[PSES] new videos and my Odysee channel for them

[doug emcesd.com]

Hi All,

Here is the link to my latest newsletter which has links to several videos on 
my new Odysee channel. I plan to copy over all my YouTube videos plus add more 
content. I will not be adding any more to my YouTube channel.

Newsletter: https://conta.cc/3DET0Re

Odysee channel: (https://odysee.com/@Dougsengineering)

This weekend I will be designing and building a 10:1 current divider to measure 
the current of my little EMP setup in the lab. I will post a video of that next 
week. This would be handy if you have a current probe and want to measure 
higher currents that your probe can handle. Since I usually am doing 
troubleshooting measurements, such a current divider is ideal. If I were making 
measurements to a standard with legal implications, probably best to obtain a 
calibrated current probe with the desired characteristics.

Doug
[cid:image001.jpg@01D7A0D0.09B38280]


-

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] Over Reliance on Automated Safety Controls (Friday question)

[Richard Nute]

 

Hi Doug:

 

For safety, the issue seems to be reliance on the correct functioning of 
devices.  

 

As equipment becomes more and more complex, we are more reliant on the correct 
functioning of devices.  An example is the modern day airplane.  One specific 
example is the Air France flight from Buenos Aires to Paris.  A pitot tube 
stopped working, so the airspeed indicator stopped working.  The plane crashed 
into the Atlantic Ocean.  

 

However, the cause of the crash was pilot error in dealing with the loss of the 
airspeed indicator.  

 

The problem seems to me to be that we don’t understand the consequences and 
necessary action when we incur a functional safety failure.  We are lulled into 
believing that functional safety cannot fail, and so we do not have an action 
plan in case of the failure.

 

Rich

 

 

From: Douglas E Powell  
Sent: Friday, September 3, 2021 7:00 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Over Reliance on Automated Safety Controls (Friday question)

 

All,

 

My question is probably philosophical.

 

With the advent of Safety rated PLCs, Safety Relays, and other solid state and 
programmable safety devices in certified and listed products, are we at risk of 
becoming over reliant on automated safety systems. I'm thinking in terms of IEC 
61508, ISO 12100, UL 1998, UL 991, and many others. While I agree that use of 
programmable devices for safety control is in our future, it seems we, as a 
society, are putting a lot of reliance in this. It is well known that zero risk 
is impossible, but it also seems that "people these days" routinely ignore the 
risks, and it is my view that humans have a very bad history of correctly 
estimating risk out in the wild. It's not my intention to pick on autonomous 
vehicles only, since I've seen this sort of care-less behavior played out in 
other places as well. 

 

Some keywords I have in mind:

*   Automation Dependency
*   Automation Bias
*   Automation Induced Complacency

In general, do you feel we are becoming a society that relies too much on 
technology and automation to keep us safe from harm? I'm looking for an open 
discussion on this and what do you feel will be in store for us in the future.

 

-Doug

 

 

Douglas E Powell

Laporte, Colorado USA

  doug...@gmail.com

  http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01


-


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] Over Reliance on Automated Safety Controls (Friday question)

[Douglas E Powell]

Ted,

I agree with your comments. My concern today is about hazards that
ancestors even one generation ago did not have. While my
original question is mainly about human behavior and not the scale or
proximity of a hazard, we are these days seeing problems that can become
very catastrophic. One case I have in mind is the Lithium Battery Incident
in Surprise Arizona.  You see, we even soft pedal the problem by calling a
serious explosion an incident.  Reminds me of the old joke where medical
practitioners will use the euphemism "negative patient outcome" for a death.

I also live very near a wilderness area with a variety of large animals; in
the foothills area of the Cache la Poudre Wilderness in Colorado.  I like
to think I am an observer of human behavior, at least to some extent, and I
still get surprised at how people respond to dangerous situations.

Have a great weekend,  ~ Doug

On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 9:14 AM Ted Eckert  wrote:

> Hi Doug,
>
>
>
> Let me ask your question a different way. Haven’t humans always used
> technology to provide some level of safety that allows us to use or time
> and mental capacity for other tasks?
>
>
>
> Millenia ago, hunter-gatherer groups had many things to be fearful of.
> Surviving the night might require keeping a fire going to stay warm in the
> winter. It might require having somebody stay up to keep an eye open for
> wild animals or other groups of humans who might be hostile. We might not
> think of the solutions to these problems as technology, but they were. As
> we built cities with walls and homes with more efficient heating systems,
> we stopped worrying about these issues.
>
>
>
> Medical technology has made us safer and allowed us to stop thinking about
> many health issues that used to be more common. Food-safety technology has
> improved, and we don’t need to spend as much time thinking about curing and
> preserving foods to make them safe for consumption. In both cases, a
> failure of the safety system has dramatic results. How often do we hear of
> a case of contaminated food leading to a salmonella or e-coli outbreak?
>
>
>
> I live my life without thinking about issues that my ancestors from 200,
> 1000 or 10,000 years ago had to be concerned with. The safety issues aren’t
> gone, they are just managed by the technology of modern life. I recognize
> that I am complacent, but I’ll let technology free me to think of other
> things.
>
>
>
> For reference, I live at the urban-wilderness interface. Running into
> large animals is a possibility in my neighborhood. It’s common enough that
> we have to have rules about garbage cans to reduce interaction with bears.
>
> Bears Like Our Garbage! – Issaquah Highlands
> 
>
>
>
> Ted Eckert
>
> The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily represent those
> of my employer, humanity in general, or the large carnivores of western
> Washington.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Douglas E Powell 
> *Sent:* Friday, September 3, 2021 7:00 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Over Reliance on Automated Safety Controls
> (Friday question)
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> My question is probably philosophical.
>
>
>
> With the advent of Safety rated PLCs, Safety Relays, and other solid
> state and programmable safety devices in certified and listed products, are
> we at risk of becoming over reliant on automated safety systems. I'm
> thinking in terms of IEC 61508, ISO 12100, UL 1998, UL 991, and many
> others. While I agree that use of programmable devices for safety control
> is in our future, it seems we, as a society, are putting a lot of reliance
> in this. It is well known that zero risk is impossible, but it also
> seems that "people these days" routinely ignore the risks, and it is my
> view that humans have a very bad history of correctly estimating risk out
> in the wild. It's not my intention to pick on autonomous vehicles only,
> since I've seen this sort of care-less behavior played out in other places
> as well.
>
>
>
> Some keywords I have in mind:
>
>- Automation Dependency
>- Automation Bias
>- Automation Induced Complacency
>
> In general, do you feel we are becoming a society that relies too much on
> technology and automation to keep us safe from harm? I'm looking for an
> open discussion on this and what do you feel will be in store for us in the
> future.
>
>
>
> -Doug
>
>
>
>
>
> Douglas E Powell
>
> Laporte, Colorado USA
>
> doug...@gmail.com
>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
>
> 
>
> -
> ---

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Over Reliance on Automated Safety Controls (Friday question)

[Scott Aldous]

Interesting topic, Doug!

I think the first step would be to define overreliance in this context. How
does one determine the appropriate degree of reliance on technology for
safety?

On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 8:14 AM Ted Eckert <
07cf6ebeab9d-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org> wrote:

> Hi Doug,
>
>
>
> Let me ask your question a different way. Haven’t humans always used
> technology to provide some level of safety that allows us to use or time
> and mental capacity for other tasks?
>
>
>
> Millenia ago, hunter-gatherer groups had many things to be fearful of.
> Surviving the night might require keeping a fire going to stay warm in the
> winter. It might require having somebody stay up to keep an eye open for
> wild animals or other groups of humans who might be hostile. We might not
> think of the solutions to these problems as technology, but they were. As
> we built cities with walls and homes with more efficient heating systems,
> we stopped worrying about these issues.
>
>
>
> Medical technology has made us safer and allowed us to stop thinking about
> many health issues that used to be more common. Food-safety technology has
> improved, and we don’t need to spend as much time thinking about curing and
> preserving foods to make them safe for consumption. In both cases, a
> failure of the safety system has dramatic results. How often do we hear of
> a case of contaminated food leading to a salmonella or e-coli outbreak?
>
>
>
> I live my life without thinking about issues that my ancestors from 200,
> 1000 or 10,000 years ago had to be concerned with. The safety issues aren’t
> gone, they are just managed by the technology of modern life. I recognize
> that I am complacent, but I’ll let technology free me to think of other
> things.
>
>
>
> For reference, I live at the urban-wilderness interface. Running into
> large animals is a possibility in my neighborhood. It’s common enough that
> we have to have rules about garbage cans to reduce interaction with bears.
>
> Bears Like Our Garbage! – Issaquah Highlands
> 
>
>
>
> Ted Eckert
>
> The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily represent those
> of my employer, humanity in general, or the large carnivores of western
> Washington.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Douglas E Powell 
> *Sent:* Friday, September 3, 2021 7:00 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Over Reliance on Automated Safety Controls
> (Friday question)
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> My question is probably philosophical.
>
>
>
> With the advent of Safety rated PLCs, Safety Relays, and other solid
> state and programmable safety devices in certified and listed products, are
> we at risk of becoming over reliant on automated safety systems. I'm
> thinking in terms of IEC 61508, ISO 12100, UL 1998, UL 991, and many
> others. While I agree that use of programmable devices for safety control
> is in our future, it seems we, as a society, are putting a lot of reliance
> in this. It is well known that zero risk is impossible, but it also
> seems that "people these days" routinely ignore the risks, and it is my
> view that humans have a very bad history of correctly estimating risk out
> in the wild. It's not my intention to pick on autonomous vehicles only,
> since I've seen this sort of care-less behavior played out in other places
> as well.
>
>
>
> Some keywords I have in mind:
>
>- Automation Dependency
>- Automation Bias
>- Automation Induced Complacency
>
> In general, do you feel we are becoming a society that relies too much on
> technology and automation to keep us safe from harm? I'm looking for an
> open discussion on this and what do you feel will be in store for us in the
> future.
>
>
>
> -Doug
>
>
>
>
>
> Douglas E Powell
>
> Laporte, Colorado USA
>
> doug...@gmail.com
>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
>
> 
>
> -
> 
>
> 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
> 

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Over Reliance on Automated Safety Controls (Friday question)

[Ted Eckert]

Hi Doug,

Let me ask your question a different way. Haven't humans always used technology 
to provide some level of safety that allows us to use or time and mental 
capacity for other tasks?

Millenia ago, hunter-gatherer groups had many things to be fearful of. 
Surviving the night might require keeping a fire going to stay warm in the 
winter. It might require having somebody stay up to keep an eye open for wild 
animals or other groups of humans who might be hostile. We might not think of 
the solutions to these problems as technology, but they were. As we built 
cities with walls and homes with more efficient heating systems, we stopped 
worrying about these issues.

Medical technology has made us safer and allowed us to stop thinking about many 
health issues that used to be more common. Food-safety technology has improved, 
and we don't need to spend as much time thinking about curing and preserving 
foods to make them safe for consumption. In both cases, a failure of the safety 
system has dramatic results. How often do we hear of a case of contaminated 
food leading to a salmonella or e-coli outbreak?

I live my life without thinking about issues that my ancestors from 200, 1000 
or 10,000 years ago had to be concerned with. The safety issues aren't gone, 
they are just managed by the technology of modern life. I recognize that I am 
complacent, but I'll let technology free me to think of other things.

For reference, I live at the urban-wilderness interface. Running into large 
animals is a possibility in my neighborhood. It's common enough that we have to 
have rules about garbage cans to reduce interaction with bears.
Bears Like Our Garbage! - Issaquah 
Highlands

Ted Eckert
The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily represent those of my 
employer, humanity in general, or the large carnivores of western Washington.


From: Douglas E Powell 
Sent: Friday, September 3, 2021 7:00 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Over Reliance on Automated Safety Controls (Friday 
question)

All,

My question is probably philosophical.

With the advent of Safety rated PLCs, Safety Relays, and other solid state and 
programmable safety devices in certified and listed products, are we at risk of 
becoming over reliant on automated safety systems. I'm thinking in terms of IEC 
61508, ISO 12100, UL 1998, UL 991, and many others. While I agree that use of 
programmable devices for safety control is in our future, it seems we, as a 
society, are putting a lot of reliance in this. It is well known that zero risk 
is impossible, but it also seems that "people these days" routinely ignore the 
risks, and it is my view that humans have a very bad history of correctly 
estimating risk out in the wild. It's not my intention to pick on autonomous 
vehicles only, since I've seen this sort of care-less behavior played out in 
other places as well.

Some keywords I have in mind:

  *   Automation Dependency
  *   Automation Bias
  *   Automation Induced Complacency
In general, do you feel we are becoming a society that relies too much on 
technology and automation to keep us safe from harm? I'm looking for an open 
discussion on this and what do you feel will be in store for us in the future.

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-


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/

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Touch temperature limits for accessible parts

[Scott Xe]

Dear Ted,

Appreciate your view & advice!

The charger with a detachable cable is normally left in the
cigarette socket from day one.  The user will use it when in the car or
battery low of mobile phone (common object to be charged).  As per charging
protocol, the most likely full load would happen when the battery is at
very low level.  Then the charging current will decrease gradually.  The
chance of full load would be in a short period of time like your driving
speed example.  Probably I need to assess the risk of burn and
possibilities of reducing the max temp.

Regards,

Scott

On Fri, 3 Sept 2021 at 00:36, Ted Eckert  wrote:

> Hello Scott,
>
>
>
> IEC 62368-1 clause 3.3.7.4 defines “normal operating condition” as the
> “mode of operation that represents as closely as possible the range of
> normal use that can be reasonably expected”. It specifies the range of
> possible uses, not the “typical” use. Note 1 for the clause makes it clear
> that the most unfavorable default conditions must be considered for normal
> use.
>
>
>
> If your charger is permanently connected to the device that it is
> charging, is it possible to load the device such that it continuously draws
> the maximum power from the charger? If the charger has a connector,
> allowing different loads to be connected, could the user charge a series of
> devices, one after the other, keeping the charger at maximum power for an
> extended time? “Normal” does not mean “likely” or “common”. “Normal” is
> what is allowed and foreseeable.
>
>
>
> In the United States, a number of mountain and southwestern states have
> freeway speed limits up to 80 miles per hour. The vast majority of cars in
> the United States will never travel at 80 mph for extended periods. If you
> did a survey, I would expect you to find that, on average, the typical
> American car spends less than 0.1% of the time at 80 mph. However,
> travelling continuously at that speed is allowed and possible, and a small
> subset of drivers will drive at that speed regularly. It’s neither typical
> nor common, but it is “normal” and must be considered a normal condition.
>
>
>
> Ted Eckert
>
> The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of
> my employer.
>
>
>
> *From:* Scott Xe 
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 2, 2021 8:02 AM
> *To:* Ted Eckert 
> *Cc:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Touch temperature limits for accessible
> parts
>
>
>
> Dear Ted,
>
>
>
> Many thanks for your good considerations!  I need to re-assess this issue
> inclusive of those conditions.  I have one conflicted point about the touch
> temperature of 80 degC which is at full load.  As you may know it, the full
> load may happen at the initial charging and the charging current will
> gradually decrease.  In general, it may not be so hot in normal
> conditions.  What is your view on this?
>
>
>
> Kindest regards,
>
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> On Thu, 2 Sept 2021 at 21:43, Ted Eckert  wrote:
>
> Hello Scott,
>
>
>
> Touch temperatures are measured at an ambient of 25 C. However, there are
> a number of additional considerations.
>
>- What are normal operating conditions? Is it true that the user would
>never touch the charger while it is in operation? There is no chance that
>they would try to disconnected it from the car’s socket while it is at
>maximum temperature?
>- If the user could disconnect it, how long do they need to hold it to
>pull it out of the car’s socket? Consider all users. For example, somebody
>with arthritis and a poor grip might need more time to disconnect the
>charger.
>- Think about how TS2 limits apply to touch temperatures. What are the
>abnormal and fault conditions?
>- Even if the standard would only require testing at 25 C, you need to
>consider that a car charger will be used at much higher ambient
>temperatures. Have you done a hazard analysis based on the specific use of
>this device?
>- Will elevated temperatures on the charger result in customer
>complaints? If the charger gets very hot, will it be perceived as unsafe?
>
>
>
> Ted Eckert
>
> The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of
> my employer, TC 108 or the Society of Automotive Engineers.
>
>
>
> *From:* Scott Xe 
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 2, 2021 6:02 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Touch temperature limits for accessible parts
>
>
>
> I am looking for advice on temp measurements and the requirements. I have
> an in-car charger with a temp of 80 degC on external plastic enclosure at
> max load.  Referring to EN 62368-1, the max temp is from 48 - 94 degC
> depending on the time to be touched to operate the equipment.  During
> operation, it is unnecessary to touch the external enclosure except
> plugging in and taking out from cigarette socket.  Is it deemed to apply 94
> degC?
>
>
>
> Should the max temp be measured at room temp of 25 degC or

Re: [PSES] Over Reliance on Automated Safety Controls (Friday question)

[John Woodgate]

I think it's not safe to generalize. Attitudes and forethought vary so 
much among designers. For me, whatever automated safety measures are 
provided, there must be 'last chance' protection in hardware, such as 
fuses.


==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
Istae nunc praetereunt nisi non ubicumque



On 2021-09-03 15:00, Douglas E Powell wrote:
In general, do you feel we are becoming a society that relies too much 
on technology and automation to keep us safe from harm? I'm looking 
for an open discussion on this and what do you feel will be in store 
for us in the future.





--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.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] Touch temperature limits for accessible parts

[Scott Xe]

Dear Rich,

44 degC causing 1st degree skin burn is new to me and easy to get in touch
with this temperature in daily life.  I am looking forward to receiving
your paper and learning this matter in greater depth!

Many thanks & kindest regards,

Scott

On Fri, 3 Sept 2021 at 00:44, Richard Nute  wrote:

>
>
> Hi Scott:
>
>
>
> A 1st degree skin burn occurs when skin temperature is 44 C.  Plastic
> material has relatively high thermal resistance.  80 C plastic is unlikely
> to cause a burn regardless of contact time.  In a separate message, I will
> send separately my paper on thermal injury from the 2014 ISPCE.  From this
> you can calculate whether or not a burn will occur.
>
>
>
> Stay safe, and best regards,
>
> Rich
>
>
>
> Ps:  A charger running at more than 80 C is poorly designed.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Scott Xe 
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 2, 2021 6:02 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] Touch temperature limits for accessible parts
>
>
>
> I am looking for advice on temp measurements and the requirements. I have
> an in-car charger with a temp of 80 degC on external plastic enclosure at
> max load.  Referring to EN 62368-1, the max temp is from 48 - 94 degC
> depending on the time to be touched to operate the equipment.  During
> operation, it is unnecessary to touch the external enclosure except
> plugging in and taking out from cigarette socket.  Is it deemed to apply 94
> degC?
>
>
>
> Should the max temp be measured at room temp of 25 degC or the maximum
> operating temp?  If at max operating temp, how to derive the max temp
> limits in such conditions?
>
>
>
> Thanks and regards,
>
>
>
> Scott
>

-

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] Over Reliance on Automated Safety Controls (Friday question)

[Douglas E Powell]

All,

My question is probably philosophical.

With the advent of Safety rated PLCs, Safety Relays, and other solid
state and programmable safety devices in certified and listed products, are
we at risk of becoming over reliant on automated safety systems. I'm
thinking in terms of IEC 61508, ISO 12100, UL 1998, UL 991, and many
others. While I agree that use of programmable devices for safety control
is in our future, it seems we, as a society, are putting a lot of reliance
in this. It is well known that zero risk is impossible, but it also
seems that "people these days" routinely ignore the risks, and it is my
view that humans have a very bad history of correctly estimating risk out
in the wild. It's not my intention to pick on autonomous vehicles only,
since I've seen this sort of care-less behavior played out in other places
as well.

Some keywords I have in mind:

   - Automation Dependency
   - Automation Bias
   - Automation Induced Complacency

In general, do you feel we are becoming a society that relies too much on
technology and automation to keep us safe from harm? I'm looking for an
open discussion on this and what do you feel will be in store for us in the
future.

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

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: