Re: You won't believe this ... Well, maybe you will.

2001-06-21 Thread John Woodgate
oe6ymq1we9ql2rkes8y0002c...@hotmail.com, Tania Grant taniagr...@msn.com inimitably wrote: However, I believe that standards should use all three precepts as necessary rather than an ascension order as you state. You have introduced a higher level of insight. What is *specified* is not

Re: You won't believe this ... Well, maybe you will.

2001-06-21 Thread Tania Grant
...@msn.com - Original Message - From: John Woodgate Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 9:13 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: You won't believe this ... Well, maybe you will. 002501c0f905$794dabe0$3e3e3...@corp.auspex.com, Doug McKean dmck...@corp.auspex.com inimitably wrote: 1

RE: You won't believe this ... Well, maybe you will.

2001-06-20 Thread Peter Merguerian
Doug, Have the NRTL call out the rated voltage of the fan only and that it is a Recognized component. Describing the min. CFM for a fan cooling a chip is not so important in this application. The CPU is mounted on a min. 94V-1 flame rated board and I asume an abnormal test by the NRTL was

Re: You won't believe this ... Well, maybe you will.

2001-06-20 Thread John Woodgate
002c01c0f914$4b1344b0$3e3e3...@corp.auspex.com, Doug McKean dmck...@corp.auspex.com inimitably wrote: The fan itself is more of an issue of having a baseline with which to allow alternates to be used. If I can prove by way of fan company documenation that the fan is x cfm, then that's the

Re: You won't believe this ... Well, maybe you will.

2001-06-20 Thread John Woodgate
002501c0f905$794dabe0$3e3e3...@corp.auspex.com, Doug McKean dmck...@corp.auspex.com inimitably wrote: 1. Have any you ever run into something like this before? 2. If you have, what did you do about it? I would say that a safety standard that specifies a cfm rating for a fan is a

RE: You won't believe this ... Well, maybe you will.

2001-06-20 Thread Gary McInturff
Yeah sort of. It involves Laser's and you have seen me whine about it in the recent past. They feel no need to get UL recognition and UL feels no need to List the product without verification of eye safety (the vendor won't send the CDRH report either). I took the same course

Re: You won't believe this ... Well, maybe you will.

2001-06-20 Thread Doug McKean
Rich Nute wrote: Hi Doug: The issue for me is: What is the safety requirement that requires cfm (I presume a minimum cfm)? The issue is a Hazardous Energy ( 240va). The power output that feeds the board is above the limit. The fan itself is more of an issue of having a baseline

Re: You won't believe this ... Well, maybe you will.

2001-06-19 Thread Rich Nute
Hi Doug: done, the entire safety approval reduced to a simple cfm rating fan for a chip both on the secondary side of the power supply. The issue for me is: What is the safety requirement that requires cfm (I presume a minimum cfm)? Reading between the lines... The fan