In message <[email protected]>, dated Thu, 25 Feb 2010, "Kunde, Brian" <[email protected]> writes:
>Thanks to all who replied to my email. I was expecting reassurance that >my understanding of this topic, going back some 25 years, still holds >true. But once again, it appears as if things are changing without my >knowledge which really makes for a bad day. I really hate it when I >have to tell engineering I was wrong. In what way are you wrong? The applicable safety standard says that the IO marking must only be on the disconnect device. What another standard says is irrelevant for your product. However, this inconsistency between standards is unacceptable. The matter should be referred to the IEC Standards Management Board so that it can be referred to ACOS. But I don't suppose anyone will do it, so the problem will persist and probably get worse. I will refer it to the UK NC, but it won't get far unless there is support from others. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK I should be disillusioned, but it's not worth the effort. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 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]>
