In message <be3336be85968d49be01e66d6e365b1e020f8...@sjc1amfpew01.am.sanm.corp>, dated Tue, 10 Jul 2007, "Tarver, Peter" <peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com> writes:
>60065, while easier on the volumetric real estate budget, requires some >good basic reinforcement applied to the mechanical design in the >relevant areas. The 60065 test simulates a localized point load, e.g. the corner of another object, which is perhaps realistic for a product in the home. > >60950-1, while easier on the other mechanical design features needed, >requires a sacrifice of volumetric real estate. The 60950 test simulates a heavy object with 'feet' being placed on the EUT. This perhaps more realistic for office machines and other products in the workplace. Presumably, all this will be resolved in IEC 62368, whenever it appears. -- 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 ______________________________________________________________________
