In message <[email protected]>, dated Thu, 1 Nov 2007, John Woodgate <[email protected]> writes:
>In message <00b701c81c66$4c389e40$6401a8c0@Mike>, dated Thu, 1 Nov >2007, Mike Hurley <[email protected]> writes: > >>In relation to the 0.5m cable length specified, there appears to be a >>contradiction in the standard as in Fig 8 for rack mounted equipment >>it indicates a 1m cable length. Does anyone know the reason for this? > >No, but I'll refer it to the BSI committee. Well, I did, and the contradiction appears to be a boo-boo. The matter will be referred to IEC SC77B, but whether Fig 8 will be changed or the 0.5 m specification changed from 'shall' to 'should' cannot be predicted. In the meantime, put in the test report exactly what arrangement you used and mention that the contradiction in the standard has been referred to IEC. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk For very important information, please turn over. 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 ______________________________________________________________________
