Re: kablooey
- From: Joseph2k <joseph2k@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 03:46:51 GMT
John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 08:07:25 GMT, Ross HerbertWhile it seems clear that the crate is out of spec, when is all said and
<rherber1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:51:33 -0700, "Richard H." <rh86@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Ross Herbert wrote:
You didn't categorically say it but did you use an off-the-shelf OEM
psu module in your equipment?
My read is that John supplied the VME modules, and the customer sourced
the VME frame elsewhere...
I imagine John has spec'd a max input voltage somewhere in the docs,
which would put the monkey on the customer's back, leaving them no
recourse except to pursue the frame vendor. And rightly so.
Ironically, if John had put a fuse on his boards, the customer would
probably be irate at having to repair fuses, rather than being grateful
they'd saved anything. Some scenarios you can't win.
Richard
Hi Richard, yes you are correct in what you say.
John didn't specifically say whether he supplied the PSU as part of
the waveform gen and this info is necessary before a determination can
be made. There may be other points to consider - such as;
Since a PSU is mandatory for the waveform gen to function it would
normally be up to the designer of the equipment (waveform gen) to
provide information as to the performance requirements of a suitable
PSU. If John supplied the equipment without providing this information
then John may be partly responsible.
Who would consider 8.8 volts to be a reasonable +5 logic supply?
If the PSU specifications were
not provided by John and the client selected a PSU without first
asking John for recommendations as to a suitable unit then the client
may be partly responsible.
The official IEEE 1014 VME specification states that the backplane +5
supply should never exceed 5.25. I sell the VME modules, and *** (a
British company) sold my customer the VME crates.
If I build something that has, say, a small switcher on-board to make
the +5 or whatever, I do usually consider the consequences of a
failure and often include a transzorb or similar.
Without further info from John it is difficult to say who is to be
held responsible but I would guess that both parties might end up
splitting the cost.
Most manufacturers - us included - deny responsibility for
consequential damages, and the crate manufacturer may well do so. So
we may fix the in-warranty modules for free, just to keep our customer
happy.
John
done it seems likely to be a three way near tie on picking up the tab.
likewise that crate vendor has likely seriously lost a customer whatever
the outcome.
--
JosephKK
Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.
--Schiller
.
- References:
- kablooey
- From: John Larkin
- Re: kablooey
- From: Richard H.
- Re: kablooey
- From: John Larkin
- kablooey
- Prev by Date: Re: kablooey
- Next by Date: Re: kablooey
- Previous by thread: Re: kablooey
- Next by thread: Re: kablooey
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
