Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #61455

Re: Anybody Seen a Simple LED "Fail-Over" Circuit ?

Show all headers | View raw

186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
> On 11/27/24 12:12 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> Depends on the details. Say you have flashing warning lights
>> driven by a microcontroller which also has spare remapable ADC
>> inputs: You could add a capacitor in parallel with the LED+resistor
>> and switch the micro's pin from HIGH digital output into ADC input
>> mode to turn the LED off. While the light fades from on to off,
>> measure the discharge of the capacitor - too fast means a short,
>> too slow means open-circuit. Yet there's only one more component
>> per LED if you already have a suitably capable microcontroller
>> there.
>> 
>> For traffic lights to look normal, you could flash so quickly that
>> it's not noticable to the eye (if you've got surplus brightness).
>> 
>> Now the problem is that capacitors tend to fail short-circuit more
>> often than most other common components including LEDs. So you can
>> detect the failure, but the failure is now more likely.
>> 
>>> Another commenter's statement of inverting the indicator, where "on"
>>> means "situation normal" and "off" means "abnormal" is probably the
>>> absolute simplest way to go.  But then the "LED indicator" fights human
>>> psychology that senses a new stimuli appearing in the environment (lamp
>>> turning on) far more readily and quickly than noticing that a continual
>>> low level stimuli has disappeared (light has gone out).
>> 
>> Flashing to indicate a warning instead of turning permanently off
>> would help there. Need to retrain everyone to use traffic lights
>> which always have two lights on if applied to that example
>> application though, so probably not a solution there.
> 
> 
>   There are 'critical' lights - traffic, railway, nuke-reactor -
>   that simply can't show "nothing".

I haven't been let into a reactor control room, but I'm pretty sure
I've caught traffic lights showing nothing during a blackout
before (and ample other times for that matter). The individual
traffic light units usually have redundancy by there being more
than one of them, in Australia at least. You just need a method
for detecting the failure and reporting it so it's fixed as soon
as possible.

I'm not sure what railway crossing lights do, as off is their
normal state. I assume they die too during a blackout and I
therefore slow sufficiently to be able to stop if I see a train
coming as I check both ways before crossing. Where there's little
space to see before reaching the line, sufficient slowing down can
annoy drivers behind. But tough luck to them, I won't trust my
life to a light, especially as I heard relatively recently that a
nearly railway line was closed after multiple crossing lights
failed to activate.

>   For the original question, I think using two FETs, an N
>   and P, linked to the + on LED-1 can form a "voltage-range
>   error" circuit without too many parts. LED-2 is the
>   indicator lamp. So, whether LED-1 fails open or closed
>   LED-2 still lights full. Attach an extra tiny red led
>   or piezo buzzer or whatever to it to indicate fail mode
>   if you can't just tell by looking.

Well since you're defining "too many parts", one can't argue
with that. This topic is really too general for a universal
minimum-parts solution. The over-priced indicator lights on a
nuclear reactor control panel probably cost much more individually
than an excessive bunch of redundant components to drive them all.

Though at Fukushima they were apparantly powering instruments with
car batteries when the building lost power, so redundancy only went
so far there. I thinkI remember the movie The China Syndrome showed
a fictional nuclear incident happening because a panel meter needle
was stuck.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

Back to comp.os.linux.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Anybody Seen a Simple LED "Fail-Over" Circuit ? "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-26 02:24 -0500
  Re: Anybody Seen a Simple LED "Fail-Over" Circuit ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-11-26 08:40 +0000
    Re: Anybody Seen a Simple LED "Fail-Over" Circuit ? "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-27 00:05 -0500
  Re: Anybody Seen a Simple LED "Fail-Over" Circuit ? Bernd Froehlich <befr@eaglesoft.de> - 2024-11-26 09:00 +0000
    Re: Anybody Seen a Simple LED "Fail-Over" Circuit ? "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-27 00:20 -0500
  Re: Anybody Seen a Simple LED "Fail-Over" Circuit ? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-26 13:34 +0000
    Re: Anybody Seen a Simple LED "Fail-Over" Circuit ? not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-11-27 08:21 +1000
      Re: Anybody Seen a Simple LED "Fail-Over" Circuit ? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-27 01:26 +0000
        Re: Anybody Seen a Simple LED "Fail-Over" Circuit ? Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2024-11-27 15:12 +1000
          Re: Anybody Seen a Simple LED "Fail-Over" Circuit ? "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-28 03:11 -0500
            Re: Anybody Seen a Simple LED "Fail-Over" Circuit ? not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-11-29 07:06 +1000
              Re: Anybody Seen a Simple LED "Fail-Over" Circuit ? "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-29 05:53 -0500
    Re: Anybody Seen a Simple LED "Fail-Over" Circuit ? "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-27 00:36 -0500
      Re: Anybody Seen a Simple LED "Fail-Over" Circuit ? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2024-11-27 06:47 +0000
        Re: Anybody Seen a Simple LED "Fail-Over" Circuit ? "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2024-11-27 23:47 -0500

csiph-web