In message
<ff616e8a3fc0497bab5fcbb17aaa6...@blupr02mb116.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
, dated Tue, 27 May 2014, Brian Oconnell <oconne...@tamuracorp.com>
writes:
The immoral of these stories is that a connector, unless specifically
rated for a certain insertion duty cycle, should not be subject to
multiple re-insertion cycles. Components intended to interrupt load
current and/or are rated for multiple insertion cycles should be ok and
will serve the Empire well if used per the mfr's conditions of
acceptability.
This is true, but for some widely-used connectors the manufacturers
either don't give a clear specification or, for insertions, quote an
incredibly low figure, which, if respected, would cause the connector to
be rejected.
--
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>
