In message <[email protected]>, dated Fri, 20 Jun 2008, Jim Eichner <[email protected]> writes:
>To be clear, the LPS application would not be a "circuit breaker" as >the term is commonly used. The language from '950 that I objected to >was regarding automatically resetting overcurrent protective devices, >so rather than a circuit breaker it would be something like a thermal >auto-reset device that I would call a "current limiter" or a "circuit >protector" not a breaker. Semantics to some extent, but auto-reset was >the main attribute for this discussion. Well, if it's not a circuit-breaker (electromechanical, and therefore reliability is an issue), it makes even less sense to allow PTCs. I suspect that the ban on auto-reset was lifted for PTCs because if not it would be an absolute ban on their use. But it's not logical. -- 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
