In message <[email protected]>, dated Thu, 19 Jun 2008, Brian O'Connell <[email protected]> writes:
>As for 'reliability', can we assume that safety standards such as >60730, 61058, 61015, 60384, etc address the issue of reliability >through a min number of cycles, or am I making an invalid comparison of >apples to oranges ? Well, they are all, as far as I know, based on experience rather than formal analysis, and consider 'known UNreliability' rather than 'tested reliability'. In other words, something is not allowed because experience has shown that it should not be allowed. But when that was applied to circuit-breakers in LPS circuits, and what the evidence was, who knows? While 60950 is not a very old standard, it has ancestors. LPS is actually a concept from UL standards rather than European, which may give a clue. -- 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
