Quote:
Originally Posted by Civicsman
I don't know anything about the Ninebot products, and I am not making any claims about whether they have either "redundant" or "standby" systems.
I was commenting about the difference, if any, between the terms "redundant" and "standby". I think it depends entirely on how the terms are defined in the systems engineering documents for the product in question. For example, a standby generator for a building can be considered a redundant source of power. In that case, taking perhaps 30 seconds to get up to speed might be acceptable. Obviously, to keep you upright on a Seg, any "standby" systems/components must get up to speed in milliseconds.
|
I absolutely agree with that. But redundancy/standby implies that the component is not "functioning" all the time. The simple example would be the Ninebot having two batteries, but one of them is not used unless the other one dies.
For what component of a Ninebot does "redundant" make sense?
Oh, and how would that component "know" to kick in?
Think of this in terms of your car, or your computer, or your cell phone. Not much redundant/standby there. [Perhaps multiple car doors?]
Of course, your house does have redundant/standby components,
I'm not stating that the Ninebot isn't safe. It's just not done through redundancy/standby. The generation 1 and 2 Segways didn't do safety through redundancy/standby.
The issue is even more complex when you consider things like "balance sensors" and "steering input sensors". If you have redundant balance sensors, and they indicate different conditions, which one do you believe? But if you have a standby balance sensor, how do you know that the primary sensor is incorrect, so the standby should take over?
But perhaps the writers of the safety statement quoted earlier (perhaps not native English speakers) thought it would be comforting, even though not exactly technically accurate.