What happens when you blow a fuse really hard?

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 02:10:53 GMT Beachcomber wrote: | |>Some fuses I've used were filled with sand to increase the interrupting |>rating. The idea is that when the fuse melts, bits of sand would 'fall' in |>between the melted ends and help interrupt the arc. If the arc got hot |>enough, the grains of sand would melt together into a crude form of glass. |>A small, 10A fuse of this type that measures just 2 1/2 inches long is rated |>for interrupting 10 kA. |>

| | Years ago, organizations such as UL and the National Fire Protection | Association did studies on thousands of homes with fuses vs. circuits | breakers. The bottom line was that the houses with fuse boxes were | more likely to burn down in an electrical fire vs. the homes with | circuit breaker panels.

I'd still feel a bit safer if I had protection on the main entrance by both (with appropriate or excessive interruption rating, of course). The question I've pondered is, if it is better to have the main breaker first followed by the fuses, or have the fuses first followed by the breaker. I suspect the former might be a bit safer than the latter as it gives you an extra disconnect to completely de-energize the box when replacing a fuse.

| Now that could be because the wiring was older in the fusebox homes, | or the owners were so stupid that they were more likely to insert | objects such as coins when they ran short of replacement fuses, etc.

Don't people get shock out of that?

I do know my dad has inserted the wrong size fuse, before.

| But, for the most part, if the circumstances are not right, it is | possible for even the standard Edison-base safety fuses to explode | during a severe short or overload and melt their holders. If the arc | cannot be contained, wires can melt and damage can extend beyond the | fuse box. | | Fortunately, this is rare... but it is also among the reasons that | circuit breakers are considered the more modern and safe choice.

the only failure I've ever experienced of an OCPD is a breaker, not a fuse. But my experiences are not statistically significant.

FYI, I do make sure all the breakers where I live right now (my dad's house) get flipped off and back on at least once a year. The power goes out often enough for that to be no additional inconvenience.

Breakers are not necessarily intrinsically safer than fuses... This brings to mind a somewhat infamous example of slipshod manufacturing and safety testing.

There was a whole series of one brand of breakers (Federal Pacific, I think - Google to check it out) that, more often than not, simply failed to open during an overload...

Here is one link detailing a similar problem:

If you blow a fuse really hard, your cheeks will puff out, and you will become dizzy if you do it for very long. Try using compressed air.

Ambiguous is the definition of 'hard'. What is 'hard' on a fuse is voltage that a fuse must interrupt. All fuses have a maximum voltage. If that voltage is too high, then arcing problems, discussed by John Rye, means that fuse may not protect from fire.

For example two cylinder type fuses appear same. The 3AG fuse once used in autos is only rated to interrupt 32 volts. A standard line fuse for appliance operation (same physical dimensions) must be rated to interrupt 250 volts. Using that old style 32 volt automobile fuse in an appliance may not properly interrupt AC mains voltage for reasons cited by John Rye. IOW interrupting 120 VAC with a 32 volt automotive fuse could be 'too hard' on that fuse.

The issue, for the questions of the OP, is not the current or voltage rating of the fuse. It is the fuse rating for the available fault current of the supply, as daestrom wrote.

Fuses (and circuit breakers) meant for use in power circuits [US] will have a rating for available fault current. Fuses are readily available [US] that can be used on circuits with an available fault current of

If you have a point in the power system that has an available fault current of 50,000A and install a fuse rated for 5,000A, with a heavy fault the fuse and a considerable amount of surrounding equipment may disappear. That is not a failure of the fuse. It is a failure of the design or maintenance that allowed a fuse with inappropriate ratings to be used.

Not just slipshod testing. FPE sent fraudulent test information to UL. This was discovered after FPE was sold to Reliance. Reliance informed UL and most of the FPE line was delisted. Reliance sued the company that sold FPE and got a lot of money to cover liability.

and perhaps make even more fires.

You are making an assumption based on broadly defined criteria.

No meaningful answer can be given except of the most general nature.

Either the fuse will function or it wont. If the fuse does not function it was the wrong type/size for the application.

Now, try to teach this to a utility that serves its customers from a networked secondary system or with primary service. Back when a customer originally requested service, the fault current available on a 480V service might have been around 50 kA. Their service equipment was sized to interrupt this level of fault current.

As the years go by and more capacity is added, the fault current available can go up to 100 or 150 kA. Does anyone bother to notify the customers? Not as far as I've seen.

The problem is either caught when someone does a major remodel, requiring the service equipment design to be revisited, or when the service equipment (and sometimes the building) fails catastrophically.

It will buy you dinner.

| The problem is either caught when someone does a major remodel, | requiring the service equipment design to be revisited, or when the | service equipment (and sometimes the building) fails catastrophically.

And the lawyers get rich.

| What happens if one were to overload a fuse so strongly the fuse's | maximum safe interrupting rating was exceeded? My guess is that it | would start arcing enough to allow high current through the device it | is protecting for a (relatively) protracted period of time, therefore | potentially causing damage to it (and hence defeating the purpose of | the fuse, which is to _protect_ the device from damage). Not to | mention the arc itself might be damaging as well (due to the high | temperature.). Is this right? | | Is there a video or something showing what happens?

You've gotten a lot of answer so far. Obviously some good and some bad. Now it's back in your court. Let me give this one suggestion: make the video in MPEG or Theora format.

The most dangerous aspect of this is when you inhale before blowing. If you aren't careful, you could swallow the fuse.

I suspect this is a much bigger problem than people realize. Even some residential areas have increased as more & bigger homes are added. Your house might be on the same pole pig, but the primary side could have much more available SCC than it used to. Even if the utility informed customers, how many companies or homeowners are going to replace entire service panels/switchboards? As you said, it will only get done when it is upgraded or redesigned for some other reason or when it fails.

If these figures are correct there appears to be a big difference between Uk & US practice. The vast majority of domestic/small commercial supplies in the UK will be 230V phase to neutral from a 3 phase transformer with a maximum size of 1 MVA, and an impedance of about 4.5%. This gives a maximum potential short-circuit current of 33 kA, which will be reduced by HV supply impedance, and the cable between the transformer and the customer.

At the end of the utility cable supplying the customer will be a fuse box containing current limiting fuses rated for this short-circuit current. This does not rule out the possibility that the customers switchgear is inadequate, but it does provide a back stop in that if the customers's switchgear fails the utilities fuses will usually clear the fault.

John

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:27:46 -0500 Ben Miller wrote: | Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote: | |>

|> Now, try to teach this to a utility that serves its customers from a |> networked secondary system or with primary service. Back when a |> customer originally requested service, the fault current available on |> a 480V service might have been around 50 kA. Their service equipment |> was sized to interrupt this level of fault current. |>

|> As the years go by and more capacity is added, the fault current |> available can go up to 100 or 150 kA. Does anyone bother to notify the |> customers? Not as far as I've seen. |>

|> The problem is either caught when someone does a major remodel, |> requiring the service equipment design to be revisited, or when the |> service equipment (and sometimes the building) fails catastrophically. | | I suspect this is a much bigger problem than people realize. Even some | residential areas have increased as more & bigger homes are added. Your | house might be on the same pole pig, but the primary side could have much | more available SCC than it used to. Even if the utility informed customers, | how many companies or homeowners are going to replace entire service | panels/switchboards? As you said, it will only get done when it is upgraded | or redesigned for some other reason or when it fails.

And whose responsibility is it to pay for that upgrade "out of the blue" when the utility decides to save their own money by increasing the size of the transformer somewhere along the line, rather than splitting up the services among smaller transformers? Or, another way, when it turns out a home burns down because the OCPD failed due to the now higher available fault current, but was correctly sized when installed, and this is due to the fact the owner could not afford the upgrade right away even though he was notified by the utility. What if someone dies in that event?

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:16:50 -0800 Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote: | Long Ranger wrote: |> |> If you blow a fuse really hard, your cheeks will puff out, and you will |> become dizzy if you do it for very long. Try using compressed air. | | The most dangerous aspect of this is when you inhale before blowing. If | you aren't careful, you could swallow the fuse.

Just turn your head sideways before inhaling. I found it works quite well. I'd be more worried about what diseases the fuse might have.

Is it normal UK practice to install fuses at the source end of the utility cable? "Current limiting" fuses should also reduce the available fault current downstream.

A replacement service downtown [US]was a mere 800A. Right the other side of the basement wall was a utility transformer vault for part of a downtown block. The utility said the available fault current was 200,000A. All the service cable connections in the vault were "cable limiters" - a fuse crimped to the wire on one end and a lug bolted to the vault bussbars on the other end. I have never seen information on the cable limiters - probably "current limiting".

Just think of them as big fuses designed for short-circuit protection only. They are generally used on parallel sets of lines, so a fault on one line will open its limiter, removing that line from the system. This prevents more catastrophic damage. The service remains on, but that phase is then running with one less conductor.

Back when I was a distribution engineer, my standard practice was to calculate the secondary fault current available based on a distribution transformer located just outside our largest standard substation. Even if the customer was 20 miles down a farm road. One never knows if the next big substation will go in just across the street from him.

But this wasn't standard practice across the company. And for larger commercial/industrial customers, they need more information than just a maximum fault current level. Any significant change to the system needs to be looked at. But when I'd call a customer about a system upgrade (a