This has been my experience too in talking with test labs. Maybe this is the generally accepted way?.?.? Are you guys addressing this in any way in your user/customer docs (e.g. only tested for compliance in Hendry, model xyz, etc.)??
Naftali Shani wrote: > Sounds like the CE + CE = CE? > > In my limited experience with the 1 product tested so far NOT in its > normally installed rack, the lab did just that (generic Hendry). > > Regards, > Naftali Shani, Catena Networks (www.catena.com) > 307 Legget Drive, Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2K 3C8 > 613.599.6430/866.2CATENA (X.8277); C 295.7042; F 599.0445 > E-mail: nsh...@catena.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Lemon [mailto:sle...@caspiannetworks.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 10:19 AM > To: Nebs (E-mail) > Subject: GR-63 Seismic > > Greetings Nebs group, > > I am interested in the general consensus with respect to one aspect of > seismic testing of rack mounted equipment.... > > If a shelf-based system, which is designed to be installed in any > seismic approved rack assembly (e.g. 19"), is seismic tested in a > particular rack (e.g. Newton), is the performance normally extrapolated > to be representative of installation in any generally "seismic approved" > 19" rack (e.g. Hendry, tested by rack manuf with dummy loads, etc.)?? > In other words, is GR-63 seismic compliance for the shelf system linked > only to the rack in which it was tested, or will any generally tested > GR-63 "seismic approved" rack suffice? > > Any and all opinions welcome. > > Thanks, > Scott > > -- > Regards, > > Scott Lemon > CASPIAN NETWORKS > sle...@caspiannetworks.com > www.caspiannetworks.com
