Re: definition of off
According to my understanding of 950, which is much better than 65, I believe a product must be safe, within the meaning of the standard during unattended operation and also when unattended in so-called off mode. Consequently, the status of the product when in the off mode, should be determined by the manufacturer, and the safety authorities should show little interest. Regards, Lou Lou Aiken 27109 Palmetto Drive Orange Beach, AL 36561 USA tel +1 251 981 6786 fax +1 251 981 3054 mobile +1 251 979 4648 - Original Message - From: Colgan, Chris To: 'Emc-Pstc' (E-mail) Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 8:20 AM Subject: definition of off What is clear from IEC60065 is that if a product is capable of being switched on or off or both by a timer or a data link, a front panel mechanically operated switch is not required. What is not clear is the definition of off. Has anyone been given a definition, preferably by a CTL member or the like? Cheers Chris Colgan Compliance Engineer TAG McLaren Audio Ltd The Summit, Latham Road Huntingdon, Cambs, PE29 6ZU *Tel: +44 (0)1480 415 627 *Fax: +44 (0)1480 52159 * Mailto:chris.col...@tagmclaren.com * http://www.tagmclaren.com ** Please visit us at www.tagmclaren.com ** The contents of this E-mail are confidential and for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you receive this E-mail in error, please delete it from your system immediately and notify us either by E-mail, telephone or fax. You should not copy, forward or otherwise disclose the content of the E-mail. TAG McLaren Audio Ltd The Summit, 11 Latham Road Huntingdon, Cambs, PE29 6ZU Telephone : 01480 415600 (+44 1480 415600) Facsimile : 01480 52159 (+44 1480 52159) ** Please visit us at www.tagmclaren.com ** --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
definition of off
What is clear from IEC60065 is that if a product is capable of being switched on or off or both by a timer or a data link, a front panel mechanically operated switch is not required. What is not clear is the definition of off. Has anyone been given a definition, preferably by a CTL member or the like? Cheers Chris Colgan Compliance Engineer TAG McLaren Audio Ltd The Summit, Latham Road Huntingdon, Cambs, PE29 6ZU *Tel: +44 (0)1480 415 627 *Fax: +44 (0)1480 52159 * Mailto:chris.col...@tagmclaren.com * http://www.tagmclaren.com ** Please visit us at www.tagmclaren.com ** The contents of this E-mail are confidential and for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you receive this E-mail in error, please delete it from your system immediately and notify us either by E-mail, telephone or fax. You should not copy, forward or otherwise disclose the content of the E-mail. TAG McLaren Audio Ltd The Summit, 11 Latham Road Huntingdon, Cambs, PE29 6ZU Telephone : 01480 415600 (+44 1480 415600) Facsimile : 01480 52159 (+44 1480 52159) ** Please visit us at www.tagmclaren.com ** --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
SV: Quality Assurance and product approvals
Yes, I like the levels Procedures and Work Instructions. I think rigorous procedures at all levels in a company can produce the reverse of the desired effect. Check lists, I love them, even if 90% of them contains the result Not Applicable. You have at least made some evaluations on important topics. But I have experience with a company who has a lot of procedures / working instructions and trained engineering people also, but even though, they returned every year with the same EMC troubles. forgot to connect the cable screen to the metal connector housing ..and so on ... Amund -Opprinnelig melding- Fra: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]På vegne av Brian McAuliffe Sendt: 21. november 2001 10:25 Til: Tania Grant; mike harris; am...@westin-emission.no; 'EMC-PSTC Discussion Group' Emne: RE: Quality Assurance and product approvals Tania has summed up the situation pretty well below, one that I can certainly relate to. What existed in my last company were: Procedures - to describe the high level policy; Work Instructions - for very specific, and sometimes critical (but not necessarily), usually repetitive tasks. Having separate WI's (1 or 2 pages at most) meant that they could be easily updated when required without loads of reviews by people at all levels of the organisation, because the Procedures were not being updated unless there was a significant policy change. But. While I agree that training people on the 'how' while also giving them the backgorund on the 'why' can achieve the goal (for the Regulatory function at least, which is what should really be talking about here), there must be documented in at least one place the procedure and work instructions i.e. the training manuals. Yes, by the letter of the gospel (ISO 9000:2000) there are only really 6 or 7 procedures that must be documented and 9000:2000 espouses the use of 'verbal procedures', but this will only work in very small companies which probably won't have a Regulatory Group anyway Trained people move on. The 'procedures' go with them. Brian -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Tania Grant Sent: 21 November 2001 05:18 To: mike harris; am...@westin-emission.no; 'EMC-PSTC Discussion Group' Subject: Re: Quality Assurance and product approvals Hello Mike, It sounds as if your efforts were very well spent. I probably did not clarify that, in my opinion, people use the term procedure very loosely. Without having read your document (and therefore leaving myself open for criticism; but that's O.K.) I would say that what you wrote is not a procedure but more of a guideline or a higher level policy document. You are mostly explaining many things, providing information as to who is responsible to do what, but I don't believe you are really describing how those who are responsible are to perform their tasks. Thus, a procedure addresses repetitive tasks in detail, where the details are many and could probably be even very complex, and where probably the sequence of tasks is very crucial, and where you don't want people making mistakes no matter what their level of training is. Your document explains and describes what and describes who is to do what. If it is multi-departmental, it really falls into a category of a company wide policy. I can see that engineering, purchasing, regulatory, etc, would have their own procedures to support this higher level document. Now, why am I so fixated on not labeling such documents procedures? The problem with procedures is that there is usually a very defined format (usually Outline format) that lends itself beautifully to order and also to bureaucracy. There are times when you want bureaucracy and strict order, and there are times when you want to communicate, when you want people to understand and follow guidelines but you don't want to institute needless bureaucracy. How many of you have worked in a procedurized bureaucracy where there were many procedures that hardly anyone could follow or wanted to follow? The reason is because either the procedures were badly written and, most likely, were written at the wrong level. Proper people with training have no trouble working without any procedures provided they know what is expected and who the other players are. You don't need a procedure to define this. But very often the purpose of actions, what is expected, and who the players are, are not explained, but the how is rendered in ludicrous detail. Thus, you end up with a procedure that is unworkable after 7 months. Procedures should be written either by the people who are performing the work, or at the next higher level; test engineering usually writes procedures for the test technicians to follow. However, I believe that it is better if the test
Quality Assurance and Product Approvals
Hi All I have been following with great interest the detailed and in-depth responses to this topic. I have noted that particularly in Europe as the list of New Approach Directives and other regulations grow, plus Safety and Quality issues, that companies are divesting more importance to this whole area. Two questions, does the group see a time when we have a VP Compliance on level terms with VP Finance, VP Marketing etc, or is this already happening in the US. Second Question. Does the group think a formal qualification in Compliance Management CE Marking would be a good idea. It seems amazing that considering the importance and complexity of this area there is not as yet one qualification that can prove a persons competence. At least in Europe I am not sure about the US and rest of the world. Any comments please. Alan E Hutley Editorial Publishing Director EMC Compliance journal www.compliance-club.com
