I was in a discussion with a co-worker when the anti-tease mechanism of an EMO came up and I was reminded of an anecdotal story from the late 1990s that I heard from a German Safety engineer at LGA Nürnberg. What was told to me is the anti-tease requirement came about partly because people on an italian auto assembly line wanted an extra smoke break. They would tease the switch until the assembly line shut down and the switch would not retain the 'tripped" position to identify exactly who did it.
Can anyone validate this story? Thanks, doug -- Douglas E Powell doug...@gmail.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01 - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <emc-p...@ieee.org> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>
