In message
<ff0018ae2af54a2b95bfa760f8747...@dbxpr07mb206.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
, dated Fri, 13 Dec 2013, "McBurney, Ian" <[email protected]>
writes:
but if the product continues to function "safely" with a stalled rotor
why does it have to be listed in the critical component list.
Why does the test house say it does? They have to justify their
opinions. We can only guess, and even if we guess right, you are no
further forward. You have to get their reason, in their words, and
refute it.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Nondum ex silvis sumus
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
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]>
