Re: [PSES] Risk assessment versus HBSE

[Douglas E Powell]

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
gives the "appearance" of quantifiable due diligence, which many decision
makers want to see. Sad to say, when I've been involved in meetings with
various SMEs, I've occasionally heard discussions on how to adjust the
parameters in order to keep a particular risk listed on the spreadsheet but
not trigger any corrective actions. As with any system, there are those who
would like to manipulate it to their own advantage. It is for this reason
that, when I am leading the team effort and using a severity scale of 1 to
10, I always press for mandatory action when severity is a 9 or 10
(disabling injury or worse), regardless of the other parameters.

Oh, and that's a nice bibliography as well. I think I just received my
summer reading list.

Best,  Doug

Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
LinkedIn 

(UTC -07:00) Mountain Time (US-MST)


On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 1:45 PM Douglas Nix <
0bb8ff993b10-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:

> 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 my
> list of references on this topic at the end of my message.
>
> The inherent subjectivity of risk assessments that are performed without
> empirical data is unquestioned. The difficulty is that for many areas of
> human endeavour we have no empirical data, and try as we might we cannot
> calculate without numeric data. Nevertheless, we must be able to make
> risk-based decisions when designing products and equipment, and so we
> muddle along with the best tools that we have, hopefully while recognizing
> their flaws.
>
> The HBSE model is a good one, and it fits machinery applications as
> readily as does risk assessment, however, the risk assessment methods that
> are used today have a history that stretches back to the 1960s, while the
> HBSE model is much younger. This doesn’t take away from HBSE in any way for
> me, but it does have an impact on the broader acceptance of the method
> since it is not yet as widely known as “conventional” risk assessment. None
> of the the standards in the machinery safety sector recognize the method as
> yet, so getting regulators and users to consider the method is a challenge.
>
> HBSE also suffers from issues with lack of data when it comes to
> characterizing some hazards, leaving the user to estimate the
> characteristics. This brings in the biases of the person(s) doing the
> estimating just as surely as conventional risk assessment methods.
>
> The absence of a probability parameter in the HBSE model is an interesting
> one, since the probability aspect is the one most subject to error in
> conventional risk assessment. Humans are notoriously bad at estimating
> probability. It appears to me that the absence of that parameter implies
> that the presence of a hazard will inevitably lead to harm, which I don’t
> disagree with. CSA Z1002, OHS risk assessment, actually states that this is
> the case, and recommends that hazards are eliminated on this basis whenever
> possible.
>
> So we’re left with this situation, I think:
>
> 1) Risk assessment, when done quantitatively using sound statistical
> techniques and valid data is a useful and relatively objective method to
> provide data to decision makers,
> 2) Conventional risk assessment using subjective opinions and risk
> matrices or decision trees are unrepeatable and therefore unscientific,
> however. despite their flaws, they provide a means to help guide decision
> makers,
> 3) HBSE improves on some aspects of conventional risk assessment by
> eliminating the probability parameters, but is still subject to some
> subjectivity, and is still not widely accepted enough for some decision
> makers.
>
> I wish there was a more utopian perspective to take on the topic, but I
> have yet to find my way to it.
>
> *References*
>
> [1] E. S. Levine, “Improving risk matrices: The advantages of
> logarithmically scaled axes,” *J. Risk Res.*, vol. 15, no. 2, pp.
> 209–222, 2012.
>
> [2] R. Long, “Calculators , Matrices and Mumbo Jumbo Risk Assessment,” 
> *Safetyrisk.net
> *, 2016. [Online]. Available:
> http://www.safetyrisk.net/calculators-matrices-and-mumbo-jumbo-risk-assessment/.
> [Accessed: 03-Feb-2016].
>
> [3] D. J. Ball and J. Watt, “Further Thoughts on the Utility of Risk
> Matrices,” *Risk Anal.*, vol. 33, no. 11, pp. 2068–2078, 2013.
>
> [4] C. Bao, D. Wu, J. Wan, J. Li, and J. Chen, “Comparison of Different

Re: [PSES] IP Code Question

[sudhakar wasnik]

“Outdoor “ …IP …  will it withstand the “ flash rain, or severe rainfall 
leading to flooding…

Kind Regards,
Sudhakar 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 14, 2022, at 12:56 PM, Charlie Blackham  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> I generally see outdoor telecoms enclosures specified and tested to IP66 or 
> IP67, or NEMA 4X, but EN 60950-22:2006 and EN 62368-1:2020 only required IP54 
> to provide PD2 environment.
>  
> Best regards
> Charlie
>  
> Charlie Blackham
> Sulis Consultants Ltd
> Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
> Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/
> Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247
>  
> From: Douglas Nix <0bb8ff993b10-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
> Sent: 14 February 2022 19:35
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] IP Code Question
>  
> I agree wit Ted Eckert on this. Generally for outdoor use you’d need IP65 at 
> least.
>  
> Doug Nix
>  
> "The most wasted of all days is one without laughter.” — e.e. cummings.
>  
>  
> 
> 
> On 14-Feb-22, at 09:23, Brian Kunde  wrote:
>  
> An IP code of IPx2 implies the enclosure protects against the ingress of 
> water drops at 15° tilt.  Now, most PC enclosures protect the electronics 
> from occasional exposure to water drops, but it is not designed to be exposed 
> to water drops continuously.  So can you rate an electronic device IP22, for 
> instance, but not intend it to be used outside or in an environment where it 
> is exposed to water on a regular basis?
>  
> Thanks for your input.  
> The Other Brian
> -
> 
> 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 
> 
> 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 
> Mike Cantwell 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher 
> David Heald 
>  
> -
> 
> 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 
> 
> 
> 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 
> Mike Cantwell 
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher 
> David Heald 
> 
> -
> 
> 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 
> 
> 
> 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 
> Mike Cantwell 
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher 
> David Heald 

-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] IP Code Question

[Charlie Blackham]

I generally see outdoor telecoms enclosures specified and tested to IP66 or 
IP67, or NEMA 4X, but EN 60950-22:2006 and EN 62368-1:2020 only required IP54 
to provide PD2 environment.

Best regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

From: Douglas Nix <0bb8ff993b10-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: 14 February 2022 19:35
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] IP Code Question

I agree wit Ted Eckert on this. Generally for outdoor use you’d need IP65 at 
least.

Doug Nix

"The most wasted of all days is one without laughter.” — e.e. cummings.




On 14-Feb-22, at 09:23, Brian Kunde 
mailto:bkundew...@gmail.com>> wrote:

An IP code of IPx2 implies the enclosure protects against the ingress of water 
drops at 15° tilt.  Now, most PC enclosures protect the electronics from 
occasional exposure to water drops, but it is not designed to be exposed to 
water drops continuously.  So can you rate an electronic device IP22, for 
instance, but not intend it to be used outside or in an environment where it is 
exposed to water on a regular basis?

Thanks for your input.
The Other Brian
-

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 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>
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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>

-


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 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>

-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Risk assessment versus HBSE

[Douglas Nix]

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 my list of 
references on this topic at the end of my message.

The inherent subjectivity of risk assessments that are performed without 
empirical data is unquestioned. The difficulty is that for many areas of human 
endeavour we have no empirical data, and try as we might we cannot calculate 
without numeric data. Nevertheless, we must be able to make risk-based 
decisions when designing products and equipment, and so we muddle along with 
the best tools that we have, hopefully while recognizing their flaws.

The HBSE model is a good one, and it fits machinery applications as readily as 
does risk assessment, however, the risk assessment methods that are used today 
have a history that stretches back to the 1960s, while the HBSE model is much 
younger. This doesn’t take away from HBSE in any way for me, but it does have 
an impact on the broader acceptance of the method since it is not yet as widely 
known as “conventional” risk assessment. None of the the standards in the 
machinery safety sector recognize the method as yet, so getting regulators and 
users to consider the method is a challenge.

HBSE also suffers from issues with lack of data when it comes to characterizing 
some hazards, leaving the user to estimate the characteristics. This brings in 
the biases of the person(s) doing the estimating just as surely as conventional 
risk assessment methods.

The absence of a probability parameter in the HBSE model is an interesting one, 
since the probability aspect is the one most subject to error in conventional 
risk assessment. Humans are notoriously bad at estimating probability. It 
appears to me that the absence of that parameter implies that the presence of a 
hazard will inevitably lead to harm, which I don’t disagree with. CSA Z1002, 
OHS risk assessment, actually states that this is the case, and recommends that 
hazards are eliminated on this basis whenever possible.

So we’re left with this situation, I think:

1) Risk assessment, when done quantitatively using sound statistical techniques 
and valid data is a useful and relatively objective method to provide data to 
decision makers,
2) Conventional risk assessment using subjective opinions and risk matrices or 
decision trees are unrepeatable and therefore unscientific, however. despite 
their flaws, they provide a means to help guide decision makers,
3) HBSE improves on some aspects of conventional risk assessment by eliminating 
the probability parameters, but is still subject to some subjectivity, and is 
still not widely accepted enough for some decision makers.

I wish there was a more utopian perspective to take on the topic, but I have 
yet to find my way to it.

References
[1] E. S. Levine, “Improving risk matrices: The advantages of logarithmically 
scaled axes,” J. Risk Res., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 209–222, 2012.

[2] R. Long, “Calculators , Matrices and Mumbo Jumbo Risk Assessment,” 
Safetyrisk.net, 2016. [Online]. Available: 
http://www.safetyrisk.net/calculators-matrices-and-mumbo-jumbo-risk-assessment/.
 [Accessed: 03-Feb-2016].

[3] D. J. Ball and J. Watt, “Further Thoughts on the Utility of Risk Matrices,” 
Risk Anal., vol. 33, no. 11, pp. 2068–2078, 2013.

[4] C. Bao, D. Wu, J. Wan, J. Li, and J. Chen, “Comparison of Different Methods 
to Design Risk Matrices from the Perspective of Applicability,” Procedia 
Comput. Sci., vol. 122, pp. 455–462, 2017.

[5] C. Peace, “The risk matrix : uncertain results?,” Policy Pract. Heal. Saf., 
vol. 0, no. 0, pp. 1–14, 2017.

[6] B. Ale and D. Slater, “Risk Matrix Basics,” 2012.

[7] P. Gardoni and C. Murphy, “A Scale of Risk,” Risk Anal., vol. 34, no. 7, 
pp. 1208–1227, 2014.

[8] P. Baybutt, “Guidelines for Designing Risk Matrices,” Process Saf. Prog., 
vol. 00, no. 0, p. 7, 2017.

[9] H. J. Pasman, W. J. Rogers, and M. S. Mannan, “Risk assessment: What is it 
worth? Shall we just do away with it, or can it do a better job?,” Saf. Sci., 
vol. 99, pp. 140–155, 2017.

[10] X. Ruan, Z. Yin, and D. M. Frangopol, “Risk Matrix Integrating Risk 
Attitudes Based on Utility Theory,” Risk Anal., vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 1437–1447, 
2015.

[11] S. Albery, D. Borys, and S. Tepe, “Advantages for risk assessment: 
Evaluating learnings from question sets inspired by the FRAM and the risk 
matrix in a manufacturing environment,” Saf. Sci., vol. 89, pp. 180–189, 2016.

[12] P. Thomas, R. B. Bratvold, and J. E. Bickel, “The Risk of Using Risk 
Matrices,” SPE Annu. Tech. Conf. Exhib., no. April 2015, 2013.

[13] F. Gauthier, Y. Chinniah, D. Burlet-Vienney, B. Aucourt, and S. Larouche, 
“Risk assessment in safety of machinery: Impact of construction flaws in risk 
estimation parameters,” Saf. Sci., vol. 109, no. 

Re: [PSES] IP Code Question

[Douglas Nix]

I agree wit Ted Eckert on this. Generally for outdoor use you’d need IP65 at 
least.

Doug Nix

"The most wasted of all days is one without laughter.” — e.e. cummings.



> On 14-Feb-22, at 09:23, Brian Kunde  wrote:
> 
> An IP code of IPx2 implies the enclosure protects against the ingress of 
> water drops at 15° tilt.  Now, most PC enclosures protect the electronics 
> from occasional exposure to water drops, but it is not designed to be exposed 
> to water drops continuously.  So can you rate an electronic device IP22, for 
> instance, but not intend it to be used outside or in an environment where it 
> is exposed to water on a regular basis?
> 
> Thanks for your input.
> The Other Brian
> -
> 
> 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 
> mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>
> 
> 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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
> Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>
> 
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
> David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>
> 


-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: [PSES] IP Code Question

[Don Gies]

I have seen large industrial UPSs or battery chargers that have IP22 roofs.  
The roofs cover over fan grilles on the top, leaving approx. 50 mm of air for 
ventilation.

Though they may be used to stop water drips or condensation coming off pipes, 
they are mostly intended to keep cut stranded wires, small objects, screws, 
dust, etc. out of the fan ducts.

They very unofficially serve as a place for electricians to sit while they are 
populating overhead cable trays or installing conduit.

Don Gies



Internal
From: Stultz, Mark <0f79f2e10e47-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 9:55 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] IP Code Question


[External email: Use caution with links and attachments]




Hi Brian,
The IP ratings apply to continuous situations unless stated otherwise.  So IPX2 
means that water drops can be continuously falling at 3mm/min when the EUT is 
tilted up to 15°.  The test lasts for 2.5 minutes per side, but the environment 
is considered continuous.  For our machinery with IP32, we typically make sure 
that any water that enters the enclosure will be directly away from any 
components therein and toward drain holes at the bottom of the enclosure.

Best regards,

Mark Stultz


From: Brian Kunde mailto:bkundew...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Monday, 14 February, 2022 9:23 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] IP Code Question


 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 
is safe.

An IP code of IPx2 implies the enclosure protects against the ingress of water 
drops at 15° tilt.  Now, most PC enclosures protect the electronics from 
occasional exposure to water drops, but it is not designed to be exposed to 
water drops continuously.  So can you rate an electronic device IP22, for 
instance, but not intend it to be used outside or in an environment where it is 
exposed to water on a regular basis?

Thanks for your input.
The Other Brian
-


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 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>
-

Re: [PSES] Declarations of Conformity-Gap Analysis Reports-EMC

[Charles Grasso]

Its been a while since I looked - but I think the standards typically lists
the changes and differences. Or has that changed?

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 4:41 PM Ryan Jazz 
wrote:

> * This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by:
> rjayasin...@yamahaguitargroup.com  *
> --
>
> Dear Group,
>
> I am afraid the answer to my question may rely on purchasing ‘before and
> after’ standards and sifting out the delta in order to prepare a Gap Report
> to a Declaration of Conformity.
>
>- If there is an alternate method please advise. A recommended service
>perhaps. Decoder Ring?
>
> At the moment I am stuck trying to come up with a *source* I can
> reference to explain the difference between EN 55035:2017, vs. EN
> 55035:2017/A11:2020, and EN 55032:2015, vs EN 55032:2015/A11:2020.
>
> This forum touched on it last October by sharing a document referring to
> the Frankfort Agreement (
> https://boss.cenelec.eu/media/4dij213u/en_iecreferencing.pdf
> 
> )
>
>- Is there a similar explanation for the latest amendments to 55035,
>and can someone share a good source to find these difference.
>
> Not sure why these matters have to be so cryptic in this already mazy
> world of product compliance.
>
> I’ve been at this since 1999 and this is one area where I have not felt
> well-heeled.
>
> Your help and guidance is greatly appreciated.
>
> Ryan Jazz
>
>
>
> Ryan Jayasinghe
>
> Regulatory Compliance Engineer
>
> rjayasin...@line6.com
>
>
>
> "After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" -
> Aldous Huxley
>
>
>
> LINE6
>
> 26580 Agoura Road
>
> Calabasas CA 91302
>
> 818.575.3711
>
> line6.com
>
> ampeg.com
>
>
> -
> 
>
> 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 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> 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 sdoug...@ieee.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
>


-- 

Charles Grasso

Dish Technologies

 (c) 303-204-2974

(h) 303-317-5530

(e ) charles.gra...@dish.com

(e2) chasgra...@gmail.com

-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Risk assessment versus HBSE

[Charles Grasso]

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.  For example,
all primary circuits are hazardous energy circuits that can cause injury
(electric shock, thermal, fire, and maybe more) and safeguards must be
provided. "

Does this effort not expose the safety engineer to litigation?

Personally I liked using  the UL (NRTL) specs as one had an objective
source.

On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 3:00 PM Richard Nute  wrote:

> * This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by: ri...@ieee.org
>  *
> --
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 from auto accidents.
> Gibson said:
>
>
>
> “Injuries to a living organism can be produced only by some energy
> interchange. Consequently, a most effective way of classifying sources of
> injury is according to the forms of physical energy involved. The analysis
> can thus be exhaustive and conceptually clear. Physical energy is either
> mechanical, thermal, radiant, chemical, or electrical.”
>
>
>
> In a moving automobile, the automobile and its passengers have kinetic
> (mechanical) energy.  In an accident, the kinetic energy of the automobile
> is dissipated in crumpling parts.  The kinetic energy of the passengers is
> dissipated in injuries to the body.  Seat belts transfer the passenger
> kinetic energy to the automobile.  Air bags slow the rate of kinetic energy
> transfer to the automobile.
>
>
>
> HBSE identified the magnitudes each kind of physical energy necessary to
> cause injury.  We called this “hazardous” energy.  Then, HBSE went on to
> specify safeguards that would attenuate or prohibit hazardous energy
> interchange.
>
>
>
> When I evaluate a product, I look for the physical energy sources, and
> then determine if the energy sources are hazardous or not.  Unlike Risk
> Assessment, this is easy and repeatable and not subjective.  For example,
> all primary circuits are hazardous energy circuits that can cause injury
> (electric shock, thermal, fire, and maybe more) and safeguards must be
> provided.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rich
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Douglas E Powell 
> *Sent:* Friday, February 11, 2022 11:37 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] EN 62368-1 : 2020 Ed 3
>
>
>
> In my view, the Risk Assessment should never be treated as a 'get out of
> jail' card or panacea. Instead, it is only a starting point for a safe
> design and should be done near the beginning of a project, not the end. I
> agree with what Rich says, I've seen a lot of subjective assessments by
> cross-functional teams, with variability based on personal risk tolerance
> or risk aversion.  There are any number of articles pointing to why humans
> are not very good at assessing risk (Google search
> 
> ).
>
>
>
> When using FMEA for risk assessment, I always stress that the RPN factors
> of probability of occurrence, severity, and detection be quantified
> separately without regard to the other factors, not an easy task. There is
> also the problem of RPN vs Criticality (severity x occurrence).  If using
> the RPN, there is the possibility that Detection can dilute the RPN number
> to a point below the threshold for action. So in my view, Criticality alone
> should be used to trigger action.
>
>
>
> Kenneth Ross wrote a very good article last month on Navigating the Safety
> Hierarchy; for me, it was an excellent refresher on how I should use
> risk assessment more effectively (
> https://incompliancemag.com/article/navigating-the-safety-hierarchy/
> 
> ).
>
>
>
> -Doug
>
>
>
> Douglas E Powell
>
> Laporte, Colorado USA
> -
> 
>
> 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 
> emc-p...@ieee.org
>
> 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
> 

Re: [PSES] IP Code Question

[Stultz, Mark]

Hi Brian,
The IP ratings apply to continuous situations unless stated otherwise.  So IPX2 
means that water drops can be continuously falling at 3mm/min when the EUT is 
tilted up to 15°.  The test lasts for 2.5 minutes per side, but the environment 
is considered continuous.  For our machinery with IP32, we typically make sure 
that any water that enters the enclosure will be directly away from any 
components therein and toward drain holes at the bottom of the enclosure.

Best regards,

Mark Stultz


From: Brian Kunde 
Sent: Monday, 14 February, 2022 9:23 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] IP Code Question


 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 
is safe.

An IP code of IPx2 implies the enclosure protects against the ingress of water 
drops at 15° tilt.  Now, most PC enclosures protect the electronics from 
occasional exposure to water drops, but it is not designed to be exposed to 
water drops continuously.  So can you rate an electronic device IP22, for 
instance, but not intend it to be used outside or in an environment where it is 
exposed to water on a regular basis?

Thanks for your input.
The Other Brian
-


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 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>

-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] IP Code Question

[Ted Eckert]

Hi Brian,

It is reasonable to state that an IP22 device is not intended for outdoor use 
or where exposed to water. A much higher IP rating would be required for 
reliable operation outdoors, and most people who purchase outdoor equipment 
would not accept a product with only an IP22 rating.

Ted Eckert
The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily represent those of my 
employer.

From: Brian Kunde 
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 6:23 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] IP Code Question

An IP code of IPx2 implies the enclosure protects against the ingress of water 
drops at 15° tilt.  Now, most PC enclosures protect the electronics from 
occasional exposure to water drops, but it is not designed to be exposed to 
water drops continuously.  So can you rate an electronic device IP22, for 
instance, but not intend it to be used outside or in an environment where it is 
exposed to water on a regular basis?

Thanks for your input.
The Other Brian
-


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 
mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org>>

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 mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto:dhe...@gmail.com>>

-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] IP Code Question

[Brian Kunde]

An IP code of IPx2 implies the enclosure protects against the ingress of
water drops at 15° tilt.  Now, most PC enclosures protect the electronics
from occasional exposure to water drops, but it is not designed to be
exposed to water drops continuously.  So can you rate an electronic device
IP22, for instance, but not intend it to be used outside or in an
environment where it is exposed to water on a regular basis?

Thanks for your input.
The Other Brian

-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: