AM
*To:* Richard Nute
*Cc:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Risk assessment versus HBSE
Hi Rich,
Your points are well taken.
There are some good ISO standards that relate to exposure to hot
and cold temperatures. These standards take the type
Access=true
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rich
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Douglas Nix
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 23, 2022 8:57 AM
> *To:* Richard Nute
> *Cc:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Risk assessment versus HBSE
>
>
>
> Hi Rich,
>
&
<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Risk assessment versus HBSE
Hi Rich,
I have to admit that I’ve been thinking about your reply all weekend.
As you know, I teach machinery risk assessment and consult in this area
regularly. I want to stipulate that there are some
f contact. Using a single
> parameter, temperature, or including time of contact parameter, does not
> address the difference between an aluminum block and aluminum foil (which
> is the issue some members of IEC TC108/HBSDT are addressing). Or the
> difference between an aluminum block and a pla
Nix
*Sent:* Monday, February 14, 2022 12:46 PM
*To:* Richard Nute
*Cc:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Risk assessment versus HBSE
Hi Rich,
I have to admit that I’ve been thinking about your reply all weekend.
As you know, I teach machinery risk assessment and consult in
luminum foil (which is the issue
> some members of IEC TC108/HBSDT are addressing). Or the difference between
> an aluminum block and a plastic block.
>
> Best regards,
> Rich
>
>
>
> From: Douglas Nix
> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 12:46 PM
> To: Richard Nute
&g
Hi Douglas,
Glad I could help. :-)
If you are interested in some hard-core debunking of the risk matrix/decision
tree approach, start with [17], [18], and [19]. The authors are not fans of
these approaches as they do not hold up mathematically, even, as you say, many
want them to seem
Hi Doug,
This looks like a very good summary and mentions a few of the things I was,
in my poor attempt, trying to point out. One of my concerns about RA, and
FMEA in particular, is that this method does have a lot of numeric
computation for what is essentially a qualitative process. As such, it
Hi Rich,
I have to admit that I’ve been thinking about your reply all weekend.
As you know, I teach machinery risk assessment and consult in this area
regularly. I want to stipulate that there are some significant issues with risk
assessment the way it is most commonly applied in industry, see
Hello Rich
I am somewhat alarmed by a paragraph in your email!! In it you indicated
that:
"When I evaluate a product, I look for the physical energy sources, *and
then determine if the energy sources are hazardous or no*t. Unlike Risk
Assessment, this is easy and repeatable and not subjective.
I don’t like the Risk Assessment process because it is highly subjective and
not very repeatable.
When I was with Hewlett Packard, three of us developed “Hazard Based Safety
Engineering,” HBSE. The basis for HBSE was James J. Gibson’s (Cornell
University) research into child injury
11 matches
Mail list logo