Chris, There seems to be a significant split in thought about the use of a comma before the word "and" in a sentence like this. I was taught to leave it out, others put it in. It's like the discussion about putting an apostrophe before the letter "s" after an acronym. To me, that apostrophe means that we are talking about the possessive form, rather than the plural (unless, of course, it is a contraction - don't get started on its vs. it's).
What were our British cousins thinking when they devised this language that we've appropriated? Ghery Pettit From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Colgan, Christopher [Harman Pro Group UK] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 8:46 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: EN61000-6-1 - Grammar and testing on DC power ports "Eats, shoots, and leaves." Isn't it called "Eats, shoots and leaves"? :o) Good point though. I believe that rationales should accompany standards. It would really help with interpretation of poorly worded clauses. Chris From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Rich Nute Sent: 17 December 2004 16:36 To: Jim Eichner Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: EN61000-6-1 - Grammar and testing on DC power ports Hi Jim: Engineers write the standards. Engineers edit the standards. Then, the standards are published. Engineers are notoriously poor at proper use of the English language, both spoken and written. What was YOUR grade in high school English and college Composition? Most native English-speaking persons of any county are notoriously bad at punctuation. Hence the recent book, "Eats, shoots, and leaves." You have taken the correct tack: Reverse Engineering. However, once something is written in a standard, and its meaning is confusing, the statement will remain forever. This is because no one wants to tamper with the written word (because the objective was never stated, and because the rationale was never captured). The default philosophy is that the statement was put into the standard for a reason. Even though we don't know the reason, and because we don't know the reason, we must retain the statement. Note that engineering principles do not enter into the process of standards intepretation. For example, IEC 60950-1 has an alternate test for proving whether the enclosure provides protection from the environment such that the inside of the enclosure can be considered pollution degree 1. The test is a month-long series of temperature cycles followed by an electric strength test. However, this is the opposite case as the test house will not allow the use of this alternative. There are two recourses. First is to enter into an agreement with your test house as to how it applies to your product. Second is to apply to the standard's intepretation panel, if any. In either case, be prepared to live with the answer that you don't want. Good luck! Best wishes for the holiday season, Rich > From [email protected] Thu Dec 16 17:50:58 2004 > Received: from sanrel1.sdd.hp.com (brand.sdd.hp.com [15.80.36.199]) > by hpsdlfsa.sdd.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_26304)/8.9.3 SMKit7.02 sdd epg) with SMTP id RAA15971 > for <[email protected]>; Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:50:56 -0800 (PST) > Received: from alphaone.ieee.org (unknown [140.98.193.12]) > by sanrel1.sdd.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17CFC2B1F2 > for <[email protected]>; Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:50:51 -0800 (PST) > Received: from alphaone (alphaone [140.98.193.12]) > by alphaone.ieee.org (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id iBH1c8tJ015916; > Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:38:08 -0500 (EST) > Received: from LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG by LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release > 1.8e) with spool id 22131 for [email protected]; Thu, 16 Dec > 2004 20:38:07 -0500 > Received: from ruebert.ieee.org (pager.ieee.org [140.98.193.10]) by > alphaone.ieee.org (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id > iBH1c2V5015904 for <[email protected]>; Thu, 16 Dec 2004 > 20:38:02 -0500 (EST) > Received: from hormel9.ieee.org (gemini4.ieee.org [140.98.193.189]) by > ruebert.ieee.org (Switch-3.1.0/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id > iBH1bx92023520 for <[email protected]>; Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:37:59 > -0500 (EST) > Received: from xbc-mail2.xantrex.com (h64-251-87-137.bigpipeinc.com > [64.251.87.137] (may be forged)) by hormel9.ieee.org > (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iBH1bqDb004126 for > <[email protected]>; Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:37:53 -0500 (EST) > Received: from xbc-mail1.xantrex.com ([10.10.8.210]) by xbc-mail2.xantrex.com > with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:37:53 -0800 > Importance: normal > Priority: normal > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.181 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Subject: EN61000-6-1 - Grammar and testing on DC power ports > Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:37:53 -0800 > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > X-MS-Has-Attach: > X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: <[email protected]> > Thread-Topic: EN61000-6-1 - Grammar and testing on DC power ports > thread-index: AcTj2Qb03EBxXAgrTB2o2ExuTkpK1A== > From: "Jim Eichner" <[email protected]> > To: "EMC-PSTC - Forum" <[email protected]> > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Dec 2004 01:37:53.0836 (UTC) > FILETIME=[07047EC0:01C4E3D9] > X-UCE-Filter-Settings: 90_OPT_OUT > X-Scanned-By: IEEE UCE Filtering Service (uce . ieee . org) > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Sender: [email protected] > Precedence: list > X-EPG-Spam-Status: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.308219, version=0.13.7.2 > X-EPG-Spam-Branding: http://www.sdd.hp.com/go/epgspam > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by hpsdlfsa.sdd.hp.com id RAA15971 > > >From Table 3 we get the following Remark, under both rows 3.2 and 3.3: > > "For application to input ports see note 4". > > If I read that the way it is written, with no punctuation, then the > meaning that I get from it is that the tests are required on both DC > input and DC output ports, but if you are testing an input port, you > should read note 4. I admit that the logical expectation is that they > meant it the way they wrote it. > > If, however, we add a semi-colon, the meaning changes considerably: > "For application to input ports; see note 4". In that case, the meaning > I get from it would be that the test is only required on DC input ports. > Of course I have no reason to believe that they forgot this colon, > except that perhaps it makes more sense that way. > > What got me thinking about this is partly the contents of note 4, which > gives a 10m criteria for input cables and says nothing about output > cables. Surely in the real world the likelihood of having real surges > and EFT events on DC output ports, by way of conduction from the mains > through the product, is fairly low, given that the product's impedances, > isolation barriers, etc, lie between the mains and the DC output. > Besides, if the damage from that sort of event is what they are worried > about the tests on the input port(s) would suffice. So I concluded that > they must be concerned about surges or EFT's that result from coupling > onto the output leads from external sources, in which case I would > expect a length criteria. > > Does anyone know the intent? What are test houses actually doing - > testing both or just DC inputs? If they are testing DC output ports, is > there a 10m criteria? Can anybody explain or speculate why a 10m > criteria for DC output cables would not be appropriate? > > Thanks for your help, > > Jim Eichner, P.Eng. > Compliance Engineering Manager > Xantrex Technology Inc. > e-mail: [email protected] > web: www.xantrex.com > Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend. > Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, > is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain > confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, > disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all > copies of the original message. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society > emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ > > To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] > > Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/listserv/request/user-guide.html > > List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > > Scott Douglas [email protected] > > For policy questions, send mail to: > > Richard Nute: [email protected] > Jim Bacher: [email protected] > > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > > http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc > This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/listserv/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/listserv/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/listserv/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
