PMP Mail Archive: RE: PMP> cover -v- interlock

PMP Mail Archive: RE: PMP> cover -v- interlock

RE: PMP> cover -v- interlock

Caruso,Angelo (Angelo_Caruso@wb.xerox.com)
Mon, 10 Mar 1997 08:00:30 PST

I prefer Don's definition since that is how we define it here at Xerox.
It always implies a switch or sensor, not merely a mechanical
connection. Besides, if it did not imply some form of sensor then how
would we detect it to produce an alert?

Angelo

----------
From: pmp-owner@pwg.org
To: "'PWG-pmp'"
Cc: Bob Pentecost
Subject: RE: PMP> cover -v- interlock
Date: Friday, March 07, 1997 3:49PM

I prefer Gail's definition for interlock. Don's definition implies that
something dangerous to a person or the printer can happen and I don't think
that's always the case.

Bob Pentecost
HP

----------
From: Don Wright[SMTP:don@lexmark.com]
Sent: Friday, March 07, 1997 2:49 PM
To: Gail Songer
Cc: pmp%pwg.org
Subject: Re: PMP> cover -v- interlock

Gail songer said:
>A "door" is something that protects the mechanical insides of a device.

This one sounds good to me.

>An "interlock" connects two components of a device or two devices. An
example
>of an interlock is mechanical latch on an optional sorter that connects
the
>base printer with the sorter.

I would define an interlock as:

A switch or sensor used to stop operation of the device due to the
opening of a door, cover or other component of the device in order
to prevent injury to a human or improper operation of the device.

Don