All excellent points. At our current "mobilization level", a hobby standardized kill system is a moot point anyway. Besides, the Cromwell's remote kill system has already been tested and validated. I just have to make sure Marty's van is parked at the correct spot when something goes wrong! ;-)
ST On Monday, November 17, 2014 11:38:50 AM UTC-5, Frank Pittelli wrote: > > Way back in the stone age, my doctoral thesis was on the design of > fault-tolerant electronics. A lot has changed in the 25+ years, but > reliability theory hasn't changed much since Roman times when the > historian Juvenal coined the phrase "Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?" > (i.e., But who will guard the guardians themselves?) and an anonymous > sanitation engineer coined the phrase "Custodite Hoc est simplex > stultus" (i.e., Keep It Simple Stupid). > > So, I ask the question: Is it more reliable or less reliable to add a > secondary RC-based control system to a vehicle as a safety cut-off for > the primary RC-based control system? > > Typically, the following topics are addressed when trying to answer such > a question: > > 1) Will the RC-based kill system handle all of the same fault scenarios > as the manual cutoff system? > > 2) Will the RC-based kill system introduce additional fault scenarios > that must be handled? > > 3) Will the RC-based kill system use electro-mechanical parts that are > more or less reliable than both the primary RC-based control system and > the manual kill system? > -- -- You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group. To post a message, send email to rctankcombat@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe, send email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "R/C Tank Combat" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rctankcombat+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
