On
24 July 2024 at 08:26 Roger B Said:
Arc formation and extinguishing is a wide an complicated subject. Materials, geometry and polarity all have influences. There are various voltage thresholds for starting an arc without contact, sustaining an arc and extinguishing an arc.
To move to practical examples: Automotive systems have used 24V DC for decades with no special consideration given to arcing at the contacts or the design of fuses for arc suppression.
…
As always, design engineers always have to consider the context! Though what Roger says is generally true, ‘problems are expected to start above 48V.’ is a practical rule of thumb, not appropriate in all circumstances. For example, a capacitor is fitted across the contacts of the contact breaker in a traditional car ignition system. Contact breakers open and close repeatedly at high-speed, and unless suppressed, the resulting sparking and arcing soon cause damage; the capacitor also makes the energy that would have been wasted in sparking available to the ignition coil. This is well below 48V.
Another example, what’s acceptable in a road vehicle may not be good enough in an aircraft. An electrical fire in an aircraft is far more serious than one on the road because passengers are trapped in the plane until it can land safely. Therefore, I hope that no-one in aviation follows Roger’s guideline, even though it has merit in other circumstances!
In my judgement, Duncan can apply Roger’s rule of thumb. His application is a hobby locomotive, and the worst case scenario, a burning MCB, passes my ‘so what test’. If Duncan is hauling passengers when an electrical fault causes the MCB to arc and catch fire, perhaps involving the motor and cables as well, then his train will coast to a stop with plenty of time for the driver to escape. Passengers are at an even lower risk – they’re protected by being further away from the loco and they can also escape easily.
An MCB may not be the best answer. In Duncan’s place, I’d have a think about what the MCB is for. MCBs are good for protecting cabling if a temporary overload occurs and for breaking the circuit as soon at an exact rating is exceeded. A standard 20A MCB will break at 20A, unlike an ordinary 20A fuse which will tolerate a very high current for short periods. A fuse’s ability to tolerate temporary overloads makes them attractive for motors because motors typically draw a lot more than their rated current when starting: not for long, but maybe enough to flip an MCB out unnecessarily.
In a loco, I guess Duncan’s purpose is to protect the cabling/battery, in which case a fuse is a better bet. It balances reliability and protection. I think in Duncan’s application that a blown fuse indicates a serious fault requiring investigation, not fixable by simply resetting an MCB.
An electronic motor controller might change everything. Fuses are slow acting and insensitive because they rely on a length of wire getting hot enough to melt, which can take a long time! Circuit breakers typically use an electromagnet to trigger a spring-loaded switch. Far faster and more accurate than a fuse, but very slow compared with electronics. Electronic fault management can also be remarkably clever, for example programmable to meet a motor’s starting current requirement, but treating the same current as a fault once the motor is running. On the downside, the manual might be incomprehensible!
Dave