KISS EFI

[Garfield Willis]

On Sat, 1 Jul 2000 08:41:15 -0400, "Bruce Plecan" <nacelp at bright.net>
wrote:

>> Actually, we ARE all fans of what's simple, aren't we?
>
>Nope, that's on the way out.

Sad then.

>What gets missed there is "enough" to do what we need done.  Lots of systems
>are top heavy with novelty then needed function

Good point.

>Things can be so simple that to be more reliable would only mean redundant.

Ahh, now THAT's a good design, when you can say that.

>> Redundancy and simplicity have NOTHING to do with each other.
>
>?? a simple system, if using passive redundance, maybe, but if using active,
>means that it needs to be more complex.

Oooops, ya got me there. I can remember one case where active redundancy
was achieved with hardly any extra complexity (but it did add *some*),
but it wasn't a "voting" style of failsafe, but rather a "failsoft"
setup where if either of the fuel injection controller's failed, the
worst case could leave the engine stuck at FULL power, which is a very
acceptable situation for an aircraft engine in an emergency. You just
fly full tilt to the nearest divert point, kill the engine for landing,
and dead-stick it in. Course you only get one try at the landing, but it
sure beats a forced landing in a housing project. :)

Ahhh, enough of this philosophy, let's go explode some gas!

Gar


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes)
in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo at lists.diy-efi.org