warjarrett

Thank you, Ben, for your concern for my safety. We all already know about how to protect the secondary by keeping it on position #2. There is no disagreement about this, and I assure you that I appreciate and practice it. The question, though, was about prolonging sensor life (not secondary life) when the Prism is to be stored for a long period. Can we be challenged one moment to think about avoiding a consistent drain of just one sensor (namely the #2), by repeatedly leaving that sensor under the load of the secondary? Well, my answer was an attempt to encourage people to think outside of the box, and not just repeat accepted dogma. If the accepted practice had no disadvantage at all, then there would be no reason to question it. But in this case, leaving the secondary on only position #2 (and for extended periods) does wear it out faster than the other cells. Is Chett's alternative valid? I think it is, but only if he is careful. There is nothing wrong with leaving the secondary on position S, if you are confident you will not be moving the Prism. And the advantage is that in this position, the secondary is connected to the unpowered head instead of a sensor. Do you mind if I explain this (even though you all know it)? An oxygen sensor is similar to a battery in the way it induces voltage by an internal chemical reaction? The more this reaction is stimulated, the faster the cell will wear out. Exposure to higher levels of oxygen or exposure to a load stimulates the reaction and thus causes cell life to diminish more rapidly. Thus, there is nothing wrong with the suggestion Chett posed (remove the load), except that he must understand (and it is obvious he does) his secondary will not be as well protected. Have I convinced anybody that I am sane?