Homebrew PCBs

Dne 07. 07. 2013 16:54, piše Mitch Davis:
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 4:19 AM, brane2 <brankob@... 
> <mailto:brankob%40s5tehnika.net>> wrote:
> > Dne 07. 07. 2013 15:37, pis(e epa_iii:
> >>
> >> consider the idea that this device may not always be in your 
> possession or control.
> >
> > Chill out a little FFS...
>
> Some people live in very litigious societies. However well meaning
> you are, some asshole will always be looking for a reason to sue you,
> and scumbag lawyers are altogether too happy to oblige. Safety
> mechanisms are a way to be seen to take the safety issue seriously,
> which can be a legal defence.
>
Fair enough, but in such environments I wouldn't act on your advice 
alone, I would check legal requirements first. One can not deal with 
such things on advice of random legal layman.

We are talking here about a couple of technically quite literate guys 
here, not some random user.

And UV us bit THAT dangerous. UVC might be sneaky, but let's not 
overreact. I'm not opening a tanning boot and a few photons of UVC that 
might hit me on rare occasion probably won't kill me.
It might very well be proven that small exposure might be benefitial for 
re/seting internal clocks or somesuch....

WRT to your example, it is bizarre. If you are gonna use freak 
stupidities and accidents as an argument for so radical safety margins, 
then you'd have to live with insane prices of even most rudimentary  
things like wall sockets etc etc.

You can't really make a parallel between highly active source of very 
ionising radiation and simple UV lamp, this is big exaggerration.





> Also, such a box may end up in the hands of minors, or people who just
> don't realise the danger. Here's an example of how 4 people
> (including a 6 year-old child) died, as a result of not knowing of the
> dangers of the pretty glowing blue stuff they'd found:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident
>
> Would be a shame if some young boy or girl lost their eyesight just
> for want of a safety switch...
>
> Mitch.
>
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]