, Tania Grant
inimitably wrote:
>However, I believe that standards should use all three precepts as
>necessary rather than an ascension order as you state.
You have introduced a higher level of insight. What is *specified* is
not necessarily *what is evaluated*. For example, it is requi
iagr...@msn.com
- Original Message -
From: John Woodgate
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 9:13 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: You won't believe this ... Well, maybe you will.
<002501c0f905$794dabe0$3e3e3...@corp.auspex.com>, Doug McKean
inimitably wrote:
>1.
<002501c0f905$794dabe0$3e3e3...@corp.auspex.com>, Doug McKean
inimitably wrote:
>1. Have any you ever run into something
> like this before?
>
>2. If you have, what did you do about it?
I would say that a safety standard that specifies a cfm rating for a fan
is a badly-drafted standard.
<002c01c0f914$4b1344b0$3e3e3...@corp.auspex.com>, Doug McKean
inimitably wrote:
>The fan itself is more of an issue of having a baseline with
>which to allow alternates to be used. If I can prove by
>way of fan company documenation that the fan is x cfm,
>then that's the basis for any other f
, June 19, 2001 11:19 PM
To: EMC-PSTC Discussion Group
Subject: You won't believe this ... Well, maybe you will.
Dear all,
In bringing a product through safety and having many
issues, it might surprise you that after all was said and
done, the entire safety approval reduced to a simple
2001 4:05 PM
To: EMC-PSTC Discussion Group
Subject: Re: You won't believe this ... Well, maybe you will.
"Rich Nute" wrote:
>
> Hi Doug:
>
> The issue for me is: What is the safety requirement
> that requires cfm (I presume a minimum cfm)?
The issue is a Hazardo
to keep chasing them.
Gary
-Original Message-
From: Doug McKean [mailto:dmck...@corp.auspex.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 2:19 PM
To: EMC-PSTC Discussion Group
Subject: You won't believe this ... Well, maybe you will.
Dear all,
In bringing a product through safety an
"Rich Nute" wrote:
>
> Hi Doug:
>
> The issue for me is: What is the safety requirement
> that requires cfm (I presume a minimum cfm)?
The issue is a Hazardous Energy ( > 240va).
The power output that feeds the board is above
the limit.
The fan itself is more of an issue of having a basel
Hi Doug:
> done, the entire safety approval reduced to a simple
> cfm rating fan for a chip both on the secondary
> side of the power supply.
The issue for me is: What is the safety requirement
that requires cfm (I presume a minimum cfm)?
Reading between the lines...
The fan
Dear all,
In bringing a product through safety and having many
issues, it might surprise you that after all was said and
done, the entire safety approval reduced to a simple
cfm rating fan for a chip both on the secondary
side of the power supply.
For some obvious reasons of which I hope y
10 matches
Mail list logo
