Talk:Redundancy (engineering)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Underwater diving Low‑importance

	Underwater diving portal This article is part of WikiProject Underwater diving, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Underwater diving-related articles to a feature-quality standard, and to comprehensively cover the topic with quality encyclopedic articles.Underwater divingWikipedia:WikiProject Underwater divingTemplate:WikiProject Underwater divingUnderwater diving articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Occupational Safety and Health Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Automotive section

I removed the entire automotive section as it is basically a cut and paste copyvio from http://www.easis-online.org/wEnglish/links/index.shtml see the sparc section at the bottom. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 01:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Error in description

This part of the write up "In a triply redundant system, the system has three sub components, all three of which must fail before the system fails." is massively wrong as a triple redundant system is a 2oo3 system meaning that it needs 2 working components to continue to work. Correct would thus be: "In a triply redundant system, the system has three sub components, two of which must fail before the system fails."

For the ability to sustain operation with only 1 correctly working component a 1oo3D system would be needed ('D' for diagnosed). Alas that typically means that internally each component is replicated once for diagnosis purposes. --Markus Baumeister, 18.7.06

I'm confused about this too; it would seem in such a system, if two failed and one remained operative, there would still be no consistent way for the properly functioning system to "out-vote" its peers. At best, it would be a three way tie. At worse, both malfunctioning systems might fail in same way and give the same consisntently wrong results, out-voting the functioning system 2 to 1. Pimlottc 20:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quad-redundancy

The article seems to indicate that the "largest" redundancy encountered in practice is in triplicate, but doesn't the F-16's quadruplex flight controls qualify as quad-redundant? Is it an exception, as it was the first fly-by-wire? 70.250.239.119 (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 747-400

A fault in the drive mechanism for the important tail fin of a 747-400 rendered that plane almost out of control, as seen on Foxtel Cable TV.

Fortunately, the design of the plane split the tail fin into two parts, each with its own drive mechanism, and "only" the lower fin was affected by the fault; hence there was redundancy.

The flight NW85 was diverted to Anchorage. Tabletop (talk) 03:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]