healeys
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Healeys] Another con - fused question

To: robertlarson@att.net
Subject: Re: [Healeys] Another con - fused question
From: Richard Ewald <richard.ewald@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 11:56:44 -0800
Cc: Healey List <healeys@autox.team.net>
Delivered-to: mharc@autox.team.net
Delivered-to: healeys@autox.team.net
References: <6.2.3.4.2.20130101105800.02051580@pop.att.yahoo.com> <CACOF-ToffDM2jtau0TMVsf-7afLaSJv8HfbjwMeP34kgJq1xQA@mail.gmail.com> <50E35012.3070705@att.net>
You and Robert are both wrong.
Picture the two following circuits
Batt---------switch----------X--fuse----light bulb--gnd
wire rubs to ground at point X. The switch and wiring upstream of the
failure will burn out due to the excess current running through it.  it is
not protected by the fuse.
Now look at this circuit
Batt---fuse----switch---X----light bulb---gnd.
failure is in the same place, point X.  Only this time the switch and the
wiring is protected by the fuse blowing before the switch is damaged.  The
switch and wiring is protected by the fuse.
I stand by my comments.



On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Bob <robertlarson@att.net> wrote:

> Conceptually this concept is flawed.   The fuse does not protect anything
> downstream of the
> fuse except the wire!
_______________________________________________
Archive: http://www.team.net/archive

Healeys@autox.team.net
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/healeys


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>