In message <[email protected]>, dated Mon, 16 Jun 2008, Alex Horvath <[email protected]> writes:
>To pass UL, I'm guessing that additional shielding will be required to >cover the ring terminals. Are there detailed requirements for this type >of situation or is any reasonable cover/shield acceptable? Rather than puzzle over whether a cover is needed or not to pass UL, as many do, you have made a simplifying assumption that one is needed. I would support that approach. It should be attached in some way, so that it can't be left off by a service technician. It would be good to label it, indicating that live parts are underneath. The material almost certainly needs to be flame-retardant to some degree. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to stop it, or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You choose! 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
