Great, Now we have to start adding information on the sales brochure, like "As
the purchaser of this product places this product into service said purchase is
forming a licensed arrangement with the vendor to not hold said vendor culpable
for all uses and potential misuses of this product...." You get the drift,
just copy the MS licensing language on all software.
- Robert -
Robert A. Macy, PE [email protected]
408 286 3985 fx 408 297 9121
AJM International Electronics Consultants
619 North First St, San Jose, CA 95112
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary McInturff <[email protected]>
To: Ken Javor <[email protected]>; [email protected]
<[email protected]>; [email protected]
<[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 2:38 PM
Subject: RE: EMC-related safety issues
Did the camera have "proximal cause" to the event that befell the
child, well not unless it fell of of the ceiling or the tripod fell over and
hit the infant, or the camera overheated and started a fire. Other than that
the Lawyers need to dig their heads out - juries as well. They are just trying
to chase the money. Cameras don't cause disease likes SIDS. They don't cause
buildings to collapse, or burglaries or whatever else might befall the baby
They are just a convenience. If they an additional input path to the parents
may stop, but the actual monitoring (or the failure of monitoring) neither
helped or hindered the health of the child. The camera manufacturer, even if
this is sold as a baby monitor, I can't see how holding the camera manufacturer
responsible can even be considered, except that it gives the lawyers somebody
to sue with some money. I suppose it might give the parents a misplaced sense
of (and I hate this word) closure because they can blame some body, rather than
just life, fate, or whatever.
I don't doubt your statement that somebody is trying to hold the
manufacturer responsible, I just point out that it is asinine and in my opinion
inexcusable to do so. Recorded history doesn't show a huge plethora of infant
deaths because parents weren't able to have a video camera in the room.
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Javor [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 11:22 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
I have read a part of the IEE guide mentioned below. What I have read
on a paragraph by paragraph basis is fine, but I find the overall philosophy
deeply troubling. The tone of the document is that the manufacturer is
responsible for all uses or misuse of the equipment he sells in concert with
every other type of equipment made or that might be made at some time in the
future. This document is a trial lawyer's dream. It takes us from a society
in which a sale was deemed a transaction of mutual benefit between equals to a
society in which an Omniscient Producer must cater to the needs of an ignorant,
childlike Consumer, and in direct corollary, any misuse of any product by any
consumer is deemed proof that the Omniscient Producer was profiting by taking
advantage of a helpless victim. I realize this document merely reflects this
prevalent view, but the idea that an Industry group would provide such a
smoking gun for some trial lawyer to use in defense of some poor misled
swindled consumer is, to say the least, troubling. To say that Industry
standards don't go far enough, that it is the responsibility of the Producer to
be able to determine all possible environments and failure modes that might
ever occur is placing an impossible burden and any rationale entity, upon
reading this document will immediately cease production of anything that could
conceivably ever malfunction in anyway whatsoever.
Case in point: A friend of mine bought one of these 2.4 GHz remote
miniature video cameras with integral IREDs and is able to monitor his infant
twins from his own bedroom, even in the middle of the night with no lights on
in the twins' bedroom. Suppose that 2.4 GHz link is disturbed in some way and
he misses something important happening in that bedroom. Is the manufacturer
of that video system responsible for any ill that then befalls my friend's
twins? I think not. But this safety guide says yes, and places the
manufacturer at risk.
----------
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: EMC-related safety issues
Date: Wed, Jan 2, 2002, 9:49 AM
Once again, John, you seem to be trying to give a negative
impression about the IEE's guide on EMC and Functional Safety (which you now
admit you haven't read) instead of simply saying what it is that you think is
wrong with it.
Of course I am passionate about the IEE guide - my colleagues and I
spent a long time working on it!
When I discovered you were criticising it to the emc-pstc of course
I had to respond - but I was not (and am not) trying to defend the guide,
merely trying to find out just exactly what it is that you (and your silent
'equally senior experts') don't like about it so I can get it improved.
I am sorry if my wordy emails give the wrong impression - the
simple fact is that I always write too much (as any editor who has had an
article from me will confirm!).
Once again I ask you - and everyone else in the entire EMC or
Safety community world-wide - to read the IEE's guide and let me have
constructive comments about how to improve it.
You can easily download it for free from
www.iee.org.uk/Policy/Areas/Electro (- you only need to download the 'core'
document for this exercise and can leave the nine 'industry annexes' for later
criticism).
I'll make it easy for anyone to comment even if they haven't read
the Core of the IEE's guide....
...the guide is based on the following engineering approach,
explicitly stated at the start of its Section 4 and duplicated below.
*****
To control EMC correctly for functional safety reasons, hazard and
risk assessments must take EM environment, emissions, and immunity into
account. The following should be addressed:
1) The EM disturbances, however infrequent, to which the apparatus
might be exposed
2) The foreseeable effects of such disturbances on the apparatus
3) How EM disturbances emitted by the apparatus might affect other
apparatus (existing or planned)?
4) The foreseeable safety implications of the above mentioned
disturbances (what is the severity of the hazard, the scale of the risk, and
the appropriate safety integrity level?)
5) The level of confidence required to verify that the above have
been fully considered and all necessary actions taken to achieve the desired
level of safety
*****
Please - anybody and everybody out there - tell me if there is
anything wrong with this engineering approach to EMC-related functional safety.
Involve experts you know who are not subscribers to emc-pstc too. Please be as
detailed as you can be.
If I receive no constructive comments about the above 5-point
approach by the end of January I will assume that the IEE's guide is on the
right tracks and will not need major revisions. You can send any comments to me
via emc-pstc or directly to [email protected] or
[email protected].
Interestingly, my reading of IEC/TS 61000-1-2 leads me to believe
that it follows the same general approach as the IEE's guide.
Regards, Keith Armstrong
In a message dated 31/12/01 21:58:43 GMT Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
Subj:Re: EMC-related safety issues
Date:31/12/01 21:58:43 GMT Standard Time
From: [email protected] (John Woodgate)
Sender: [email protected]
Reply-to: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
(John Woodgate)
To: [email protected]
I read in !emc-pstc that [email protected] wrote (in
<17c.18c06c2.296
[email protected]>) about 'EMC-related safety issues', on Mon, 31
Dec 2001:
> Quite a number of EMC and Safety experts took part in
creating the IEE's
> Guide on EMC and Functional Safety, including a lawyer who
specialises in
> high-tech issues. You will find their names listed at the
end of the 'core'
> of the guide (downloadable from
www.iee.org.uk/Policy/Areas/Electro). Many
> of these experts also involved their colleagues and others
so we got a very
> wide spread of opinion.
My comments referred to the IEC work, specifically verbal
reports from
people involved. You will have noticed that the work culminated
in a TS,
not a standard as originally envisaged. That in itself may be
an
indication of certain difficulties in its passage through IEC.
I think that a passionate defence of the IEE document (which I
have not
studied, so will not comment on) *may* also be an indication
that there
is more emotion surrounding this subject than is desirable.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero.
