Unsubscribe
Please remove me form this message group. Thanks, Richard Lee ___ 1 Infinite Loop, MS-26A Cupertino, CA 95014 Phone: 408-974-5143 richard@apple.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Application of the definitions of the word hazard
Not if the equipment design provided single-fault tolerance against exposing the hazard to the operator or the environment where it's used. (i.e. not a fire or a shock hazard unless two things go wrong with the protection) For example, cord connected equipment needs both loss of ground connection and failure of basic insulation from the mains circuit to accessible, conductive parts. Now the hazard comes into existence. ___ _ Ralph McDiarmid | Schneider Electric | Renewable Energies Business | CANADA | Regulatory Engineer From: Richard Nute rn...@san.rr.com To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 11/01/2010 04:59 PM Subject:[PSES] Application of the definitions of the word hazard With regard to the use of the word hazard, consider an equipment supplied from mains. We would all agree that mains is a hazardous energy source (or comprises a hazard). The equipment in question is provided with a suitable enclosure and fully complies with the applicable safety standard. We have a number of definitions for hazard from the various posted messages: anything potentially harmful potential for an action with adverse outcome something that can hurt you or do property damage potential source of harm Question: Does the mains within the equipment comprise a hazard? Rich - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com This email has been scanned for SPAM content and Viruses by the MessageLabs Email Security System. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
Application of the definitions of the word hazard
With regard to the use of the word hazard, consider an equipment supplied from mains. We would all agree that mains is a hazardous energy source (or comprises a hazard). The equipment in question is provided with a suitable enclosure and fully complies with the applicable safety standard. We have a number of definitions for hazard from the various posted messages: anything potentially harmful potential for an action with adverse outcome something that can hurt you or do property damage potential source of harm Question: Does the mains within the equipment comprise a hazard? Rich - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
RE: [PSES] Protection system fault-tolerance hierarchy?
EN954-1 was replaced by EN13849-1 in 2007. The latter appeals to me as a math weenie (it uses a probabilistic approach), but it concerns me that the math is supposed to be a fix to avoid 'systematic' failures. I do not have any relevant experience with the safety of machinery, so I would appreciate others' comments. Functional Safety, HBSE, Risk Mitigation - they overlap; they are not the same. And I want to know why various industry sectors are not getting more consistent. We are going to have to talk to Rich Nute about his insistence that we must be thoughtful. It hurts. Brian -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of jim.eich...@ca.schneider-electric.com Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 3:24 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Protection system fault-tolerance hierarchy? Thanks Rich and others for your input on this. The discussion so far has been regarding what level of protection is required for various types of hazards but what I was after was a system of classification for the protection systems themselves. In the meantime I came across a reference to EN 954-1 and it has what I was looking for: a regime of categories that describe different levels of protection. Roughly, its categories are: B -a single fault can defeat the protection 1 - a single fault can defeat the protection, but the likelihood of a single fault is reduced through selection of reliable parts and proven safety principles 2 - a single fault can defeat the protection, but the functionality of the protective system is checked at regular intervals (usually automatically) so loss of protection is detected at the next check 3 - a single fault is not allowed to cause loss of protection, and wherever practicable the fault should be detected by the system; an accumulation of faults may cause loss of protection 4 - a single fault is not allowed to cause loss of protection and is detected before the next demand on the safety function or if that is not possible, an accumulation of faults may not cause loss of protection Interesting stuff. Typically I'd say product safety standards use category 3 without demanding self-checking of the protection (ie taking advantage of the wherever practicable allowance). For example a grounded metal box with basic insulation to live parts is category 3 in that a single fault does not result in a hazard, but most products don't regularly measure their own insulation resistance and would not be capable of measuring their own ground continuity so a busted ground wire will go undetected and a 2nd fault will cause loss of protection. Does anybody familiar with this standard care to add comments? Does my summary reasonably accurately paraphrase the requirements? ___ _ Jim Eichner | Schneider Electric | Renewable Energies Business | CANADA | Compliance Engineering Manager Phone: +1-604-422-2546 | Mobile: +1-604-418-8472 Email: jim.eich...@ca.schneider-electric.com | Site: www.schneider-electric.com/renewable-energies | Address: 8999 Nelson Way, Burnaby, BC, V5A 4B5 *** Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail From: Richard Nute rn...@san.rr.com To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 10/29/2010 12:27 PM Subject: Re: [PSES] Protection system fault-tolerance hierarchy? I don't want to re-invent the wheel, but I'm looking to find a simple way to communicate the idea that some systems don't need protection, others need protection, others need protection that will still protect even with a single-fault present anywhere, and so-on. Somewhere somebody must have codified this idea for example with type 0, type 1, type 2, etc. I'm sure there are standards out there for this - can anyone point me to one or more? Thanks, Jim Hi Jim: The new IEC 62368-1 standard does exactly what you wish for. The standard asserts that injury (or fire or whatever) is due to a transfer of energy (from an energy source) to a body (or other susceptible part). Energy sources are classed as: Class 1: Little or no perceptible effect on the body (or other susceptible part) even in the event of a single fault. No safeguards are required. The energy source is inherently safe. Class 2: Sensation to pain on a body part but no injury or equivalent on a susceptible part) even in the event of a single fault. At least one safeguard, e.g., a basic safeguard, must be interposed between the energy source and a body part (or other susceptible part). Class 3: Severe pain or injury to a body part or equivalent susceptible part). At least two safeguards, e.g., basic plus supplementary, or a reinforced safeguard must be interposed between the energy source and a body part (or other susceptible part). The energy source is
Re: [PSES] Protection system fault-tolerance hierarchy?
Thanks Rich and others for your input on this. The discussion so far has been regarding what level of protection is required for various types of hazards but what I was after was a system of classification for the protection systems themselves. In the meantime I came across a reference to EN 954-1 and it has what I was looking for: a regime of categories that describe different levels of protection. Roughly, its categories are: B -a single fault can defeat the protection 1 - a single fault can defeat the protection, but the likelihood of a single fault is reduced through selection of reliable parts and proven safety principles 2 - a single fault can defeat the protection, but the functionality of the protective system is checked at regular intervals (usually automatically) so loss of protection is detected at the next check 3 - a single fault is not allowed to cause loss of protection, and wherever practicable the fault should be detected by the system; an accumulation of faults may cause loss of protection 4 - a single fault is not allowed to cause loss of protection and is detected before the next demand on the safety function or if that is not possible, an accumulation of faults may not cause loss of protection Interesting stuff. Typically I'd say product safety standards use category 3 without demanding self-checking of the protection (ie taking advantage of the wherever practicable allowance). For example a grounded metal box with basic insulation to live parts is category 3 in that a single fault does not result in a hazard, but most products don't regularly measure their own insulation resistance and would not be capable of measuring their own ground continuity so a busted ground wire will go undetected and a 2nd fault will cause loss of protection. Does anybody familiar with this standard care to add comments? Does my summary reasonably accurately paraphrase the requirements? ___ _ Jim Eichner | Schneider Electric | Renewable Energies Business | CANADA | Compliance Engineering Manager Phone: +1-604-422-2546 | Mobile: +1-604-418-8472 Email: jim.eich...@ca.schneider-electric.com mailto:jim.eich...@ca.schneider-electric.com | Site: www.schneider-electric.com/renewable-energies http://www.schneider-electric.com/renewable-energies | Address: 8999 Nelson Way, Burnaby, BC, V5A 4B5 *** Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail From: Richard Nute rn...@san.rr.com To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 10/29/2010 12:27 PM Subject:Re: [PSES] Protection system fault-tolerance hierarchy? I don't want to re-invent the wheel, but I'm looking to find a simple way to communicate the idea that some systems don't need protection, others need protection, others need protection that will still protect even with a single-fault present anywhere, and so-on. Somewhere somebody must have codified this idea for example with type 0, type 1, type 2, etc. I'm sure there are standards out there for this - can anyone point me to one or more? Thanks, Jim Hi Jim: The new IEC 62368-1 standard does exactly what you wish for. The standard asserts that injury (or fire or whatever) is due to a transfer of energy (from an energy source) to a body (or other susceptible part). Energy sources are classed as: Class 1: Little or no perceptible effect on the body (or other susceptible part) even in the event of a single fault. No safeguards are required. The energy source is inherently safe. Class 2: Sensation to pain on a body part but no injury or equivalent on a susceptible part) even in the event of a single fault. At least one safeguard, e.g., a basic safeguard, must be interposed between the energy source and a body part (or other susceptible part). Class 3: Severe pain or injury to a body part or equivalent susceptible part). At least two safeguards, e.g., basic plus supplementary, or a reinforced safeguard must be interposed between the energy source and a body part (or other susceptible part). The energy source is inherently hazardous. The only difference between what we do today and this new standard is the inclusion of the Class 2 energy source criterion. Class 2 was included because most telephone circuits fall between Class 1 and Class 3. The standard applies this concept to electric shock, electrically-caused fire, thermal injury, mechanical energy, radiated energy (acoustic, electromagnetic, and optical), and chemically-caused injury. All of these energy sources have continuous gradations from low (marginally detectable) to high (injurious). Most energy sources have well-defined and researched limits for low (non-hazardous). Best regards, Richard Nute Product Safety Consultant San Diego
RE: [PSES] Protection system fault-tolerance hierarchy?
I agree with your direction here John. I think of hazard not as a thing but as the potential for an action with adverse outcome. Brent DeWitt Westborough, MA -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 6:25 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Protection system fault-tolerance hierarchy? In message 4ccf3408.6020...@san.rr.com, dated Mon, 1 Nov 2010, Richard Nute rn...@san.rr.com writes: Yes, a noun represents a thing. The noun hazard supposedly represents a thing. Can you identify the thing that is a hazard? Would you say that a safe product is one that has no hazards? Trick question, of course. Some products have to exhibit hazardous features in order to perform their intended service. Examples are an electric drill and a hand saw. A long time ago, one of my professors described some nouns as thingified abstractions. We tend to think that things have properties that can be detected by one or more of the five senses. An abstraction does not have properties that can be detected by the five senses. I think this is simplistic. It would appear to classify gaseous nitrogen as a 'non-thing' and 'child abuse' (which you can unfortunately see and hear, but is surely an abstraction) as a 'thing'. Or is 'child abuse' a generic term for numerous harms, and generic terms for harms are 'things'? The noun hazard represents an abstraction, not a real thing. Consequently, the word has different meanings for each of us. For this reason, it may not be a perfectly good noun, depending on the context. I would respectfully disagree with the good professor. The word 'hazard' is an example of a generic term, and may be defined as 'anything potentially harmful'. Most 'anythings' can be detected by one or more senses, but there are extensive exceptions, see below. We can't communicate very well if each of us has a different meaning for hazard. Indeed, that is the case! Your definition defines hazard as some thing. If you think about the thing that can hurt you or do property damage, I think you will find that the thing is energy (joules) that is transferred from an energy source to a body part or to property. I think that is in one sense overly analytical and in another is incomplete. If the 'thing' is energy, are the sources themselves 'non-things'? I would say they are things, since they do impinge on the senses. So I think that 'hazard' is a reasonable generic term for these potentially harmful things. Energy transfer from a source to a person or property is not the only way harm can occur. You may think that the example of liquid nitrogen, which will *extract* energy from your finger if you are careless, is trivial, but what about chemical and biological agents? I hope you will agree that carbon monoxide is hazardous, and it extracts (minute amounts of) energy in doing harm to people, and so does Plasmodium, giving them malaria in exchange. The next time you're in a discussion, and the word hazard is used, listen carefully and try to understand its definition in the context of the discussion. As the discussion progresses, the definition may change! That may happen to other words as well, unless the group members are all philosophers. If they are, of course, the discussion will not progress, but make circular tours ad infinitum. (;-) My professor said that we can't have understanding unless we have the same meanings for the words we use. He further said that we cannot do clear thinking unless we have clear definitions for the words we use. I think most would agree, but you major premise is that 'hazard' cannot be defined. I believe I have provided a viable definition, which is in any case close in meaning to your 'the thing that can hurt you or do property damage,. Now, is IEC TC108 a thing or not? (;-) -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK If at first you don't succeed, delegate. But I support unbloated email http://www.asciiribbon.org/ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc- pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:
RE: [PSES] Protection system fault-tolerance hierarchy?
Princeton's definition is concise and specific. Wikipedia's definition is, well, something else. Hmm, sounds like I may need my set of crystal pyramids to measure that biological energy. Ed Price ed.pr...@cubic.com WB6WSN NARTE Certified EMC Engineer Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Applications San Diego, CA USA 858-505-2780 Military Avionics EMC Is Our Specialty -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Richard Nute Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 4:01 PM To: John Woodgate Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Protection system fault-tolerance hierarchy? Hi John: ...but what about chemical and biological agents? Check the on-line definitions for: chemical energy: The net potential energy liberated or absorbed during the course of a chemical reaction (Princeton University) biological energy: In biology, energy is an attribute of all biological systems from the biosphere to the smallest living organism. (Wikipedia) Best regards, Rich - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Protection system fault-tolerance hierarchy?
Hi John: ...but what about chemical and biological agents? Check the on-line definitions for: chemical energy: The net potential energy liberated or absorbed during the course of a chemical reaction (Princeton University) biological energy: In biology, energy is an attribute of all biological systems from the biosphere to the smallest living organism. (Wikipedia) Best regards, Rich - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Protection system fault-tolerance hierarchy?
Hi John: On 11/1/2010 10:43, John Allen wrote: Per ISO Guide 51 and ISO14971, Hazard = Potential source of harm (e.g. electric shock hazard, crushing hazard, cutting hazard, toxic hazard, etc.). I’m not sure how IEC62368 defines it. Rich? IEC 62368-1 does not use the word hazard, either as noun or an adjective. (There are a few uses that we haven't caught.) Both the words hazard and safety are abstractions. Check out the definition for safety in Guide 51. ISO-IEC Guide 51 discourages the use of the word safety. I think it should also discourage the word hazard. Best regards, Rich ps: Be sure to substitute the definition for harm into the definition for hazard. Does it still make sense? - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Protection system fault-tolerance hierarchy?
In message 4ccf3408.6020...@san.rr.com, dated Mon, 1 Nov 2010, Richard Nute rn...@san.rr.com writes: Yes, a noun represents a thing. The noun hazard supposedly represents a thing. Can you identify the thing that is a hazard? Would you say that a safe product is one that has no hazards? Trick question, of course. Some products have to exhibit hazardous features in order to perform their intended service. Examples are an electric drill and a hand saw. A long time ago, one of my professors described some nouns as thingified abstractions. We tend to think that things have properties that can be detected by one or more of the five senses. An abstraction does not have properties that can be detected by the five senses. I think this is simplistic. It would appear to classify gaseous nitrogen as a 'non-thing' and 'child abuse' (which you can unfortunately see and hear, but is surely an abstraction) as a 'thing'. Or is 'child abuse' a generic term for numerous harms, and generic terms for harms are 'things'? The noun hazard represents an abstraction, not a real thing. Consequently, the word has different meanings for each of us. For this reason, it may not be a perfectly good noun, depending on the context. I would respectfully disagree with the good professor. The word 'hazard' is an example of a generic term, and may be defined as 'anything potentially harmful'. Most 'anythings' can be detected by one or more senses, but there are extensive exceptions, see below. We can't communicate very well if each of us has a different meaning for hazard. Indeed, that is the case! Your definition defines hazard as some thing. If you think about the thing that can hurt you or do property damage, I think you will find that the thing is energy (joules) that is transferred from an energy source to a body part or to property. I think that is in one sense overly analytical and in another is incomplete. If the 'thing' is energy, are the sources themselves 'non-things'? I would say they are things, since they do impinge on the senses. So I think that 'hazard' is a reasonable generic term for these potentially harmful things. Energy transfer from a source to a person or property is not the only way harm can occur. You may think that the example of liquid nitrogen, which will *extract* energy from your finger if you are careless, is trivial, but what about chemical and biological agents? I hope you will agree that carbon monoxide is hazardous, and it extracts (minute amounts of) energy in doing harm to people, and so does Plasmodium, giving them malaria in exchange. The next time you're in a discussion, and the word hazard is used, listen carefully and try to understand its definition in the context of the discussion. As the discussion progresses, the definition may change! That may happen to other words as well, unless the group members are all philosophers. If they are, of course, the discussion will not progress, but make circular tours ad infinitum. (;-) My professor said that we can't have understanding unless we have the same meanings for the words we use. He further said that we cannot do clear thinking unless we have clear definitions for the words we use. I think most would agree, but you major premise is that 'hazard' cannot be defined. I believe I have provided a viable definition, which is in any case close in meaning to your 'the thing that can hurt you or do property damage,. Now, is IEC TC108 a thing or not? (;-) -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK If at first you don't succeed, delegate. But I support unbloated email http://www.asciiribbon.org/ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Protection system fault-tolerance hierarchy?
Hi Ralph: On 11/1/2010 10:18, ralph.mcdiar...@ca.schneider-electric.com wrote: I thought hazard was a perfectly good noun. A hazard is something that can hurt you or do damage to property. It's the name of a thing, isn't it? Yes, a noun represents a thing. The noun hazard supposedly represents a thing. Can you identify the thing that is a hazard? Would you say that a safe product is one that has no hazards? A long time ago, one of my professors described some nouns as thingified abstractions. We tend to think that things have properties that can be detected by one or more of the five senses. An abstraction does not have properties that can be detected by the five senses. The noun hazard represents an abstraction, not a real thing. Consequently, the word has different meanings for each of us. For this reason, it may not be a perfectly good noun, depending on the context. We can't communicate very well if each of us has a different meaning for hazard. Indeed, that is the case! Your definition defines hazard as some thing. If you think about the thing that can hurt you or do property damage, I think you will find that the thing is energy (joules) that is transferred from an energy source to a body part or to property. The next time you're in a discussion, and the word hazard is used, listen carefully and try to understand its definition in the context of the discussion. As the discussion progresses, the definition may change! My professor said that we can't have understanding unless we have the same meanings for the words we use. He further said that we cannot do clear thinking unless we have clear definitions for the words we use. Best regards, Rich - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
RE: [PSES] 60335-1 edition 5.0 hold ups?
So besides those 3 items, EN60335-1 will have the same content as IEC 60335-1, 5th edition? There has to be more struggle/controversy if the expected vote date is Sept 2011. I guess that would be 18months from publication of IEC version to CENELEC approval, which seems normally paced, doesn’t it? -Doug From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Andy Clifford Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 12:19 PM To: Doug Kramer; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: [PSES] 60335-1 edition 5.0 hold ups? Some changes – possibly the major ones:- Ed 5.0 will apply to battery operated equipment also. Creepage distances defined down to zero voltage for functional insulation (10V being the lowest) Safety EMC testing for protective electronic circuits is performed up to 2GHz for radiated immunity. Software forming part of a protective electronic circuit has to be assessed by inspection of the source code. Andy From: Doug Kramer [mailto:dkra...@nceelabs.com] Sent: 01 November 2010 16:39 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] 60335-1 edition 5.0 hold ups? Does any list member have knowledge as to the hold up and comments relating to the release on EN60335-1? They released an A14 as a stop gap, but is the next edition so radically different that it is getting help up in CENELEC? Any ideas as to what changes will be in the final EN60335-1 from the IEC60335-1 edition 5? Thanks, Doug - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
RE: [PSES] Protection system fault-tolerance hierarchy?
Per ISO Guide 51 and ISO14971, Hazard = Potential source of harm (e.g. electric shock hazard, crushing hazard, cutting hazard, toxic hazard, etc.). I’m not sure how IEC62368 defines it. Rich? John Allen President Product Safety Consulting, Inc. 605 Country Club Drive, Suites IJ Bensenville, IL 60106 P - 630 238-0188 / F - 630 238-0269 1-877-804-3066 jral...@productsafetyinc.com http://www.productsafetyinc.com Although PSC maintains the highest level of virus protection, this e-mail and any attachments should be scanned by your virus protection software. It is the responsibility of the recipient to check that it is virus free. PSC does not accept any responsibility for data loss or systems damage arising in any way from its use. This message is confidential and intended only for the individual to whom or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or addressee, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the addressee, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying, in whole or part, of this message is strictly prohibited. If you believe that you have been sent this message in error, please do not read it. Please immediately reply to sender that you have received this message in error. Then permanently delete all copies of the message. Thank you. From: Ralph McDiarmid [mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@ca.schneider-electric.com] Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 12:19 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Protection system fault-tolerance hierarchy? I thought hazard was a perfectly good noun. A hazard is something that can hurt you or do damage to property. It's the name of a thing, isn't it? ___ _ Ralph McDiarmid | Schneider Electric | Renewable Energies Business | CANADA | Regulatory Engineer From: Richard Nute rn...@san.rr.com To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 10/29/2010 02:49 PM Subject: Re: [PSES] Protection system fault-tolerance hierarchy? Hi Brian: What are the legal effects on my employer for Ordinary vs. Skilled vs. Instructed Persons ? By law, I cannot answer this question. Ordinary persons cannot give legal advice. How does this affect the concept of an existing hazard as compared to a fault condition ? This question doesn't make much sense to me, probably because I don't know your definition of hazard. In IEC 62368-1 and HBSE, we don't use the word hazard as a noun. Instead, it is an adjective as in hazardous energy source. A hazardous energy source requires a safeguard be interposed between the energy source and a body to prevent energy transfer to the body. Any product connected to mains has a hazardous energy source. You can't get rid of the hazardous energy source. Instead, you must mitigate the transfer of energy to a body part by interposing one or more safeguards. Fault conditions are of two types. One is the fault of an ordinary (non-safeguard) component or spacing. In this case, during and after the fault, all safeguards must be effective and mitigate the fault. The other is a fault of a safeguard. If the energy source is Class 3, then two safeguards are required. The fault of one safeguard is mitigated by the second safeguard. UL says that A skilled person is expected to use their training and experience to recognize energy sources capable of causing pain or injury and to take action to protect them from injury from those energies. This is quote from IEC 62368-1, 0.2.4. I'm not sure of the issue here. When you take the cover off of a power supply, the mains is right there for you to touch. But you don't because of your training and experience. That training and experience is a safeguard. Do you think that now is the time to get some HBSE training, or will we see a national implementation of IEC62368-1 before the apocalypse ? Wait until you can read the IEC 60950-1 to IEC 62368-1 clause-by-clause comparison document now in its final stages of preparation by Ecma's TC12. Due in March, 2011. If you had attended the IEEE PSES Symposium a few weeks ago, you could also have attended UL's HBSE training. Plan on it for next year's Symposium in San Diego. Which apocalypse? Political, economic, environmental, jihad, Armageddon? AFAIK, if a box allows contact that exceeds a certain voltage or current or power, there is a hazard, for all people. Am I being a primitive tribal idiot ? Of course not. Existing standards have led you to this conclusion, and it makes for a safe box. In IEC 62368-1, neither an ordinary person nor an instructed person can have contact with a Class 3 energy source. Safeguards must be provided to prevent contact. This is no different than today's standards except we identify the thing that prevents the contact as a
Re: [PSES] Protection system fault-tolerance hierarchy?
In message OFA7AC3278.146EFD8D-ON882577CE.005E48CA-882577CE.005F0A5C@US.Schneider-E lectric.com, dated Mon, 1 Nov 2010, ralph.mcdiar...@ca.schneider-electric.com writes: I thought hazard was a perfectly good noun. A hazard is something that can hurt you or do damage to property. It's the name of a thing, isn't it? Yes. Not even IEC TC108 can take a word out of the language, although it may inadvertently prompt the introduction of new and colourful expletives. (;-) -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK If at first you don't succeed, delegate. But I support unbloated email http://www.asciiribbon.org/ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: recommendations for a Software Company
In message CD89D7C739C19E4D87BDC404BABBB94BA901DE@HEMC05.hemcs.local, dated Mon, 1 Nov 2010, Julian Jones ju...@hursley-emc.co.uk writes: My customer does not badge the products in anyway, if you ordered an XYX from them you would get the server from bluechip A + the adapter card. If your customer supplies the software and the two pieces of hardware as a single invoiced item, it is a 'system' and needs its own DoC. This can be derived from the hardware manufacturers' DoCs, **with their written agreement**, and no further testing should be required, although I would check that the combination of the two items doesn't throw up any anomaly in a pre-compliance test. If, on the other hand, your customer takes the order but the two hardware items are supplied by their manufacturers and invoiced directly to your customer's customer, then the DoCs for the two hardware items apply. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK If at first you don't succeed, delegate. But I support unbloated email http://www.asciiribbon.org/ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
RE: [PSES] 60335-1 edition 5.0 hold ups?
Some changes – possibly the major ones:- Ed 5.0 will apply to battery operated equipment also. Creepage distances defined down to zero voltage for functional insulation (10V being the lowest) Safety EMC testing for protective electronic circuits is performed up to 2GHz for radiated immunity. Software forming part of a protective electronic circuit has to be assessed by inspection of the source code. Andy From: Doug Kramer [mailto:dkra...@nceelabs.com] Sent: 01 November 2010 16:39 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] 60335-1 edition 5.0 hold ups? Does any list member have knowledge as to the hold up and comments relating to the release on EN60335-1? They released an A14 as a stop gap, but is the next edition so radically different that it is getting help up in CENELEC? Any ideas as to what changes will be in the final EN60335-1 from the IEC60335-1 edition 5? Thanks, Doug - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Protection system fault-tolerance hierarchy?
I thought hazard was a perfectly good noun. A hazard is something that can hurt you or do damage to property. It's the name of a thing, isn't it? ___ _ Ralph McDiarmid | Schneider Electric | Renewable Energies Business | CANADA | Regulatory Engineer From: Richard Nute rn...@san.rr.com To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 10/29/2010 02:49 PM Subject:Re: [PSES] Protection system fault-tolerance hierarchy? Hi Brian: What are the legal effects on my employer for Ordinary vs. Skilled vs. Instructed Persons ? By law, I cannot answer this question. Ordinary persons cannot give legal advice. How does this affect the concept of an existing hazard as compared to a fault condition ? This question doesn't make much sense to me, probably because I don't know your definition of hazard. In IEC 62368-1 and HBSE, we don't use the word hazard as a noun. Instead, it is an adjective as in hazardous energy source. A hazardous energy source requires a safeguard be interposed between the energy source and a body to prevent energy transfer to the body. Any product connected to mains has a hazardous energy source. You can't get rid of the hazardous energy source. Instead, you must mitigate the transfer of energy to a body part by interposing one or more safeguards. Fault conditions are of two types. One is the fault of an ordinary (non-safeguard) component or spacing. In this case, during and after the fault, all safeguards must be effective and mitigate the fault. The other is a fault of a safeguard. If the energy source is Class 3, then two safeguards are required. The fault of one safeguard is mitigated by the second safeguard. UL says that A skilled person is expected to use their training and experience to recognize energy sources capable of causing pain or injury and to take action to protect them from injury from those energies. This is quote from IEC 62368-1, 0.2.4. I'm not sure of the issue here. When you take the cover off of a power supply, the mains is right there for you to touch. But you don't because of your training and experience. That training and experience is a safeguard. Do you think that now is the time to get some HBSE training, or will we see a national implementation of IEC62368-1 before the apocalypse ? Wait until you can read the IEC 60950-1 to IEC 62368-1 clause-by-clause comparison document now in its final stages of preparation by Ecma's TC12. Due in March, 2011. If you had attended the IEEE PSES Symposium a few weeks ago, you could also have attended UL's HBSE training. Plan on it for next year's Symposium in San Diego. Which apocalypse? Political, economic, environmental, jihad, Armageddon? AFAIK, if a box allows contact that exceeds a certain voltage or current or power, there is a hazard, for all people. Am I being a primitive tribal idiot ? Of course not. Existing standards have led you to this conclusion, and it makes for a safe box. In IEC 62368-1, neither an ordinary person nor an instructed person can have contact with a Class 3 energy source. Safeguards must be provided to prevent contact. This is no different than today's standards except we identify the thing that prevents the contact as a safeguard. However, IEC 62368-1 considers behavior as a safeguard! In IEC 62368-1, a skilled person uses his training and experience to avoid contact as the safeguard against a Class 3 energy source. In IEC 62368-1, electric shock requires BOTH voltage and current to exceed the specified limits. One does not get a shock from a 12- volt car battery. Likewise, if leakage current is less than 0.5 mA, one does not get an electric shock regardless of voltage. In IEC 62368-1, there is no limitation on contact with power. Can I assume that if UL/EN62368-1 gets published prior to the apocalypse, that the apocalypse as a procedural device can be certified for use by Skilled and certain Instructed Persons. Yes. But you know the adage about assume. At the moment, neither UL nor EN will publish the 1st edition. They're waiting for the 2nd edition, which should be published in 2013. Best regards, Rich - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules:
Re: 60335-1 edition 5.0 hold ups?
One of the things which I know is going to be in it is an annex which provides guidance on the overlap between the LVD and Machinery Directives, which as most members of this list will be aware was substantially altered by the new Directive which came in on 29 December last year. Nick. At 11:38 -0500 1/11/10, Doug Kramer wrote: Does any list member have knowledge as to the hold up and comments relating to the release on EN60335-1? They released an A14 as a stop gap, but is the next edition so radically different that it is getting help up in CENELEC? Any ideas as to what changes will be in the final EN60335-1 from the IEC60335-1 edition 5? Thanks, Doug - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to LT;mailto:emc-p...@ieee.orgemc-p...@ieee.orgGT; All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-ps chttp://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user guide.htmlhttp://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.ht lhttp://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas LT;mailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.netemcp...@radiusnorth.netGT; Mike Cantwell LT;mailto:mcantw...@ieee.orgmcantw...@ieee.orgGT; For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher LT;mailto:j.bac...@ieee.orgj.bac...@ieee.orgGT; David Heald LT;mailto:dhe...@gmail.comdhe...@gmail.comGT; - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: recommendations for a Software Company
Julian Some country certifications do not require a Mark but certification is required. You will need to check with the server manufacturer all available certs. Some country certifications may have been done under the server importer name and now that you have a different importer you need to redo the certification. Here again you need to involve the Server manufacturer to get copies of all certs ( if they agree to share it with you). Let me know if you have additional questions Peter pe...@goglobalcompliance.com Www.globalcompliance.blogspot.com Sent from my iPhone On Nov 1, 2010, at 9:00 AM, Julian Jones ju...@hursley-emc.co.uk wrote: Dear group, I have a customer marketing a software product. To function it needs a Server from a well known bluechip and an interface card from another manufacturer. They assemble the “package” of HW and SW and only their trained installation team are responsible for the setting up. Historically it has been sold in UK and USA. Now with a growing demand they are looking at a global marketplace. Many countries are only concerned with domestic products for EMC and safety. So there is no problem there. The server are UL and CB certified which will help in 90% of cases. Has anyone experience of approvals for this scenario ? Does my customer need to worry at all about the approvals as long as the host Server is approved and carrying the regulatory marks. My customer does not badge the products in anyway, if you ordered an XYX from them you would get the server from bluechip A + the adapter card. The bluechip server manf do a good job of getting many approvals already for mexico and agentina etc. Does my customer need to worry at all about the approvals as long as the host Server is approved and carrying the regulatory marks. Advice please or experiences online or to my email off line. Julian Jones Hursley EMC Services Tel: 023 8027 Mob: 07787 523 607 julian.jo...@hursley-emc.co.uk mailto:julian.jo...@hursley-emc.co.uk Unit 16, Brickfield Lane Chandlers Ford EASTLEIGH, Hampshire, SO53 4DP Company Registration 3301279 - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas mailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
60335-1 edition 5.0 hold ups?
Does any list member have knowledge as to the hold up and comments relating to the release on EN60335-1? They released an A14 as a stop gap, but is the next edition so radically different that it is getting help up in CENELEC? Any ideas as to what changes will be in the final EN60335-1 from the IEC60335-1 edition 5? Thanks, Doug - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
recommendations for a Software Company
Dear group, I have a customer marketing a software product. To function it needs a Server from a well known bluechip and an interface card from another manufacturer. They assemble the “package” of HW and SW and only their trained installation team are responsible for the setting up. Historically it has been sold in UK and USA. Now with a growing demand they are looking at a global marketplace. Many countries are only concerned with domestic products for EMC and safety. So there is no problem there. The server are UL and CB certified which will help in 90% of cases. Has anyone experience of approvals for this scenario ? Does my customer need to worry at all about the approvals as long as the host Server is approved and carrying the regulatory marks. My customer does not badge the products in anyway, if you ordered an XYX from them you would get the server from bluechip A + the adapter card. The bluechip server manf do a good job of getting many approvals already for mexico and agentina etc. Does my customer need to worry at all about the approvals as long as the host Server is approved and carrying the regulatory marks. Advice please or experiences online or to my email off line. Julian Jones Hursley EMC Services Tel: 023 8027 Mob: 07787 523 607 julian.jo...@hursley-emc.co.uk mailto:julian.jo...@hursley-emc.co.uk Unit 16, Brickfield Lane Chandlers Ford EASTLEIGH, Hampshire, SO53 4DP Company Registration 3301279 - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
RE: [PSES] Fiber Converters for EMC Chamber
There are several companies that manufacture such devices. While not endorsing anyone in particular I happen to use a CANbus/fiberoptic converter www.eks-engle.de http://www.eks-engle.de/ Since they aren’t in the EMC business but are intended for other reasons don’t expect them to be completely quiet – the will likely meet class B emissions for information technology equipment but that is about all you can really expect. The ones I have required an external power supply and I rounded up some small linear DC supplies to driver them. Using linear helps keep down the noise in the chamber. Basically these are much better than the CANbus converters I had to use prior to that but they are not noiseless. The manufacturer of these devices don’t have a clue what you’re trying to do with them and will assure you that the meet the limits etc but I always make it clear that if they don’t meet my needs that I will send them back and I have on occasion. I’ve sent computers back for the same reason. I think they will help you out but they won’t’ be a complete panacea. From: emcp...@aol.com [mailto:emcp...@aol.com] Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 11:28 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Fiber Converters for EMC Chamber Hello, I need to get some USB to fiber optic converters and RS-232 to fiber optic converters to use in a semi-anechoic chamber. I need to use these interfaces over about a 15-20 meter distance, while isolating noise from outside the chamber. Does anyone know of what specific devices I should purchase? A Google search returns many results but I would like some opinions of what people are using so I don't end up with internally generated ambients in the chamber. Regards, Tim Pierce - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
RE: [PSES] Different Radiated Emissions results at different labs
Hi, One of the other problems that cause different emission levels can be put down to cyclic times. Many digital devices (and I have nothing to say if yours is or is not digital) have cyclic times where logic switching happens at a high clock speed but subsequent divisions of the clock only switch - say - once per second. This then gives a dwell time for the receiver, so that this switching is captured. I do not know exactly how this type of time varying emission profile is captured when using the CISPR weighting but I expect there will be a difference in reading if the emission is captured as opposed to not captured. I recently made some comparison measurements and there was 15dB difference between sweep one and sweep 2 of the same unit until I increased the dwell time. It ended up as 8.383 seconds before the results were of equal emission levels across the plot. This was a peak measurement. Regards, Tim Tim Haynes Electromagnetic Engineering Specialist SELEX Galileo, A Finmeccanica Company 300 Capability Green Luton LU1 3PG (Phone () +44 (0) 1582 886239 (Mob )) +44 (0) 7540629920 (Fax 7)+44 (0)1582 795863 (Email *) t mailto:tim.hay...@selexgalileo.com im.hay...@selexgalileo.com www.selexgalileo.com http://www.selexgalileo.com/ P Please consider the environment before printing this email. There are 10 types of people in the world-those who understand binary and those who don't. J. Paxman From: Bill Owsley [mailto:wdows...@yahoo.com] Sent: 29 October 2010 23:26 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Different Radiated Emissions results at different labs *** WARNING *** This message has originated outside your organisation, either from an external partner or the Global Internet. Keep this in mind if you answer this message. Like this notes says... +/- 8 dB per NSA between all qualified sites. Then there is the uncertainty part of the equipment to add in. Then if you have cables hanging off the EUT, all bets are off, unless you can ensure that those are NOT radiating. Not likely, so Mr. Murphy conspires to bedevils you with apparent random measurements. Welcome to the world of EMC Test! Find the reports on line of round robin tests of various labs using a small well defined source, one without cables, and most labs will be within +/- 4 dB. Still rough if you are into cutting that close to the limit. Aim for Class B, probably make Class A. Note that is targeting a 10 dB margin. Bill In the event of a national emergency, click on the following links to provide directions to your duly elected mis-representatives. http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml or... https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm if really desperate... http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml --- On Fri, 10/29/10, Derek Walton lfresea...@aol.com wrote: From: Derek Walton lfresea...@aol.com Subject: Re: Different Radiated Emissions results at different labs To: emcp...@sulisconsultants.com, EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Date: Friday, October 29, 2010, 10:33 AM HI Charlie, you point out one of the problems in EMI testing that always plagued us. The response by some has been to levy all sorts of controls on the measurement. While this has enabled a more accurate measurement, it hasn't improved correlation one bit. The whole premise of EMC measuring is full of holes, some are addressed with a huge effort, the rest are gaping. A friend once said to me it's like measuring with a vernier gauge and hitting with a sledge hammer. If you want to do EUT comparisons, you must have identical sites: ground plane size, edge termination, tables, masts, antennas, cables, instruments, software and people. Finally, and critically, the EUT MUST be set up exactly the same, with power derived from the same impedance. Take a simple example of NSA on a ground plane, the criteria is +/- 4 dB. On two different sites the NSA may read up to 8 dB different at the same frequency and both sites comply. I'm not sure you can quantify exactly what that would do to your results, but I'm sure the variation will show itself in your results. Forget the SA/Receiver argument, different antennas offer just as much if not more variation. I'd look more to the test software, EUT set up and the operators technique. Sincerely, Derek Walton L F Research -Original Message- From: Charlie Blackham emcp...@sulisconsultants.com To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Sent: Fri, Oct 29, 2010 2:04 am Subject: Different Radiated Emissions results at different labs Group Testing a product
RE: HDMI Input Monitors/Television
Hi Ted, Most of our products have a HDMI output so I built a battery powered, EMC benign (as far as I can tell) termination for the HDMI signals. This obviously means I don't have to worry about the associated issues with finding good support equipment. You will also find that the HDMI lead is critical to emissions, much more so than the termination. Even expensive high quality (the quote marks indicate sarcasm) with gold plating and moulded ferrites are often poor. Unfortunately when buying leads the only easy way to tell if they are any good is to cut them open and examine the shielding in the connector shell (the shops don't like you doing this in store for some reason...) or to test them. Happy hunting James -- James Pawson Leading Engineer, EMC EchoStar Europe From: Ted Eckert [mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com] Sent: 28 October 2010 17:48 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] HDMI Input Monitors/Television Does anybody have any recommendation for HDMI input monitors or televisions that have relatively low emissions? I am looking for support equipment that will make it easier for me to debug and test my HDMI output products without having to debug the support equipment. Thank you, Ted Eckert Compliance Engineer Microsoft Corporation ted.eck...@microsoft.com The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
