I am afraid I have little time today to enter this interesting debate
in depth, but I feel that a couple of quick points are worth making:
- While EN ISO 13849-1 has replaced EN 954-1 so far as the standards
bodies are concerned, there are many people in industry who continue
to use EN 954-1 an
In message <4ccf46a2.6030...@san.rr.com>, dated Mon, 1 Nov 2010, Richard
Nute writes:
>Check the on-line definitions for:
>
>chemical energy: "The net potential energy
>liberated or absorbed during the course of
>a chemical reaction"
>(Princeton University)
>
>biological ene
hurts.
Brian
-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of
jim.eich...@ca.schneider-electric.com
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 3:24 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Protection system fault-tolerance hierarchy?
Thanks Rich and others fo
2010 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: [PSES] Protection system fault-tolerance hierarchy?
> I don't want to re-invent the wheel, but I'm looking to find a simple
> way to communicate the idea that some systems don't need protection,
> others n
er 01, 2010 6:25 PM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Protection system fault-tolerance hierarchy?
>
> In message <4ccf3408.6020...@san.rr.com>, dated Mon, 1 Nov 2010,
> Richard
> Nute writes:
>
> >Yes, a noun represents a "thing.&qu
; Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] Protection system fault-tolerance hierarchy?
>
> Hi John:
>
>
> > ...but what about chemical and biological agents?
>
> Check the on-line definitions for:
>
> chemical energy: "The net poten
Hi John:
> ...but what about chemical and biological agents?
Check the on-line definitions for:
chemical energy: "The net potential energy
liberated or absorbed during the course of
a chemical reaction"
(Princeton University)
biological energy: "In biology, energy i
Hi John:
On 11/1/2010 10:43, John Allen wrote:
> Per ISO Guide 51 and ISO14971, Hazard = Potential source of harm (e.g.
> electric shock hazard, crushing hazard, cutting hazard, toxic hazard,
> etc.). I’m not sure how IEC62368 defines it. Rich?
IEC 62368-1 does not use the word "hazard," either
a
In message <4ccf3408.6020...@san.rr.com>, dated Mon, 1 Nov 2010, Richard
Nute writes:
>Yes, a noun represents a "thing."
>
>The noun "hazard" supposedly represents a "thing."
>Can you identify the "thing" that is a "hazard"?
>
>Would you say that a safe product is one that has
>no "hazards"?
Tr
Hi Ralph:
On 11/1/2010 10:18, ralph.mcdiar...@ca.schneider-electric.com wrote:
>
> I thought "hazard" was a perfectly good noun. A hazard is something that
> can hurt you or do damage to property. It's the name of a thing, isn't it?
Yes, a noun represents a "thing."
The noun "hazard" supposedly
M
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Protection system fault-tolerance hierarchy?
I thought "hazard" was a perfectly good noun. A hazard is something that can
hurt you or do damage to property. It's the name of
In message
, dated Mon, 1 Nov 2010,
ralph.mcdiar...@ca.schneider-electric.com writes:
>I thought "hazard" was a perfectly good noun. A hazard is something
>that can hurt you or do damage to property. It's the name of a thing,
>isn't it?
Yes. Not even IEC TC108 can take a word out of the l
ctric | Renewable Energies Business |
CANADA | Regulatory Engineer
From: Richard Nute
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: 10/29/2010 02:49 PM
Subject:Re: [PSES] Protection system fault-tolerance hierarchy?
___
: Protection system fault-tolerance hierarchy?
To: oconne...@tamuracorp.com
Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Date: Friday, October 29, 2010, 5:49 PM
Hi Brian:
> What are the legal effects on my employer for
Ordinary
Hi Brian:
> What are the legal effects on my employer for
Ordinary vs. Skilled vs. Instructed Persons ?
By law, I cannot answer this question. Ordinary
persons cannot give legal advice.
> How does this affect the concept of an existing
hazard as compared to a fault condition ?
This question
In message <001b01cb77a2$ec696ad0$d600a...@tamuracorp.com>, dated Fri,
29 Oct 2010, Brian O'Connell writes:
>Do you think that now is the time to get some HBSE training, or will we
>see a national implementation of IEC62368-1 before the apocalypse ?
Undoubtedly, but note that I have not specif
schneider-electric.com
> Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: Protection system fault-tolerance hierarchy?
>
> > I don't want to re-invent the wheel, but I'm looking to
> find a simple
> > way to communicate the idea that some systems don&#x
> I don't want to re-invent the wheel, but I'm looking to find a simple
> way to communicate the idea that some systems don't need protection,
> others need protection, others need protection that will still protect
> even with a single-fault present anywhere, and so-on. Somewhere somebody
> m
--Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of
jim.eich...@ca.schneider-electric.com
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 10:52 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Protection system fault-tolerance hierarchy?
I don't want to re-invent the wheel, but I'
I don't want to re-invent the wheel, but I'm looking to find a simple way to
communicate the idea that some systems don't need protection, others need
protection, others need protection that will still protect even with a
single-fault present anywhere, and so-on. Somewhere somebody must have
codi
20 matches
Mail list logo
