3 ms·
> 95+% of the time, what you're protecting from isn't a minor overload condition but a short. But these fuses aren’t labeled “fuses that will blow when there’s
by philsnow 3y ago
> 95+% of the time, what you're protecting from isn't a minor overload condition but a short.
But these fuses aren’t labeled “fuses that will blow when there’s a sorry but not when there’s an overload condition”, they’re labeled simply as “fuses”, which should blow over their rated limit, full stop.
It violates separation of concerns if I have to think not only about the fuse itself but also the rest of the system that it’s plugged into.
- blagie 3y agoYou're mixing disciplines. Separation of concerns is a computer science principle. It very much doesn't happen much when one is designing analog electronics, which is where fuses come up. If I'm designing a piece of medical equipment, it cannot kill a patient with any single point of failure. That's a systemic design issue, and any device, including a fuse, has to be seen in the context of the system it's plugging into. It'd be possible to separate concerns, but it would result in grossly inefficient, over-engineered systems. You do get a bit more of that in electrical (rather than electronics) work, since you need to count on idiot contractors who will screw everything up.