In message <f38c1e8a75404347a126608a8f48af55067ce...@mer2-excha2.echostar.com>, dated Tue, 26 Jun 2007, "Grasso, Charles" <[email protected]> writes:
>John and all, > > > >Perhaps you can help be better understand something. > > > >Is it really appropriate for us to define a plastic enclosure >(irrespective of its UL rating) as a fire enclosure? I don't think so, but 'plastic' covers a lot of materials, and some may be very resistant. Probably too costly for anyone but NASA, though. IEC 60065 was written originally with more emphasis on electric shock than fire, because it had much more European in put, with 230 V mains) than IEC 60950. For fire, the intention was always to prevent fire starting, not containing it if it started. The emphasis on fire was less, too, because serious fires were, and possibly are, rarer in Europe than in USA. -- 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] Mike Cantwell [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: [email protected] David Heald: [email protected] 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 ______________________________________________________________________
