Bob Brister wrote: > Hello, > My interpretation of the criteria listed in 5.4.9 is if, > under simulated fault conditions, a hole forms in the > enclosure, that is not necessarily a failure of the product > to remain safe. Would you agree?
That depends. > The criteria seems to indicate that if there is no: > > 1. propagation of fire beyond the product. > 2. emission of molten metal, and > 3. no non-compliance with another section of the standard > due to enclosure deformation, > > the product meets the requirements. This may not be a > situation you care to allow from a product quality or > customer satisfaction point of view, but it is not a > failure of the product to comply to the requirements. I understand your point, but (I'm not being facetious) "non-compliance with another section of the standard due to enclosure deformation" can be a tangled web: Does the hole constitute user access to hazardous voltages? Does the hole consitute a compromise in bottom enclosure integrity? How is the test being performed to ensure against "fire beyond the product"? What is the test setup for the top enclosure? What is the test setup for the bottom enclosure? Cheescloth? Just exploring the devil's advocate side for the moment. I don't know if I've really helped. ************************************************************ ------------------------------------------------------------ The comments and opinions stated herein are mine alone, and do not reflect those of my employer. ------------------------------------------------------------ ************************************************************
