larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (03/19/91)
In article <14730@mcdphx.phx.mcd.mot.com> hbg6@citek.mcdphx.mot.com writes: >I am restoring an old car which has several 'fusable link' wire >runs. They are all in pretty bad condition and need to be replaced. >Is there any reason NOT to replace them with standard wire and >in line fuse holders? Depending upon the particular circuit design criteria, a fusible link may have been selected because it has current-time characteristics which are different from that of any standard fuse. Most likely a fusible link would be more "forgiving" and permit overcurrent transients to exist for a longer time period than a regular slow-blow fuse before the circuit would be opened. Also, the fusible link may provide a greater current rating that a regular fuse (i.e., the largest value SFE-type automotive fuse is 30 amperes, whereas some fusible links are rated for 60 amperes). Other reasons for a fusible link in an engine compartment are: (1) lower cost than a regular fuse; (2) greater tolerance to vibration and heat than a regular fuse; and (3) less susceptibility to effects of corrosion than a regular fuse in a fuse holder. In order to properly assess the situation, you should obtain a copy of the service manual for the vehicle to ascertain if there is an ampere rating or other data on the fusible link. Also, in many instances a fusible link is not manufactured from any special alloy, but is simply a length of wire in a smaller gauge than the load circuit wiring that it is protecting. I believe that this may be the SAE definition of a fusible link, but I can't speak with certainty since it has been a long time since my nose has been in the SAE Handbook. Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. "Have you hugged your cat today?" VOICE: 716/688-1231 {boulder, rutgers, watmath}!ub!kitty!larry FAX: 716/741-9635 [note: ub=acsu.buffalo.edu] uunet!/ \aerion!larry