB with similar specifications.
For fuse engineering data, we used the data from Littlefuse. We selected "Aftermarket Products Series," because that's what pilots would buy for replacements. The organization of data sheets at the web site was opaque, so we used 318 Series with form factor 3AG, the spec sheet for which is at http://www.littelfuse.com.
For Klixon engineering data, we used http://www.ti.com/mc/docs/precprod/docs/acb.htm, which is Klixon's (i.e., Texas Instruments) engineer's selection page for thermal circuit breakers. There's a table on the left giving all the "series" of Klixon CBs. Clicking on any series provides all the performance data for that series, including a table giving its thermal/time/current performance. (An explanation of the terms used is at http://www.ti.com/mc/docs/precprod/docs/tech-notes.htm#cb.)
We tested four values: 1, 5, 10, 15 amps. Tests were performed at an ambient temperature of approximately 65F. We tested how closely each device's activation point matched its rated value, and how fast it reacted to an application of current in excess of its rating. Our results show that CBs and glass fuses with similar specifications perform very similar in typical aircraft usage scenarios (see next paragraph). The only remarkable difference was the surprising phenomenon that I refer to as "thermal memory"; that is, when the devices were repeatedly cycled to 80% of their rated currents using a ON/OFF duty cycle of 20/10 minutes, the average activation current for the 1- and 5-amp fuses decreased PERMANENTLY while the equivalent CBs recovered to rated value. Practically, this means that in a stressful situation, the current rating of these fuses decrease slightly each time the fuse is subjected to a current near its rated value. Although we didn't perform enough testing cycles to determine whether this behavior eventually "bottoms out," we conjecture that this might account for the occasional unexplained blown fuse we sometimes find in our aircraft at startup.
Due to the 0.100 second resolution in our testing equipment, we were unable accurately to compare the response times of the devices to a massive over-current condition such as would result from, say, a short circuit. That is, when we applied 10 times the rated current, both devices reacted within 0.100 seconds. This time suggests that either device would be adequate in applications where the goal is to protect circuit power wiring as opposed to protecting the circuit itself.
MY CONCLUSIONS: Given a circuit where the goal is to protect the circuit wiring...
Here are some of the reasons one might prefer circuit breakers over fuses:
* Obvious indication of failure (both visual and tactile)
* Resettable (not necessary to carry spares)
* No chance of substituting wrong value spare
* Not subject to form breakage (e.g., breaking glass)
* No filament to break (low current fuses are especially fragile)
* Easy to disable circuit for troubleshooting
* Lack of "thermal memory" (defined above)
Here are some of the reasons one might prefer fuses over circuit breakers:
* Inexpensive
* Widely available
PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS
When/if I redo my panel, I'll unhesitatingly use Klixons (ones with lugs that can be soldered directly to the bus bar).
For anyone who thinks I'm nuts for spending the time to do this, consider I had both the fuses and the breakers on hand. Moreover, the test equipment was miraculously programmable, enabling us to run unattended tests on four devices simultaneously. Since my friend was expert at operating the test equipment, our total time investment amounted to two hours--at most.
10-17-2009, 02:55 PM
#149
Interesting read (not mine obviously)......makes me need to research further of course....ocd sux.
Circuit Breakers vs. Fuses: Some Hard Fact
Although I don't want to defend circuit breakers ("CBs") over fuses, per se, there are many broad assertions on the subject (e.g., "Fuses are more precise, faster acting, and more simple (sic) which increases overall reliability many times..."). These assertions are supported neither by empirical data nor testing, so I decided to find out for myself.
The problem with comparing CBs and glass filament fuses is that the original engineering specs used for fuse selection in our aircraft are apparently not available. If you try to order a fuse from Fletchair, for example, you'll be told to buy one from Radio Shack--which is exactly what most people do. So, comparing the Radio Shack fuse to a Klixon CB (for example) is impossible because one doesn't have any reference performance data for the fuse. (Besides the voltage/current rating, the only marking I could find on Radio Shack fuses is "Made in China.")
The assertion that fuses are "more precise" means, I assume, that CBs have a wider activation range. It's worth observing that it's possible to select a CB whose activation ranges are identical to that of a fuse. (There are some exceptions, but they're micro-amp fuses, or other form factors not relevant to our planes.) Manufacturers' data suggest that fuses have a faster response time, but either device's response time is suitable for most aircraft applications. More on this later.
Using a programmable, recording constant-current generator (borrowed for a long weekend from a corporate laboratory that shall remain nameless), a friend and I conducted some casual (but systematic) tests on high-quality Klixons circuit breakers vs off-the-shelf fuses made by Littlefuse, the world's number one maker of fuses (or so they claim). Our goal was to test a fuse widely available to aircraft owners against a Klixon CB with similar specifications.
For fuse engineering data, we used the data from Littlefuse. We selected "Aftermarket Products Series," because that's what pilots would buy for replacements. The organization of data sheets at the web site was opaque, so we used 318 Series with form factor 3AG, the spec sheet for which is at http://www.littelfuse.com.
For Klixon engineering data, we used http://www.ti.com/mc/docs/precprod/docs/acb.htm, which is Klixon's (i.e., Texas Instruments) engineer's selection page for thermal circuit breakers. There's a table on the left giving all the "series" of Klixon CBs. Clicking on any series provides all the performance data for that series, including a table giving its thermal/time/current performance. (An explanation of the terms used is at http://www.ti.com/mc/docs/precprod/docs/tech-notes.htm#cb.)
We tested four values: 1, 5, 10, 15 amps. Tests were performed at an ambient temperature of approximately 65F. We tested how closely each device's activation point matched its rated value, and how fast it reacted to an application of current in excess of its rating. Our results show that CBs and glass fuses with similar specifications perform very similar in typical aircraft usage scenarios (see next paragraph). The only remarkable difference was the surprising phenomenon that I refer to as "thermal memory"; that is, when the devices were repeatedly cycled to 80% of their rated currents using a ON/OFF duty cycle of 20/10 minutes, the average activation current for the 1- and 5-amp fuses decreased PERMANENTLY while the equivalent CBs recovered to rated value. Practically, this means that in a stressful situation, the current rating of these fuses decrease slightly each time the fuse is subjected to a current near its rated value. Although we didn't perform enough testing cycles to determine whether this behavior eventually "bottoms out," we conjecture that this might account for the occasional unexplained blown fuse we sometimes find in our aircraft at startup.
Due to the 0.100 second resolution in our testing equipment, we were unable accurately to compare the response times of the devices to a massive over-current condition such as would result from, say, a short circuit. That is, when we applied 10 times the rated current, both devices reacted within 0.100 seconds. This time suggests that either device would be adequate in applications where the goal is to protect circuit power wiring as opposed to protecting the circuit itself.
MY CONCLUSIONS: Given a circuit where the goal is to protect the circuit wiring...
Here are some of the reasons one might prefer circuit breakers over fuses:
* Obvious indication of failure (both visual and tactile)
* Resettable (not necessary to carry spares)
* No chance of substituting wrong value spare
* Not subject to form breakage (e.g., breaking glass)
* No filament to break (low current fuses are especially fragile)
* Easy to disable circuit for troubleshooting
* Lack of "thermal memory" (defined above)
Here are some of the reasons one might prefer fuses over circuit breakers:
* Inexpensive
* Widely available
PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS
When/if I redo my panel, I'll unhesitatingly use Klixons (ones with lugs that can be soldered directly to the bus bar).
For anyone who thinks I'm nuts for spending the time to do this, consider I had both the fuses and the breakers on hand. Moreover, the test equipment was miraculously programmable, enabling us to run unattended tests on four devices simultaneously. Since my friend was expert at operating the test equipment, our total time investment amounted to two hours--at most.
Circuit Breakers vs. Fuses: Some Hard Fact
Although I don't want to defend circuit breakers ("CBs") over fuses, per se, there are many broad assertions on the subject (e.g., "Fuses are more precise, faster acting, and more simple (sic) which increases overall reliability many times..."). These assertions are supported neither by empirical data nor testing, so I decided to find out for myself.
The problem with comparing CBs and glass filament fuses is that the original engineering specs used for fuse selection in our aircraft are apparently not available. If you try to order a fuse from Fletchair, for example, you'll be told to buy one from Radio Shack--which is exactly what most people do. So, comparing the Radio Shack fuse to a Klixon CB (for example) is impossible because one doesn't have any reference performance data for the fuse. (Besides the voltage/current rating, the only marking I could find on Radio Shack fuses is "Made in China.")
The assertion that fuses are "more precise" means, I assume, that CBs have a wider activation range. It's worth observing that it's possible to select a CB whose activation ranges are identical to that of a fuse. (There are some exceptions, but they're micro-amp fuses, or other form factors not relevant to our planes.) Manufacturers' data suggest that fuses have a faster response time, but either device's response time is suitable for most aircraft applications. More on this later.
Using a programmable, recording constant-current generator (borrowed for a long weekend from a corporate laboratory that shall remain nameless), a friend and I conducted some casual (but systematic) tests on high-quality Klixons circuit breakers vs off-the-shelf fuses made by Littlefuse, the world's number one maker of fuses (or so they claim). Our goal was to test a fuse widely available to aircraft owners against a Klixon CB with similar specifications.
For fuse engineering data, we used the data from Littlefuse. We selected "Aftermarket Products Series," because that's what pilots would buy for replacements. The organization of data sheets at the web site was opaque, so we used 318 Series with form factor 3AG, the spec sheet for which is at http://www.littelfuse.com.
For Klixon engineering data, we used http://www.ti.com/mc/docs/precprod/docs/acb.htm, which is Klixon's (i.e., Texas Instruments) engineer's selection page for thermal circuit breakers. There's a table on the left giving all the "series" of Klixon CBs. Clicking on any series provides all the performance data for that series, including a table giving its thermal/time/current performance. (An explanation of the terms used is at http://www.ti.com/mc/docs/precprod/docs/tech-notes.htm#cb.)
We tested four values: 1, 5, 10, 15 amps. Tests were performed at an ambient temperature of approximately 65F. We tested how closely each device's activation point matched its rated value, and how fast it reacted to an application of current in excess of its rating. Our results show that CBs and glass fuses with similar specifications perform very similar in typical aircraft usage scenarios (see next paragraph). The only remarkable difference was the surprising phenomenon that I refer to as "thermal memory"; that is, when the devices were repeatedly cycled to 80% of their rated currents using a ON/OFF duty cycle of 20/10 minutes, the average activation current for the 1- and 5-amp fuses decreased PERMANENTLY while the equivalent CBs recovered to rated value. Practically, this means that in a stressful situation, the current rating of these fuses decrease slightly each time the fuse is subjected to a current near its rated value. Although we didn't perform enough testing cycles to determine whether this behavior eventually "bottoms out," we conjecture that this might account for the occasional unexplained blown fuse we sometimes find in our aircraft at startup.
Due to the 0.100 second resolution in our testing equipment, we were unable accurately to compare the response times of the devices to a massive over-current condition such as would result from, say, a short circuit. That is, when we applied 10 times the rated current, both devices reacted within 0.100 seconds. This time suggests that either device would be adequate in applications where the goal is to protect circuit power wiring as opposed to protecting the circuit itself.
MY CONCLUSIONS: Given a circuit where the goal is to protect the circuit wiring...
Here are some of the reasons one might prefer circuit breakers over fuses:
* Obvious indication of failure (both visual and tactile)
* Resettable (not necessary to carry spares)
* No chance of substituting wrong value spare
* Not subject to form breakage (e.g., breaking glass)
* No filament to break (low current fuses are especially fragile)
* Easy to disable circuit for troubleshooting
* Lack of "thermal memory" (defined above)
Here are some of the reasons one might prefer fuses over circuit breakers:
* Inexpensive
* Widely available
PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS
When/if I redo my panel, I'll unhesitatingly use Klixons (ones with lugs that can be soldered directly to the bus bar).
For anyone who thinks I'm nuts for spending the time to do this, consider I had both the fuses and the breakers on hand. Moreover, the test equipment was miraculously programmable, enabling us to run unattended tests on four devices simultaneously. Since my friend was expert at operating the test equipment, our total time investment amounted to two hours--at most.
