I read in !emc-pstc that richhug...@aol.com wrote (in <4a.21adfde8.2c88f
a...@aol.com>) about 'fuse replacement markings' on Thu, 4 Sep 2003:
>I think that you and I have gone through the merits and demerits of
> the way IEC 60950 and IEC 60065 cover fuse markings already in
>this f
John,
I think that you and I have gone through the merits and demerits of the way
IEC 60950 and IEC 60065 cover fuse markings already in this forum, let's not
go over old ground again.
Richard
I read in !emc-pstc that Peter L. Tarver
wrote (in )
about 'fuse replacement markings' on Thu, 4 Sep 2003:
>Since I am trying to comply with an end product standard's requirements,
>component standards' marking requirements would not apply to end-product
>markings, unless explicitly stated in t
Richard -
I recall using that before, to good effect. I'd forgotten
about it. Thank you for the reminder.
Regards,
Peter L. Tarver, PE
Product Safety Manager
Homologation Services
Sanmina-SCI Corp.
San Jose, CA
peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com
From: Richard Hughes
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2
John -
Since I am trying to comply with an end product standard's
requirements, component standards' marking requirements
would not apply to end-product markings, unless explicitly
stated in the end-product standard.
It is reasonable to expect that plain language markings
(using appropriate nat
From: richhug...@aol.com [mailto:richhug...@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 2:29 AM
To: j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Multiple postings re fuse replacement markings
Folks,
Apologies for bombarding you with the same Email. This was because AOL sent
me
Folks,
Apologies for bombarding you with the same Email. This was because AOL sent
me a message that my message couldn't be sent and so I re-tried. If its any
consolation, that means I got extra helpings of "so-and-so is out of the
office" messages.
Richard Hughes
I read in !emc-pstc that richhug...@aol.com wrote (in <130.2454e3f2.2c7e
9...@aol.com>) about 'fuse replacement markings' on Wed, 27 Aug 2003:
>There are plenty of fuse standards other than IEC 60127 and
>unfortunately there is little or no commonality in marking
>requirements betwe
I read in !emc-pstc that richhug...@aol.com wrote (in <174.1f945a94.2c7e
a...@aol.com>) about 'fuse replacement markings' on Wed, 27 Aug 2003:
>There are plenty of fuse standards other than IEC 60127 and
>unfortunately there is little or no commonality in marking
>requirements betwee
John,
Regarding your comment:
"Aren't you trying to conform to IEC 60950? If so, the code that I posted is
what is required. I am surprised that clause 1.7.6 is so vague, when the
corresponding clause in IEC 60065 is very explicit that the code specified in
IEC 60127 shall be used"
There are ple
John,
Regarding your comment:
"Aren't you trying to conform to IEC 60950? If so, the code that I posted is
what is required. I am surprised that clause 1.7.6 is so vague, when the
corresponding clause in IEC 60065 is very explicit that the code specified in
IEC 60127 shall be used"
There are ple
John,
Regarding your comment:
"Aren't you trying to conform to IEC 60950? If so, the code that I posted is
what is required. I am surprised that clause 1.7.6 is so vague, when the
corresponding clause in IEC 60065 is very explicit that the code specified in
IEC 60127 shall be used"
There are ple
John,
Regarding your comment:
"Aren't you trying to conform to IEC 60950? If so, the code that I posted is
what is required. I am surprised that clause 1.7.6 is so vague, when the
corresponding clause in IEC 60065 is very explicit that the code specified in
IEC 60127 shall be used"
There are ple
Peter,
I cannot answer for the committee of test laborarories, but I have been a
member of the committees involved with writing IEC 60950-1 and its
predecessors for many years and so I can at least provide my perspective on
what the intended requirements are.
For me, the question is clearly ans
I read in !emc-pstc that Peter L. Tarver
wrote (in )
about 'fuse replacement markings' on Wed, 27 Aug 2003:
>Since the fuse is operator replaceable, I do not expect that marking as
>you represented below, will meet the requirements of the standard, since
>the intent is to use more plain languag
Hi Peter:
> Is anyone aware of any CTL decisions for
> IEC60950:2000 or -1, where operator accessible
> fuse replacement marking requirements may be
> waived, based on the fuse not being required for
> safety reasons (did not open during any test
> under any conditions of test) and where of t
John -
I agree that the fuse may be deleted from the product on the
basis it is not required for safety compliance. It's
ultimately the decision of my customer to accept or reject
any such advice.
Since the fuse is operator replaceable, I do not expect that
marking as you represented below, wi
I read in !emc-pstc that Peter L. Tarver
wrote (in )
about 'fuse replacement markings' on Tue, 26 Aug 2003:
>Is anyone aware of any CTL decisions for
>> IEC60950:2000 or -1, where operator accessible
>> fuse replacement marking requirements may be
>> waived, based on the fuse not being required
repost
> From: Peter L. Tarver
> [mailto:peter.tar...@sanmina-sci.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 9:49 AM
> To: PSTC
> Subject: fuse replacement markings
>
>
> The following query relates to IEC60950:2000 and
> -1, §1.7.6.
>
> Is anyone aware of any CTL decisions for
> IEC60950:2000 or -1,
19 matches
Mail list logo
