ilto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Tarver,
Peter
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 5:59 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Regulatory Compliance stifles innovation?
> From: John Tyra
> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 2:32 PM
>
> My concern with Risk Based standards in this case woul
In message
<201048ea81ba0745aca78e4cc8839001768...@desmdswms201.des.grplnk.net>,
dated Tue, 5 Dec 2006, "Haynes, Tim (SELEX) (UK Capability Green)"
writes
>Could the full EMC assessment be approached from a risk management
>point of view? In fact are all technical performance standards moving
)1582 745891
_
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of JOHN ALLEN
Sent: 04 December 2006 20:21
To: 'Haynes, Tim (SELEX) (UK Capability Green)'; ri...@ieee.org;
emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Regulatory Compliance stifles innovation?
Rich
Ref your comme
Capability Green); ri...@ieee.org;
emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Regulatory Compliance stifles innovation?
*** WARNING ***
This mail has originated outside your organization,
either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
Rich
> From: John Tyra
> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 2:32 PM
>
> My concern with Risk Based standards in this case would be consistency
> of interpretations between Agencies.
As you pointed out for the 60065 standards, this is a problem today,
even when applying the most proscriptive standards.
: oover...@lexmark.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Regulatory Compliance stifles innovation?
Oscar, Rich & Friends
Bear in mind also that the Machinery Directive is almost totally "risk
based" and the LVD is (or at least was) heading firmly in that direction
for the next re
r 2006 10:26
To: ri...@ieee.org; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Regulatory Compliance stifles innovation?
Hi all,
See comment below.. based on my understanding in the UK
===
I did not mean to suggest or imply that product safety engineers must learn
and use risk assessment and m
n-encompassing standard to replace 60065 and 60950. How about that for a
thought?
John Allen
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
oover...@lexmark.com
Sent: 30 November 2006 09:04
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Regulatory Compliance stifles innovation?
Rich,
You
still not sure where it should be!
John Allen
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ken Javor
Sent: 28 November 2006 08:25
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Regulatory Compliance stifles innovation?
I agree with Mr. O'Connell and call such regulations, necessa
In message <007601c714ad$67169760$6501a8c0@HP29375324311>, dated Thu, 30
Nov 2006, Richard Nute writes
>Today, safety engineers don't think this way. So, an end-result safety
>standard would require a huge amount of re-invention of the safety
>engineer job!
It could even use the 'hazard-based
Hi all,
See comment below.. based on my understanding in the UK
===
I did not mean to suggest or imply that product safety engineers must learn
and use risk assessment and mitigation.
but why not?
If the objective is to prevent injury, then we must first identify (in a
pro
Hi Oscar:
> While I agree with you regarding Product Safety engineers in
> the field today, there is a group of System Safety engineers
> that have always (since 1962 when the concept began) taken
> the risk assessment and mitigation approach.
I did not mean to suggest or imply that product safe
Rich,
It's the contrary one again...
The standard you are quoting as problematic is IEC 60950-1. Going back into
history, this standard was a derivation of IEC 950 which itself was created by
combining two existing standards, IEC 380 and IEC 435.
IEC 435 was derived from UL 478 and took an a
Hi Rich,
Well, you know me, I'm not so easy to convince!
Safety standards (well, at least IEC 60950-1) have various constructional
requirements to ensure that not only is the connection good when it leaves the
factory gate, but it has a good chance of staying that way throughout the life
of the
"Richard Nute"
,
>cc:
Sent by: Su
[mailto:rn...@san.rr.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 1:29 PM
To: Tyra, John; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Regulatory Compliance stifles innovation?
Hi John:
> Unfortunately it is difficult for a Safety standard to keep up with
> new technology and the fairly broad wording m
Hi John:
> Unfortunately it is difficult for a Safety standard to keep
> up with new technology and the fairly broad wording makes it
> open for many different interpretations...
If a safety standard was written as is an EMC standard,
we would not have these problems.
An EMC standa
Hi Greg:
> I have been trying to think of an example where the standard (IEC
> 60950-1:2001) requires a flame retarded material where no
> possibility of flame exists and cannot come up with one.
I had a product where the main PWB was
vertical and against one side of the
product. The other side
In some ways, regulatory compliance can encourage
innovation. In other ways, product regulatory
compliance can stifle innovation.
EMC standards focus on the end-result, namely
emissions that cannot exceed specified limits.
There are no requirements on how to achieve this
goal.
Safety standards d
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Sent by: cc:
emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Regulatory
Compliance stifles innovation?
11/29/2006 08:14
AM
I don't think that the mind set
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Sent by: cc:
emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: Regulatory
Behalf Of
ted.eck...@apcc.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:48 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Regulatory Compliance stifles innovation?
I could make an argument that regulatory compliance can encourage
innovation. Without legally mandated frequency allocations, the rich
and
powerful could
gmccl...@lexmark.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 8:06 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: Regulatory Compliance stifles innovation?
Rich,
I have been trying to think of an example where the standard (IEC
60950-1:2001) requires a flame retarded material where no possibility of
flame exist
n't have come about with a regulatory
mindset
that mandated the same safety performance for the horse-less carriage as
for
the horse-drawn variety.
> From: "JOHN ALLEN"
> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:03:51 -
> To: "'Ken Javor'" ,
> Subject: RE: Reg
|
| cc:
|
| Subject: RE: Regulatory Compliance stifles innovation?
|
>
-
All,
I've heard it said that Regulatory Compliance stifles innovation and sometimes
even makes it impossible to do the things we want. The constraints that are
imposed for Safety and EMC seem prevent our highly talented engineering/design
community from doing what they need to achieve le
:51 -
> To: "'Ken Javor'" ,
> Subject: RE: Regulatory Compliance stifles innovation?
>
> Ken
>
> Whilst I understand, and appreciate, your point I would like to say that -
> having worked for both large and small companies over the last 30 years, i
es Gig ethernet all the way to the house)
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
ted.eck...@apcc.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 12:48 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: Regulatory Compliance stifles innovation?
I could make an argument that regulatory compl
innovation?
All,
I've heard it said that Regulatory Compliance stifles innovation and sometimes
even makes it impossible to do the things we want. The constraints that are
imposed for Safety and EMC seem prevent our highly talented engineering/design
community from doing what they need to ac
I could make an argument that regulatory compliance can encourage
innovation. Without legally mandated frequency allocations, the rich and
powerful could monopolize the spectrum. Small companies could have
problems developing wireless devices. Without safety approvals, large
companies might be m
oducts stem are precisely
the outfits least able to provide that sort of expertise internally, and
least able to pay for it.
> From: "Brian O'Connell"
> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 12:05:38 -0800
> To:
> Subject: RE: Regulatory Compliance stifles innovation?
>
> While &
ent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 11:31 AM
> To: emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject: Regulatory Compliance stifles innovation?
>
> All,
>
> I've heard it said that Regulatory Compliance stifles
> innovation and sometimes even makes it impossible to do the
> things we want. The
Well said.
Richard
=
Richard Georgerian
Longmont, CO 80504
email: richa...@ieee.org
=
From: Powell, Doug [mailto:doug.pow...@aei.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 12:31 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [EMC-PSTC] Regulatory Compliance stifles innovation?
All,
I've
33 matches
Mail list logo
