Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: UBC97-- Redundancy Factor

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
>
>What was interesting was the conclusion that when the members were assumed
>to be loaded into the inelastic region that redundancy could actually
>degrade system reliability.  As I understand it the greater the number of
>members means that there is a greater likely hood that one of the members
>will fail and that this failure would more likely lead to a failure of the
>system.  You should read the article since it is thought provoking.
>
>Mark Gilligan
>
        Thought provoking?  Yes!

        Lindbergh reportedly rejected a multi-engine airplane for the flight
to Paris for the same reason, as did a Russian flight from Moscow over the
north pole to the west coast of the US in the 1930's. Any engine failure at
all would defeat the objective; thus multiple engines degraded the chances
of success. Both of those successful flights had multi-engined rivals who
were lost enroute.

        Yet if surplus engines unnecessary to success can be carried, then
the redundancy can help in the event one of them underperforms.

        What sort of dicey design philosophy is this new code relying on?
Where is it articulated? Are we still mired in guesswork, but guesswork now
deceptively cloaked in elegant sophistication?

        Are we going to have to make Pinto Gas Tank excuses for ourselves
someday?

Charles O. Greenlaw, SE   Sacramento  CA