Re: [PSES] A quote from Tim Kelly, University of York

A good summary of the state of affairs I think. The last few decades of independent standards development around the world seems to have produced a wide variety of non-harmonized requirements. Perhaps things are slowly improving with wider adoption of IEC standards for safety and for EMC.

Re: [PSES] Commom mode current vs. differential mode current and LISN

A few years ago, I witnessed an electrician shorting 600/347V bus to an grounded metal duct with his screwdriver. A shower of sparks and then darkness after the 600V breaker for the entire building tripped. I was surprised he stayed on the ladder. Ralph McDiarmid Compliance Engineering

Re: [PSES] Partly Completed Machinery...or not???

John, If the rope is specifically sold for use in lifting, and is not intended for any other use, nor is it intended to be cut to length by the user, then the rope is within the scope of the MD. These are covered in Recital 44 of the Application Guide. Recital 34 of the Guide refers to

Re: [PSES] Partly Completed Machinery...or not???

John, I suspect what you are dealing with is actually a sheave block, not a ‘pulley' as mentioned in the extract from the guide quoted by Steve. This being the case, it’s not a lifting accessory because a lifting accessory is intended to go between the load and a piece of lifting machinery.

Re: [PSES] Partly Completed Machinery...or not???

John, I am inclined to agree with you - that a pulley can/should be CE marked as lifting equipment, though I can't quite connect the dots. I do see many adverts for CE marked pulleys using EN 13157 and citing the MD. e.g., http://www.harkenindustrial.com/product/ce-pulleys/ Lauren Crane

Re: [PSES] Partly Completed Machinery...or not???

Thanks guys, but still struggling agreeing with the fact it's not part of the machinery directive. A rope can be but a pulley block is not?? Steve - the last part of the first sentence is that do not have a specific application and that are intended to be incorporated into machinery. The

Re: [PSES] [SPAM] Re: [PSES] Commom mode current vs. differential mode current and LISN

Now we know why safety standards do not presume correct polarity as a compliance mechanism. In fact assume it is backwards... Rodney Davis Regulatory Compliance Engineering Phone: DID 613-691-3468 350 Legget Drive Kanata, On,K2K 2W7, Canada From: Ted Eckert

Re: [PSES] Partly Completed Machinery...or not???

John, In the EU Application Guide 2006-42-ec, 2nd Edition, Recital 35, which is in reference to and an explanation of the first indent of Article2(a), of the Directive says: The Machinery Directive does not apply as such to separate machinery components such as, for example seals,

Re: [PSES] [SPAM] Re: [PSES] Commom mode current vs. differential mode current and LISN

I’ve also seen older non-polarized two-pin receptacles in older US homes as well as older non-polarized two-pin extension cords and older non-polarized 2-pin 3 outlet to 1 plug adapters. In fact, I think I have some in my antique collection box in my basement. So incorrect wiring is not the

Re: [PSES] [SPAM] Re: [PSES] Commom mode current vs. differential mode current and LISN

I have only one minor objection to Scott’s comments. He implies that wiring done by an electrician will be done correctly. I’ve run into more than a few outlets where a licensed electrician switched the polarity of line and neutral. I knew one electrician that did this quite frequently. He also

Re: [PSES] [SPAM] Re: [PSES] Commom mode current vs. differential mode current and LISN

Quite right. The assumption doesn’t even work in most European countries, that use the ‘Schuko’ reversible mains plug. From: Scott Aldous [mailto:scottald...@google.com] Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 4:33 PM To: John Woodgate Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject:

Re: [PSES] [SPAM] Re: [PSES] Commom mode current vs. differential mode current and LISN

That assumes that the input neutral in the product is always actually connected to the neutral of the supply. Even with polarized plugs (or plugs in a configuration where the connection itself cannot be reversed) it is possible for residential house wiring to be incorrect. This is fairly common in

Re: [PSES] EU's new approach directive transitions

Avoidance is a factor in calculating PLr in ISO 13849-1 Safety of machinery — Safety-related parts of control systems — Part 1: General principles for design. We include PLr in our risk assessments as well for reference since some of the same elements that go into PLr go into the risk

Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] EU's new approach directive transitions

Regarding "avoidabiility": 1. I used it typically for mechanical/kinetic hazards, such as being hit by a robot, where human reflex times were relevant. I did not use it for most other risk assessments (e.g., shock, explosion). 2. I gave it a scale of 0 to 1, then subtracted it from 1: risk

Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] EU's new approach directive transitions

Mitigation is a good word that I have used. It does not indicate that a hazard is avoidable or not. Ot indicates that you have addressed the issue and your conclusion is.. Scott > On Apr 14, 2016, at 8:23 AM, John Woodgate wrote: > > I think that introducing the

Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] EU's new approach directive transitions

I think that introducing the third factor is good, but care is needed. We have S-factor, L-factor and A-factor, but 'avoidability' is a positive word and doesn't go well with the biggest number meaning the worst case. It might be better to change the third factor to Unavoidability, so all

Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] EU's new approach directive transitions

In the medical RA where I got a bit of experience a third factor is used to classify the avoidability of risk. Avoidability of the risk. So the risk number is severity times likelihood times avoidability (why doesn't MS Word like this word ?) - To use the comet example, it cannot be avoided, so

Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] EU's new approach directive transitions

A scale of 1 to 5 has been considered too coarse, but again 'where to stop?' 1 to 1000 gives, perhaps, a better impression of the RA of a comet strike to non-technical managers and politicians, but in these days of big numbers, there is a case for 1 to 1 million. From: McCallum, Andy

Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] EU's new approach directive transitions

Rich If you have not done a risk assessment previously it can be daunting - where do you draw the line with "what if". In the UK rail industry an example could be "What happens if the train is hit by a comet". Answer everyone dies. So what mitigation can you do - run trains in tunnels deep in

Re: [PSES] [SPAM] Re: [PSES] Commom mode current vs. differential mode current and LISN

I suppose it has been realised (or assumed?) that the impedance from N to E, even at quite high frequencies, is already low enough that an additional 4.7 nF makes insufficient difference to justify its inclusion. An experiment is indicated. From: Richard Marshall

Re: [PSES] User Name change request to the Administrators?

Hi, I'm John Allen from the USA. I believe there is another from the USA as well. Not sure if he's on this listserv. I can see the senders email address and know that it's not me posting :-). However, if that doesn't work I'd also be happy to have my user name include my middle initial E.

Re: [PSES] Commom mode current vs. differential mode current and LISN

Re Richard Nute's "All of the products I have seen have two Y capacitors, one from L to E, and one from N to E. " Sorry for the delay in the following comment: I've been on Holiday with no email. I have now checked the 13 mains-powered devices for which I have definite knowledge of their Y

[PSES] User Name change request to the Administrators?

Good morning I am John Allen in the UK but there is also another John Allen in the US - and we both show as having the same User Name in our posts, but this can be confusing to both ourselves and other posters. Therefore, is there a way that one of the Administrators to make a change to