On 3/23/2012 7:43 AM, N_Cook wrote:
The Daring wrote in message
...
On 3/23/2012 5:44 AM, N_Cook wrote:
Michael A. wrote in message
m...

N_Cook wrote:

Perhaps the voltage rating was lower than the required use, ie in
fused
state not rated for the service voltage across the broken section so
someone
thought, I know , we'll put 2 in series ;-)


Which would do nothing, if they couldnn't handle the voltage.

Have you ever looked at the wiring in a furnace? They use multple
thermal shutdowns, for liability in the US.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.


so you have no visual sense for emoticons



It's known as H.I.S.I., pronounced "hissy", it describes the disease
Humor Irony Sarcasm Impairment. People with that particular mental
disease are said to have H.I.S.I. fits and often put on a big display of
pseudo-intellectualism about the subject at hand when they fail to see
the humor or bizarreness of statements made by someone who is attempting
to pull their leg. It's also called The Mr. Data response
in some circles. ^_^

P.S. They often get mad when someone like me is teasing them. o_O

TDD


The only theoretical justification I can come up with for having 2 same type
and batch thermal fuses in series is this possibility.
Over time they were getting returns where the then single fuse had blown but
no one could work out whether its due to heat or current carrying. Assuming
they have space to mount 2 in at production and one is closer to the
monitored source of heat than the other. Then if practically all the returns
showed the hotter one to have failed then its not so likely the cuurrent
carrying self-heating that is the issue.


I do believe I wrote something like that early in the thread. ^_^

TDD