In message
m>, dated Thu, 14 Jun 2012, "Crane, Lauren"
writes:
I wonder how to decide if John's view (the hazard is exposed to
personnel) or my view (personnel are exposed to the hazard) is the
intended view of 61010?
I think these are two different steps in the assessment. In this case,
a.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 3:21 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Risk Assessment: "Probability of Exposure"
In message
<64D32EE8B9CBDD44963ACB076A5F6ABB0261F219@Mailbox-Tech.lecotech.local>,
dated Thu, 14 Jun 2012, "Kunde, Brian" wr
In message
<64D32EE8B9CBDD44963ACB076A5F6ABB0261F219@Mailbox-Tech.lecotech.local>,
dated Thu, 14 Jun 2012, "Kunde, Brian" writes:
Would this be considered "intended" or "not intended" exposure?
If properly drafted, a standard must confine its provisions to those
characteristics, functions
Brian
Compared with Severity issues, the Probability issue is always a "difficult"
subject to address in risk assessment because it can be, and often is, far
more subjective, especially where it involves human behaviour - human error
being one of the greatest causes of accidents, and consequential
I'm seeking a clearer definition of what the term, "Probability of Exposure"
means in regards to IEC 61010-1 3rd Ed. In table 12. There are two choices;
"Exposure is not intended during Normal Use"
And
"Exposure is intended during Normal Use".
What I have is a pinch hazard which exceeds the co
5 matches
Mail list logo
