In message <[email protected]>, dated Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Scott Xe <[email protected]> writes:
>"No" means the switch is considered as the isolating switch and must be >the type of all-pole switch. Sorry for the ambiguity. 'No' refers to theses words: >it is permitted if the switch is not considered as >isolating switch. The clauses I cited show that it is NOT permitted. > >I have learnt from some accredited laboratories to suggest changing the >marking to "." To avoid in breach of the |O marking for all-pole >switch. Is it a way of compromise to this requirement in EN 60065? I don't know why they say that; there is nothing in IEC/EN 60065 about it. You should ask them which standard, or official Interpretation or other ruling justifies what they say. I think '.' is not suitable as a symbol anyway, unless it's a dot as large as the 'O' symbol would be. -- 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 ______________________________________________________________________
