My thanks to all for their input.
I chanced on some interesting reading yesterday in Federal Register / Vol. 82,
No. 211 / Thursday, November 2, 2017 / Rules and Regulations. In this document,
there are some exceptions to physical labeling where an electronic display of
the required
Hi Doug,
Art Michael sold that URL off a while back. I do not think it is back up
permanently but an old copy can be found here:
http://shelltown.net/~amichael/
Art is not on this list but maybe someone has his contact info? I thought I
did but cannot find it at the moment.
Doug, et al,
Art Michaels, who ran Safetylink for so many years has retired.
I used it, too and had a paper archived there which I routinely
directed folks to.
He was working at moving the content to a new site which,
Thanks Dan,
The link looks good although I'm guessing Art will not maintain links as
carefully as before. Of course I could be wrong about that.
It's very nice having an information clearing house like this.
Best, Doug
On Nov 14, 2017 6:48 PM, "Dan Roman" wrote:
> Hi
All,
For a number of years I have used a website that now seems to be retired
and recycled. Safety Link was great resource and is now a company working
in Fall Protection. You can see the changes at archive.org
- Old:
Hi Joe:
You said:
" Unfortunately, Annex Q does not help to define the term "adequate breaking
capacity" as called for in clause 1.5.9.2 for fuses required in series with the
MOV."
The term "adequate breaking capacity" means the authors (committee) did not
know how to determine the
Indeed, why not merely add a Peak limit or perhaps better, an Average limit?
Doing that would avoid an effort to clarify the issue with words. Avg & QP
limits have served well in CISPR11 and in CISPR22 for a long time.
Ralph McDiarmid
Product Compliance
Engineering
Solar Business
Schneider
7 matches
Mail list logo