<R105> as amended and <R106> are potentially in conflict.
Originally, with respect to the old KOP Parker cylinders, <R105> prevented them from being purchased and used (since they're not the same as the Bimbas), but <R106> specifically allowed them to be used if not purchased (they came in a previous KOP). <R48> supports this notion, with a "YES" entry for previous years' cylinders.
Now for the interpretation business. The update states that "[u]nder <R105>, the only pneumatic cylinders permitted are those that are identical to the [ones on the form]". Does that mean "the only cylinders allowed are the ones on the form", or does it mean "cylinders
governed by <R105> may only be the ones on the form"? The former is a direct conflict with <R106>, which currently allows the old Parker KOP cylinder. Note that there is a distinction, because <R105> does not address non-purchased cylinders (other than to say that there is no numerical limit, and that they must be rated for 125 psi). If the latter was intended, then clearer wording would be appropriate, because it's easy to interpret the update too broadly.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Andrew Blair
Now, while Rule 105 states that the only cylinders that may be used are the ones available on the order form, Rule 106 goes ahead and allows cylinders that may not be available on the Bimba form- including rodless actuators- not simply cylinders with slightly different stroke lengths.
|
<R106> doesn't concern cylinders in general—only those in old kits. So rodless cylinders aren't allowed (unless we received one in a kit at some point).
On another note, it's a little unlikely that a Parker Hannifan dealer would have Bimba cylinders, and not be a Bimba dealer. Indeed, by definition, selling a Bimba cylinder pretty much makes them a Bimba dealer (though not necessarily a factory-authorized one). Since no Parker products have ever existed on the Bimba free cylinders form (that should hardly be a surprise), it doesn't make much sense to talk about Parker dealers in the rule. I know it's a holdover from an old rule, but it should probably be edited out of <R105>, one of these years.