Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
> There are several problems with this that makes the statement both true and > false... > > With the regulator example, if one regulator fails it may or may not affect > the other regulator. Thus, you do NOT have two separate systems. For > example, assume a blown hose in one regulator. The other regulator, in a > Y-Valve system, is most assuredly affected. That's why I emphasized "independant entities", including isolation valves. It has become clear to me through private email, however, that my probabilistic approoach was a gross oversimplification. > In addition, with two regulators, the chances of _a_ regulator failure has > doubled. Right, that's why I said the complexity has doubled, and the probability of *a* regulator failure has also doubled. > Lastly, there is still a single point of failure - the Y-Valve. Should the > Y-Valve fail, all the redundancy in the world won't help you. I know, I know....I was going to use instead as an example two independant cylinders, but I wasn't about to get my head stuck in tham "manifold vs. independants" debate! Aloha, Rich Richard Pyle deepreef@bi*.bi*.ha*.or* ******************************************************************* "WHATEVER happens to you when you willingly go underwater is COMPLETELY and ENTIRELY your own responsibility! If you cannot accept this responsibility, stay out of the water!" *******************************************************************
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]