Re: [PSES] Risk assessment versus HBSE

AM *To:* Richard Nute *Cc:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Risk assessment versus HBSE Hi Rich, Your points are well taken. There are some good ISO standards that relate to exposure to hot and cold temperatures. These standards take the type

Re: [PSES] Risk assessment versus HBSE

Access=true > > > > Best regards, > > Rich > > > > > > *From:* Douglas Nix > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 23, 2022 8:57 AM > *To:* Richard Nute > *Cc:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Risk assessment versus HBSE > > > > Hi Rich, > &

Re: [PSES] Risk assessment versus HBSE

<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> Subject: Re: [PSES] Risk assessment versus HBSE 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

Re: [PSES] Risk assessment versus HBSE

f contact. Using a single > parameter, temperature, or including time of contact parameter, does not > address the difference between an aluminum block and aluminum foil (which > is the issue some members of IEC TC108/HBSDT are addressing). Or the > difference between an aluminum block and a pla

Re: [PSES] Risk assessment versus HBSE

Nix *Sent:* Monday, February 14, 2022 12:46 PM *To:* Richard Nute *Cc:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Risk assessment versus HBSE 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

Re: [PSES] Risk assessment versus HBSE

luminum foil (which is the issue > some members of IEC TC108/HBSDT are addressing). Or the difference between > an aluminum block and a plastic block. > > Best regards, > Rich > > > > From: Douglas Nix > Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 12:46 PM > To: Richard Nute &g

Re: [PSES] Risk assessment versus HBSE

Hi Douglas, Glad I could help. :-) If you are interested in some hard-core debunking of the risk matrix/decision tree approach, start with [17], [18], and [19]. The authors are not fans of these approaches as they do not hold up mathematically, even, as you say, many want them to seem

Re: [PSES] Risk assessment versus HBSE

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

Re: [PSES] Risk assessment versus HBSE

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

Re: [PSES] Risk assessment versus HBSE

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.

[PSES] Risk assessment versus HBSE

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