In message <be3336be85968d49be01e66d6e365b1e0215f...@sjc1amfpew01.am.sanm.corp>, dated Wed, 11 Jul 2007, "Tarver, Peter" <peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com> writes:
>Pardon, I was not clear enough. Routine, as in routine test for 100% >of product at the factory. I was using the term in IEC standards for >what is also called a production line test. I was not referring to >in-situ testing after placed in service. Ah, a 'Euro-English' abuse of the word 'routine'. I protested when I first saw it, but no-one took any notice, as usual. I don't have much respect for the 'routine test' requirements; IR is IMPORTANT and I guess it was only eliminated to save 100 ms test time. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________
