View Single Post
  #4   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 14-03-2011, 11:07
martin417's Avatar
martin417 martin417 is online now
Opinionated old goat
AKA: Martin Wilson
no team
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Rookie Year: 2008
Location: Buford, GA
Posts: 719
martin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond reputemartin417 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The law of un-intended consequences: rule re-interpretation

The change I was referring to was in this Q&A:

Quote:
Documentation for 125 psi rating
Posted by FRC2973 at 02/05/2010 11:50:06 am
In reference to Update #5 and Rule R72-c, I have received confirmation from SMC that their SY3000 series solenoids are "rated" at 125 psi even though their operating pressure is listed at ~100 psi. The documentation is outlined here:http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=81946
Is this documentation sufficient to show that these valves do not require an additional pressurerelief valve?


Re: Documentation for 125 psi rating
Posted by GDC at 02/10/2010 02:07:28 pm
Documentation from the manufacturer is acceptable proof that a part meets specific criteria.
Please make sure to bring a copy of the documentation with you to Inspection.
Which adds an interpretation that even though the operating pressure is below the 125 PSI minimum, it is OK to use a valve that won't fail at that pressure.

An important note: the valve they are talking about (SMC SY300) IS AVAILABLE in a 150 PSI model (the K option). That is the valve we used. It is more expensive, and has a long lead time, but it meets the letter of the rule.
__________________
Former Mentor Team 1771
Former mentor Team 4509