In message
<7B9D892F88F070469771832D78B3086E282A7681@013-BR1MPN1-013.MGDPBI.global.p
vt>, dated Mon, 5 May 2014, Jim Hulbert <jim.hulb...@pb.com> writes:
. Do these phrases give the manufacturer the opportunity to define a
degree of protection that may not follow the typical values provided in
the NOTE 3 table if the installation environment is sufficiently
controlled?
Probably. The essence is that the manufacturer must document and be able
to justify any such variation. But usually the first question is, 'Do we
*really* need to have a variation?'
--
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 <emc-p...@ieee.org>
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 <emcp...@radiusnorth.net>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>
