I think we are in fair agreement. With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England
Sylvae in aeternum manent. -----Original Message----- From: Chuck Seyboldt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 22 July 2017 18:13 To: John Woodgate <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: [PSES] Harmonised standard withdrawn [60335-2-24] Dear John: Good point, and I assumed a condition where the deficient clause was entirely deficient - any design solution in that clause creates a risk that is not compatible with the Directive. I figured that "meeting" that clause would not be a benefit, so I would disclaim it. But you are right. The wording of the "addition" or "exception" or whatever we choose to call it, is in relation to the words in the standard, and the structure of the standard. Maybe something on the order of "The method adopted to eliminate the risk of fire in such and so area is ..." and then describe the method and any test protocol. That way the statement it is not an exception or an addition, it is a standalone assertion. Regards, Chuck Seyboldt (207) 893-0352 (207) 838-4026 Cellular (800) 893-8142 Facsimile At 12:24 (-0000) on 17.07.22, John Woodgate wrote: > Re: "- or I would amend the remarks to "meets 60335-2-24 except [cite > ONLY clause number where the substantive remarks were recorded]." > > It would be better to write 'but in addition' rather than 'except', > since a metal back also meets the defective requirement in Section 24. 'Except' > gives an immediate impression that some requirement of the standard is > *not* met. > > With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only > www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England > > Sylvae in aeternum manent. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chuck Seyboldt [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 22 July 2017 09:57 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PSES] Harmonised standard withdrawn [60335-2-24] > > Dear Scott: > > It doesn't matter where, except for convenience or "luck" > in finding the remark should the need arise. > > In general, I structure the report to follow the statements on the > face of the Declaration. In this case, I suggested declaring > compliance with 60335-2-24 with exceptions. > So, I'd have substantive remarks at the appropriate section or > sections of the 60335-2-24 checklist, with the substantive remarks > describing how the article or test protocol deviates from the standard and WHY. > > If the risk assessment has a part relating to fire, and the approach > taken is usually limited to "see 60335-2-24 checklist" (fire being > possible due to MANY factors), I would either say nothing different - > the substantive remarks under the standard speak for themselves - or I > would amend the remarks to "meets 60335-2-24 except [cite ONLY clause > number where the substantive remarks were recorded]." > > It would be nearly as convenient if the reverse practice was > followed. That is, have the substantive remarks in the risk > assessment, and then in the related part or parts of the > 60335-2-24 checklist, refer to that specific part of the risk assessment. > > In addition to trying to make a "substantive observation of interest" > easy to find, another principle I try very hard to follow is to limit > detail design or execution observations to ONE PLACE in the report, > and then refer to that part as needed. > That way, if the report is amended to reflect a revised design, there > is less risk of having inconsistent observations recorded in the report. > > Regards, > Chuck Seyboldt > > (207) 893-0352 > (207) 838-4026 Cellular > (800) 893-8142 Facsimile > > - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> David Heald: <[email protected]>
