<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Define: EIA-310</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.server-racks.com/eia-310.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.server-racks.com/eia-310.html</link>
	<description>Information about rack issues and racking servers</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:45:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: jwood</title>
		<link>http://www.server-racks.com/eia-310.html/comment-page-1#comment-4510</link>
		<dc:creator>jwood</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:01:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.server-racks.com/eia-310.html#comment-4510</guid>
		<description>Don,
Wish we could help, but we don&#039;t know the origin or history of the 2 post, relay rack either.
-RackSolutions Support</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don,<br />
Wish we could help, but we don&#8217;t know the origin or history of the 2 post, relay rack either.<br />
-RackSolutions Support</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Don</title>
		<link>http://www.server-racks.com/eia-310.html/comment-page-1#comment-4501</link>
		<dc:creator>Don</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Oct 2011 17:10:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.server-racks.com/eia-310.html#comment-4501</guid>
		<description>Looking for definitive history of the relay rack dimensions which seems to be lost. Who (what person) or company was the initial designer of the dimensions we use in relay racks, why were those dimensions picked and when and what were the circumstances that started it all. All I&#039;ve been able to find is vague references to the old railroad signaling relays. What happened to the history that created these specific dimensions? We just all have &#039;accepted&#039; them because they are there??</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Looking for definitive history of the relay rack dimensions which seems to be lost. Who (what person) or company was the initial designer of the dimensions we use in relay racks, why were those dimensions picked and when and what were the circumstances that started it all. All I&#8217;ve been able to find is vague references to the old railroad signaling relays. What happened to the history that created these specific dimensions? We just all have &#8216;accepted&#8217; them because they are there??</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jwood</title>
		<link>http://www.server-racks.com/eia-310.html/comment-page-1#comment-3382</link>
		<dc:creator>jwood</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2011 20:56:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.server-racks.com/eia-310.html#comment-3382</guid>
		<description>Good question. We are researching this. Per Wikipedia, EIA was dissolved in Feb, 2011. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good question. We are researching this. Per Wikipedia, EIA was dissolved in Feb, 2011. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sam</title>
		<link>http://www.server-racks.com/eia-310.html/comment-page-1#comment-3370</link>
		<dc:creator>Sam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 Jul 2011 15:09:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.server-racks.com/eia-310.html#comment-3370</guid>
		<description>Is the propoer term EIA or has it been changed to CEA?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is the propoer term EIA or has it been changed to CEA?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jwood</title>
		<link>http://www.server-racks.com/eia-310.html/comment-page-1#comment-2857</link>
		<dc:creator>jwood</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Jul 2011 17:53:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.server-racks.com/eia-310.html#comment-2857</guid>
		<description>English translation to the Spanish post above: host servers. The measurements are formatted based on the specs defined in EIA-310. The width is standardized, it is always 19 &quot;, remember that 1&quot; (inch) = 2.54 cm</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>English translation to the Spanish post above: host servers. The measurements are formatted based on the specs defined in EIA-310. The width is standardized, it is always 19 &#8220;, remember that 1&#8243; (inch) = 2.54 cm</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sintesis modular (Parte 1) &#124; Racó tècnic</title>
		<link>http://www.server-racks.com/eia-310.html/comment-page-1#comment-2851</link>
		<dc:creator>Sintesis modular (Parte 1) &#124; Racó tècnic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Jul 2011 17:45:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.server-racks.com/eia-310.html#comment-2851</guid>
		<description>[...] albergar servidores. Las medidas del formato se basan basada en las espeficaciones definadas en la EIA-310 . El ancho esta normalizado, siempre es de 19&#8243;, recordemos que 1&#8243;(pulgada) = 2,54cm .·. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] albergar servidores. Las medidas del formato se basan basada en las espeficaciones definadas en la EIA-310 . El ancho esta normalizado, siempre es de 19&#8243;, recordemos que 1&#8243;(pulgada) = 2,54cm .·. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A W Covert</title>
		<link>http://www.server-racks.com/eia-310.html/comment-page-1#comment-731</link>
		<dc:creator>A W Covert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:15:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.server-racks.com/eia-310.html#comment-731</guid>
		<description>RE: Front panel width definition above:

A SMART equipment manufacturer will make his faceplate slightly smaller than 19″ - such as 18-31/32″ to avoid any problems with rubbing in tight racks. 

I once had an AP Audio patch bay that actually measured 19-1/32″ and would not go into my all-steel welded rack (Premier or Bud). I e-mailed the mfg. and they said they saw no problem with it becuase no one else had complained before! Well, not everyone has cheap plywood racks with enough ‘give’ in the sides.

By the same token, I suppose a smart rack manufacturer would error a little on the wide side when spacing his (recessed) rails.

This kind of goes along with Jakob&#039;s statement above where he notes &quot;What is truly missing from this article are actual tolerance ranges for each number&quot;.  Amen!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>RE: Front panel width definition above:</p>
<p>A SMART equipment manufacturer will make his faceplate slightly smaller than 19″ &#8211; such as 18-31/32″ to avoid any problems with rubbing in tight racks. </p>
<p>I once had an AP Audio patch bay that actually measured 19-1/32″ and would not go into my all-steel welded rack (Premier or Bud). I e-mailed the mfg. and they said they saw no problem with it becuase no one else had complained before! Well, not everyone has cheap plywood racks with enough ‘give’ in the sides.</p>
<p>By the same token, I suppose a smart rack manufacturer would error a little on the wide side when spacing his (recessed) rails.</p>
<p>This kind of goes along with Jakob&#8217;s statement above where he notes &#8220;What is truly missing from this article are actual tolerance ranges for each number&#8221;.  Amen!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jakob Bohm</title>
		<link>http://www.server-racks.com/eia-310.html/comment-page-1#comment-681</link>
		<dc:creator>Jakob Bohm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:06:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.server-racks.com/eia-310.html#comment-681</guid>
		<description>Mr. Castelino is wrong here, Mr. Edelson is right.  The change from 1/0.03997 to 25.4 by US congress was BECAUSE of mfg facilities around the world becoming a reality.  The other countries still using inches at the time almost simultaneously passed similar laws or regulations adjusting their (slightly different!) conversion ratios to 25.4 too.  The only people still using the 0.03997&quot; ratio are a few ultra-conservative industries (such as US surveyors) and people who were taught the wrong ratio from outdated schoolbooks.

That said, this article commits the deadly sin of randomly rounding specifications differently and inconsistently. If you want to be inexact, do it consistently.  18.312&quot; (465.14mm) OR 18.31&quot; (465.1mm) OR 18.3&quot; (ca. 465mm) OR 18 5/16&quot; (ca. 46 1/2 cm).  The ca. (circa) in front of 465 mm is needed because 465 looks like a human-chosen exact specification, even though it is not.

What is truly missing from this article are actual tolerance ranges for each number (e.g. the center distance of holes should be at least 18.???&quot; (46?.? mm) and at most 18.???&quot; (46?.? mm) but in reality varies between 18.?&quot; (46? mm) and 18.?&quot; (46? mm).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mr. Castelino is wrong here, Mr. Edelson is right.  The change from 1/0.03997 to 25.4 by US congress was BECAUSE of mfg facilities around the world becoming a reality.  The other countries still using inches at the time almost simultaneously passed similar laws or regulations adjusting their (slightly different!) conversion ratios to 25.4 too.  The only people still using the 0.03997&#8243; ratio are a few ultra-conservative industries (such as US surveyors) and people who were taught the wrong ratio from outdated schoolbooks.</p>
<p>That said, this article commits the deadly sin of randomly rounding specifications differently and inconsistently. If you want to be inexact, do it consistently.  18.312&#8243; (465.14mm) OR 18.31&#8243; (465.1mm) OR 18.3&#8243; (ca. 465mm) OR 18 5/16&#8243; (ca. 46 1/2 cm).  The ca. (circa) in front of 465 mm is needed because 465 looks like a human-chosen exact specification, even though it is not.</p>
<p>What is truly missing from this article are actual tolerance ranges for each number (e.g. the center distance of holes should be at least 18.???&#8221; (46?.? mm) and at most 18.???&#8221; (46?.? mm) but in reality varies between 18.?&#8221; (46? mm) and 18.?&#8221; (46? mm).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carlos</title>
		<link>http://www.server-racks.com/eia-310.html/comment-page-1#comment-641</link>
		<dc:creator>Carlos</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:12:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.server-racks.com/eia-310.html#comment-641</guid>
		<description>Y cual es el estandar del calibre de los parales para los Rack´s ????????</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Y cual es el estandar del calibre de los parales para los Rack´s ????????</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ken Morenz</title>
		<link>http://www.server-racks.com/eia-310.html/comment-page-1#comment-636</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken Morenz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:54:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.server-racks.com/eia-310.html#comment-636</guid>
		<description>OMG this is funny. There&#039;s a debate over a 0.0002% error in the definition of a millimeter / inch conversion about something that probably varies 1% or more. :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OMG this is funny. There&#8217;s a debate over a 0.0002% error in the definition of a millimeter / inch conversion about something that probably varies 1% or more. <img src='http://www.server-racks.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

