http://www.ieee-pses.org/symposium http://www.emc2004.org/
In article <[email protected]>, Peter L. Tarver <[email protected]> writes >http://www.ieee-pses.org/symposium > http://www.emc2004.org/ >-------------------------------------------------- > >Busy last week, including the PSES Symposium (a good show, >BTW; I reccommend attending and participation in future >symposia). A few delayed responses follow in this thread. > > >Regards, > >Peter L. Tarver, PE >[email protected] > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John Woodgate >> Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 11:00 AM >> >> Peter L. Tarver <[email protected]> writes >> >> >Correct or not, it has been posited to me that >> the OSM Decisions are >> >sometimes based on installation code issues. >> >> OSM decisions are the results of enquiries by >> test-houses, manufacturers >> or *anyone* about the meaning of a standard in a >> particular situation, >> or how it applies to a new technique. The object >> is to have all test- >> houses across Europe apply the standards in the same way. > >OK ... Some of the OSM decisions are identified as effective >for only specific EU member nations and not all member >nations. Your statement that "all test-houses across Europe >apply the standards in the same way," only adds mud to an >already unclear process. I'd appreciate a little more >education. By 'in the same way' I mean, in this context, that if an OSM decision applies only to Ruritania, test houses in every country will apply it only to products intended for sale in Ruritania. > >> >Though I have not been involved with products I >> knew were intended for >> >sale to governmental bodies, I suspect the OSM >> Decisions can come into play. >> >> Not unless your product involves one of the >> situations which prompted an OSM decision. > >Forgive me, here, but for the life of me, I can't imagine a >case where one might be required to apply any given OSM >Decision where it doesn't apply. Feel free to let me know >where I'm mistaken. I thought you meant that the OSM decisions applied particularly to government work; in fact they apply across the board. What I was trying to convey is that you don't need to do anything special with regard to OSM decisions for government projects. Sorry if that wasn't clear. > >> >Thus, in my view, the OSM Decisions are >> effectively national deviations >> >to the EN versions of the cited standards. >> >> Not really. OSM decisions are now submitted to >> the relevant standards >> committee, with the object of endorsement and >> THEN they are effectively >> Common Modifications in, definitely not national >> deviations from, the >> EN. But in some cases, endorsement is not granted >> or is granted on an amended version. > >Perhaps I'm being picayune, but if an OSM Decision applies >in only a few EU member states, rather than in all member >states, no matter what anyone attempts to name the item, it >has all the smell, taste and color of a National Deviation >or Group Difference. Sometimes, based on national laws, >they have that ultimate effect, irrespective of any fondness >for claiming they are not National Deviations or Group >Differences. It's normal for OSM decisions to ally to ALL countries. The number that apply only to specific countries is very low, AFAIK. > >The following statement can be misconstrued. It is not >intended to offend or disparage. > >For all the criticism Canada and the USA have received for >including installation code based national differences and >national laws (meaning, there are lots of them), they are, >at least, not located entirely outside our national >standards and are duly noted in CB Scheme Test Reports >(which leads me to conclude they are also in the CB >Bulletin). I'm not quite sure what you mean. National deviations are included in Annexes (usually Annexes ZB and perhaps ZC) to the ENs. OSM decisions are NOW publicly available on the Web; the former position where the access to them was restricted was indeed unsupportable. > >In a separate e-mail, I will provide an anecdote that >illustrates my position. If holes can be shot in the >proposition, I welcome the information. > I'm not in favour of shooting holes; I prefer reasoned critiques. But I can be armed and VERY, VERY dangerous if provoked. But not on this mail list. (;-) -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. The good news is that nothing is compulsory. The bad news is that everything is prohibited. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. IEEE PSES Main Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message send your e-mail to [email protected] Instructions for use of the list server: http://listserv.ieee.org/listserv/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: [email protected] Dave Heald: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
