John In my mind the fusable link is only there to stop the battery from exploding. Fuses are normally used to prevent damage to delicate circuitry. In this case I don't care if the circuit gets damaged, and it isn't that delicate. I want the thing the keep working even under minor fault conditions. The fuse cannot be replaced under water, so it should not have ANY chance of blowing under normal or even abnormal conditions. I think George is right, even a fusable link is not necessary. The wiring will serve the same purpose. I had been planning an using largish wires to limit the power loss to a 100W bulb. But after George's comments I sat and did the calculations. To limit the power loss to less than 1% would require 10GA wire. 10GA may carry enough current to blow up the battery, but it is not flexible enough for the unbilical. So, I will end up using 16GA wire. 16GA will melt long before the battery explodes. I end up with about 4% loss, but it should not drop the filament temperature too much, so I will live with it. ttfn David Pearson Nortel, Public Carrier Networks dpearson@no*.ca* In message "to fuse or not to fuse?", you write: <stuff deleted for brevity> > >o The light should be considered life support equipment. The > > fusing should be given the same treatment as burst disks; size > > them so they blow just before the tank/battery explodes. > > I don't get your argument for why the fusable link should be > sized much larger than the load current should you elect to > go with a fuse. Are you saying you do consider the fusable > link a *weak* link ? If yes are you sure you want it in the > circuit ? :-). > > Regards, > John > -- > Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@terra.net'. > Send subscription/archive requests to `techdiver-request@terra.net'. >
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]