View Single Post
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-12-2006, 02:28
eugenebrooks eugenebrooks is offline
Team Role: Engineer
AKA: Dr. Brooks
no team (WRRF)
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 601
eugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond reputeeugenebrooks has a reputation beyond repute
Re: motor stall current vs Victor ratings

R54 refers to the battery and the 120 amp breaker, directly,
in the singular. That, in combination with the diagrams and the
fact that the breaker clearly protects the 6 gauge wire, battery
connector, and battery from overcurrent, makes the intent of
R54 clear. Seeing this as a loophole is quite a stretch. I don't
think that you would get this one past any technical inspector.

Eugene



Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Lall View Post
But the loophole is, of course, that a 120 A circuit breaker (even a 2nd one) is a legal additional electrical part*. If you're reading the rule to mean that the connections don't have to be made in exactly this manner, then you have not restricted the nature of those connections in any meaningful way. You could therefore claim, that having two parallel 120 A breakers (in the usual place in the circuit) satisfies the diagram (because a subset of the electrical system is exactly as required, and the diagram does not preclude the possiblity of different or additional connections).