In message <201048ea81ba0745aca78e4cc8839001c8b...@desmdswms201.des.grplnk.net>, dated Tue, 10 Apr 2007, "Haynes, Tim (SELEX) (UK Capability Green)" <[email protected]> writes:
>This "metal particle" issue is a red herring in respect of this "smart" >discussion... I don't think it is. > > > If the manufacturer recognises the possibility that a fault-free, but >not a smart, battery may be connected - But by recognizing that ANY battery not approved by him and his safety test-house and/or regulatory agency for use with the phone may nevertheless be used with it, and especially by making specific provision in the form of a 'safe' charging rate, he accepts some liability for whatever may happen as a result. In Europe, it is probably illegal for him to offer such a recognition. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk There are benefits from being irrational - just ask the square root of 2. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - 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/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] Mike Cantwell [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: [email protected] David Heald: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________
