I read in !emc-pstc that Peter L. Tarver <[email protected]> wrote (in <[email protected]>) 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 the end-product standard. > >It is reasonable to expect that plain language markings (using >appropriate national languages) communicate at least as well as >abbreviated markings.
Yes, but remember that it implies marking in numerous languages if you market the product world-wide. English is not even enough for Canada. I don't think it's practicable. > It seems rational that the 60065 accepted >abbreviation taken from 60127 should be optional, rather than a >prescriptive requirement, and that plain language markings should be >acceptable in lieu of an abbreviation. See above. > >Rather than vague, 60950-1 is flexible. But it's flexible enough to leave you perplexed as to exactly what marking is required. Also, it leaves a decision as to whether the marking is adequate to test-houses, which WILL produce inconsistent decisions. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: [email protected] Dave Heald: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
