Re: mechanicals for an open voting system

From: Cameron L. Spitzer <cls_at_truffula_dot_sj_dot_ca_dot_us>
Date: Mon Jun 26 2006 - 22:07:32 CDT

>Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:31:20 -0700
>From: Tom McCarty <>
>To: Karl Auerbach <>
>Cc: Open Voting Consortium discussion list <>
>Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] mechanicals for an open voting system

>> It'll be quite something if you can create a design that can be UL
>> approved, can run all day on batteries, can be tossed about by grumpy
>> teamsters, is proof against undetected tampering, and can be easily
>> programmed, etc.

>Strictly speaking, UL approval is not necessary in the US. It's a good
>CYA in the court of law, which in this litigation-happy society, making
>it a very important thing, but it's not required by any electrical or
>fire regulations in the US. In Europe, though, CE approval is required,
>otherwise your devices can be seized and impounded.

Things must have changed since I did compliance work for
3Com a decade ago. National emissions and safety
regulations were just the beginning. We met the CE Mark, but there
were also a bunch of government purchasing requirements.
In particular, the County of Los Angeles required either a UL label
or its own safety cert that was harder to get so everybody did UL.

We also had customers who did their own IEEE compliance testing.
Ethernet has 1500 V "hipot" isolation because the IEEE spec says so,
not any gov't nor UL. You might sell to the local computer builder
without it but not to Dell or HP. That isolation breaks a ground
loop that would do bad things when nearby inductive loads go on
and off. There Is No Such Thing As Ground.


OVC-discuss mailing list
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Fri Jun 30 23:17:12 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jun 30 2006 - 23:17:12 CDT