>Return-Path: <owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org>
>Posted-Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 19:01:08 -0700
>X-Uid: 0002713e
>Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 15:34:13 -0400
>Subject: Wire Markings Mandatory?
>To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>From: s_doug...@ecrm.com (Scott Douglas)
>Sender: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>Reply-To: s_doug...@ecrm.com (Scott Douglas)
>X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org>
>X-Listname: emc-pstc
>X-Info: Help requests to emc-pstc-requ...@majordomo.ieee.org
>X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majord...@majordomo.ieee.org
>X-Moderator-Address: emc-pstc-appro...@majordomo.ieee.org
>
Scott,
For some further insight, check out UL 83, Thermoplastic-Insulated
Wire, Markings, Para. 57. This details several conditions for markings and
no markings.
Morton Nielssen
Regulatory Agency Specialist
Comair Rotron (fans)
>Now I am getting mad. I have heard from enough of you that wire marking is
>not mandatory.
>
>I understand that EN 60950 does not require marked wire, but wire
>acceptable for the application.
>
>I had been lead to believe by a certain engineer from a certain agency
>(who shall remain nameless) that marking certainly was mandatory. Not
>having a copy of the wire standards, I foolishly accepted this as gospel
>and did what I had to.
>
>I agree that marked wire is certainly the easiest way to prove compliance.
>But if it is not mandatory, one can be creative is solving the problem of
>proof. I am frustrated by the fact that I may have been mislead. If this
>proves to be correct, it will just be yet one more reason why that agency
>no longer works for our company.
>
>Can someone from one of the agencies or someone in possession of the wire
>and cable standards please confirm or deny whether marking is mandatory or
>not? And under what circumstances?
>
>Thank you.
>Scott
>s_doug...@ecrm.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
