Re: [PSES] Friday Question - Line Cords in China

[Chuck August-McDowell]

Yes, I have had China Customs open a shipment of 10 powered speakers and find 
one power cord was not from an approved manufacture on our critical components 
list.
We were short one cord set so I had used an engineering sample… Had right plug 
and cordage, just not on our products components list.
Customs returned the shipment to USA as non compliant.

Chuck

From: Ralph McDiarmid 
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 6:01 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Friday Question - Line Cords in China


[THIS EMAIL IS FROM AN EXTERNAL SENDER]
How would the customs folks in those countries check appliance line cords ?   
Do they open boxes, pull contents, and inspect?

If the USA plug is not rated for higher voltage, does it really present a 
hazard ?  (compliance vs safety)  The USA/Canadian plugs have a LOTS of 
creepage distance between conductors.

From: Douglas Powell mailto:doug...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 7:00 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] Friday Question - Line Cords in China

All,

I was talking with a client recently about shipping line cords to various 
countries around the world and how some do not allow the incorrect cords within 
a shipment while others do. Brazil, as far as I know, does not permit incorrect 
cordage. Argentina, Australia, and China (PRC) are all mutually exclusive. 
South Africa and India are mutually exclusive. Japan, Taiwan, and the United 
States are all mutually exclusive. If not prohibited, it is frequently cheaper 
to include multiple cords rather than create multiple regional SKUs when 
products are in low-volume production.

That said, apparently the China market often likes to use US-style receptacles 
(types A or B), even though they use 220 V (). The US-style plug has better 
density (twice as many receptacles in the same space as the China receptacle 
(Type C, or I ?), and with the US receptacles, there are many more aftermarket 
cable options available.  So I suppose that's my question: "Is this usage 
typical in China?"

Of course, the big issue is that the US plug is not rated for the higher 
voltages, even though historically some people may say it works.  I even fouind 
a website that shows this, 
https://www.travelchinaguide.com/essential/electricity.htm

I believe it is critical for manufacturers to not condone the use of the US 
plug in this manner, which appears to be common practice. And I usually advise 
that this type of usage should never be described, recommended, or mentioned in 
any manuals, brochures, or other written material produced by a company, either 
externally or internally. If anyone is injured and an investigation reveals 
agreement with this usage, the company may be held liable.

Thoughts??

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado, USA
doug...@gmail.com<mailto:doug...@gmail.com>
LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/>

(UTC-06:00, US-MDT)




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:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net>
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org<mailto:linf...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>



To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1



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:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/<https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/%20>

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)<https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html>
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net<mailto:msherma...@comcast.net>
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org<mailto:linf...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>



To unsubscribe from the 

Re: [PSES] Friday Question - Line Cords in China

[Ralph McDiarmid]

Manufacturers cannot side-step liability by claiming ignorance.  The 
manufacture is solely responsible for any product they place on the market, 
with or without the correct power cord.

 

From: Douglas Powell  
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 7:53 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Friday Question - Line Cords in China

 

I believe you are correct.  

 

Simply shipping the wrong cord types to certain locations is actually 
prohibited, and in general, including incorrect types could be viewed as 
endorsement of their use in other areas. A thing that should be simple, now 
gets complicated.

 

On occasion, I've heard manufacturers say things like "I've heard of this but 
have no official knowledge that it's true", as a way to side step liability. 
I'm not certain this is considered a valid argument, should someone be injured.

 

While it's convenient and sometimes cost effective to make shipping kits more 
generic, I usually recommend including in BOMs some indicator of the ISO 
Alpha-2 or ISO Alpha-3 country code and make kits so the correct materials are 
included for the location involved.

 

I find that, although seemingly simple, it's very easy to get tripped up over 
such matters. I've also had difficulty in the past with multi-language 
labeling, i.e. combined language labels. In certain countries people become 
offended if the wrong language is on products along side their own language. In 
this case I'm thinking of a 4-language label I once used.

Best regards, Doug

Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA

 

On Fri, Aug 11, 2023, 8:27 AM Chas Grasso mailto:charles.gra...@dish.com> > wrote:

Hello Doug - Wow I had no idea that this issue existed. Thanks for bringing it 
up! 
As I understand that the inclusion of incorrect cords in a package spreads the 
incorrect
conclusion that ALL of the cords are suitable for use. Did I get that right?

 

 

On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 8:00 AM Douglas Powell mailto:doug...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by: doug...@gmail.com 
<mailto:doug...@gmail.com>  

 


  _  


All,

 

I was talking with a client recently about shipping line cords to various 
countries around the world and how some do not allow the incorrect cords within 
a shipment while others do. Brazil, as far as I know, does not permit incorrect 
cordage. Argentina, Australia, and China (PRC) are all mutually exclusive. 
South Africa and India are mutually exclusive. Japan, Taiwan, and the United 
States are all mutually exclusive. If not prohibited, it is frequently cheaper 
to include multiple cords rather than create multiple regional SKUs when 
products are in low-volume production.

 

That said, apparently the China market often likes to use US-style receptacles 
(types A or B), even though they use 220 V (). The US-style plug has better 
density (twice as many receptacles in the same space as the China receptacle 
(Type C, or I ?), and with the US receptacles, there are many more aftermarket 
cable options available.  So I suppose that's my question: "Is this usage 
typical in China?"

 

Of course, the big issue is that the US plug is not rated for the higher 
voltages, even though historically some people may say it works.  I even fouind 
a website that shows this, 
https://www.travelchinaguide.com/essential/electricity.htm

 

I believe it is critical for manufacturers to not condone the use of the US 
plug in this manner, which appears to be common practice. And I usually advise 
that this type of usage should never be described, recommended, or mentioned in 
any manuals, brochures, or other written material produced by a company, either 
externally or internally. If anyone is injured and an investigation reveals 
agreement with this usage, the company may be held liable.

 

Thoughts??

 

-Doug

 

 

Douglas E Powell

Laporte, Colorado, USA

 <mailto:doug...@gmail.com> doug...@gmail.com

 <https://www.linkedin.com/in/coloradocomplianceguy/> LinkedIn

 

(UTC-06:00, US-MDT)

 

 


  _  


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: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/  <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/> 
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe) <https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html> 
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net <mailto:msherma...@comcast.net> 
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org <mailto:linf...@ieee.org>  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>  


  _  


To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC 

Re: [PSES] Friday Question - Line Cords in China

[Ralph McDiarmid]

How would the customs folks in those countries check appliance line cords ?   
Do they open boxes, pull contents, and inspect?

 

If the USA plug is not rated for higher voltage, does it really present a 
hazard ?  (compliance vs safety)  The USA/Canadian plugs have a LOTS of 
creepage distance between conductors.

 

From: Douglas Powell  
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 7:00 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Friday Question - Line Cords in China

 

All,

 

I was talking with a client recently about shipping line cords to various 
countries around the world and how some do not allow the incorrect cords within 
a shipment while others do. Brazil, as far as I know, does not permit incorrect 
cordage. Argentina, Australia, and China (PRC) are all mutually exclusive. 
South Africa and India are mutually exclusive. Japan, Taiwan, and the United 
States are all mutually exclusive. If not prohibited, it is frequently cheaper 
to include multiple cords rather than create multiple regional SKUs when 
products are in low-volume production.

 

That said, apparently the China market often likes to use US-style receptacles 
(types A or B), even though they use 220 V (). The US-style plug has better 
density (twice as many receptacles in the same space as the China receptacle 
(Type C, or I ?), and with the US receptacles, there are many more aftermarket 
cable options available.  So I suppose that's my question: "Is this usage 
typical in China?"

 

Of course, the big issue is that the US plug is not rated for the higher 
voltages, even though historically some people may say it works.  I even fouind 
a website that shows this, 
https://www.travelchinaguide.com/essential/electricity.htm

 

I believe it is critical for manufacturers to not condone the use of the US 
plug in this manner, which appears to be common practice. And I usually advise 
that this type of usage should never be described, recommended, or mentioned in 
any manuals, brochures, or other written material produced by a company, either 
externally or internally. If anyone is injured and an investigation reveals 
agreement with this usage, the company may be held liable.

 

Thoughts??

 

-Doug

 

 

Douglas E Powell

Laporte, Colorado, USA

  doug...@gmail.com

  LinkedIn

 

(UTC-06:00, US-MDT)

 

 

  _  

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: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/ 
  

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/   
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)  
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net  
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org   

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
 =1 


-

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:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Friday Question - Line Cords in China

[Douglas Powell]

Yes,

I did find this topic on the EMC-PSTC archive.  And yet it seems to come up
over and over.

Best regards, Doug

Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA

On Fri, Aug 11, 2023, 9:39 AM John Woodgate  wrote:

> I seem to remember this subject being extensively discussed about two
> years ago. The bans on 'alien' cords are indeed enforced, and some
> authorities were extremely unhelpful in finding solutions, e.g. not
> allowing products to be shipped without cords, which were added in the
> country of destination.  Some contributed solutions for specific countries
> that were found to work.
> On 2023-08-11 15:52, Douglas Powell wrote:
>
> I believe you are correct.
>
> Simply shipping the wrong cord types to certain locations is actually
> prohibited, and in general, including incorrect types could be viewed as
> endorsement of their use in other areas. A thing that should be simple, now
> gets complicated.
>
> On occasion, I've heard manufacturers say things like "*I've heard of
> this but have no official knowledge that it's true*", as a way to side
> step liability. I'm not certain this is considered a valid argument, should
> someone be injured.
>
> While it's convenient and sometimes cost effective to make shipping kits
> more generic, I usually recommend including in BOMs some indicator of the
> ISO Alpha-2 or ISO Alpha-3 country code and make kits so the correct
> materials are included for the location involved.
>
> I find that, although seemingly simple, it's very easy to get tripped up
> over such matters. I've also had difficulty in the past with multi-language
> labeling, i.e. combined language labels. In certain countries people become
> offended if the wrong language is on products along side their own
> language. In this case I'm thinking of a 4-language label I once used.
>
> Best regards, Doug
>
> Douglas E Powell
> Laporte, Colorado USA
>
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2023, 8:27 AM Chas Grasso  wrote:
>
>> Hello Doug - Wow I had no idea that this issue existed. Thanks for
>> bringing it up!
>> As I understand that the inclusion of incorrect cords in a package
>> spreads the incorrect
>> conclusion that ALL of the cords are suitable for use. Did I get that
>> right?
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 8:00 AM Douglas Powell  wrote:
>>
>>> *  This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by:
>>> doug...@gmail.com  *
>>> --
>>> All,
>>>
>>> I was talking with a client recently about shipping line cords to
>>> various countries around the world and how some do not allow the incorrect
>>> cords within a shipment while others do. Brazil, as far as I know, does not
>>> permit incorrect cordage. Argentina, Australia, and China (PRC) are all
>>> mutually exclusive. South Africa and India are mutually exclusive. Japan,
>>> Taiwan, and the United States are all mutually exclusive. If not
>>> prohibited, it is frequently cheaper to include multiple cords rather than
>>> create multiple regional SKUs when products are in low-volume production.
>>>
>>> That said, apparently the China market often likes to use US-style
>>> receptacles (types A or B), even though they use 220 V (). The US-style
>>> plug has better density (twice as many receptacles in the same space as the
>>> China receptacle (Type C, or I ?), and with the US receptacles, there are
>>> many more aftermarket cable options available.  So I suppose that's my
>>> question: "Is this usage typical in China?"
>>>
>>> Of course, the big issue is that the US plug is not rated for the higher
>>> voltages, even though historically some people may say it works.  I even
>>> fouind a website that shows this,
>>> https://www.travelchinaguide.com/essential/electricity.htm
>>>
>>> I believe it is critical for manufacturers to not condone the use of the
>>> US plug in this manner, which appears to be common practice. And I usually
>>> advise that this type of usage should never be described, recommended,
>>> or mentioned in any manuals, brochures, or other written material produced
>>> by a company, either externally or internally. If anyone is injured and an
>>> investigation reveals agreement with this usage, the company may be held
>>> liable.
>>>
>>> Thoughts??
>>>
>>> -Doug
>>>
>>>
>>> Douglas E Powell
>>> Laporte, Colorado, USA
>>> doug...@gmail.com
>>> LinkedIn 
>>>
>>> (UTC-06:00, US-MDT)
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> 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:
>>> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
>>>
>>> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
>>> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
>>> unsubscribe) 
>>> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
>>>
>>> For help, send 

Re: [PSES] Friday Question - Line Cords in China

[John Woodgate]

I seem to remember this subject being extensively discussed about two 
years ago. The bans on 'alien' cords are indeed enforced, and some 
authorities were extremely unhelpful in finding solutions, e.g. not 
allowing products to be shipped without cords, which were added in the 
country of destination.  Some contributed solutions for specific 
countries that were found to work.


On 2023-08-11 15:52, Douglas Powell wrote:

I believe you are correct.

Simply shipping the wrong cord types to certain locations is actually 
prohibited, and in general, including incorrect types could be viewed 
as endorsement of their use in other areas. A thing that should be 
simple, now gets complicated.


On occasion, I've heard manufacturers say things like "/I've heard of 
this but have no official knowledge that it's true/", as a way to side 
step liability. I'm not certain this is considered a valid argument, 
should someone be injured.


While it's convenient and sometimes cost effective to make shipping 
kits more generic, I usually recommend including in BOMs some 
indicator of the ISO Alpha-2 or ISO Alpha-3 country code and make kits 
so the correct materials are included for the location involved.


I find that, although seemingly simple, it's very easy to get tripped 
up over such matters. I've also had difficulty in the past with 
multi-language labeling, i.e. combined language labels. In certain 
countries people become offended if the wrong language is on products 
along side their own language. In this case I'm thinking of a 
4-language label I once used.


Best regards, Doug

Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA

On Fri, Aug 11, 2023, 8:27 AM Chas Grasso  wrote:

Hello Doug - Wow I had no idea that this issue existed. Thanks for
bringing it up!
As I understand that the inclusion of incorrect cords in a package
spreads the incorrect
conclusion that ALL of the cords are suitable for use. Did I get
that right?


On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 8:00 AM Douglas Powell 
wrote:

*

 This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by:
doug...@gmail.com

*

All,

I was talking with a client recently about shipping line cords
to various countries around the world and how some do not
allow the incorrect cords within a shipment while others do.
Brazil, as far as I know, does not permit incorrect cordage.
Argentina, Australia, and China (PRC) are all mutually
exclusive. South Africa and India are mutually exclusive.
Japan, Taiwan, and the United States are all mutually
exclusive. If not prohibited, it is frequently cheaper to
include multiple cords rather than create multiple regional
SKUs when products are in low-volume production.

That said, apparently the China market often likes to use
US-style receptacles (types A or B), even though they use 220
V (). The US-style plug has better density (twice as many
receptacles in the same space as the China receptacle (Type C,
or I ?), and with the US receptacles, there are many more
aftermarket cable options available.  So I suppose that's my
question: "Is this usage typical in China?"

Of course, the big issue is that the US plug is not rated for
the higher voltages, even though historically some people may
say it works.  I even fouind a website that shows this,
https://www.travelchinaguide.com/essential/electricity.htm

I believe it is critical for manufacturers to not condone the
use of the US plug in this manner, which appears to be common
practice. And I usually advise that this type of usage should
never be described, recommended, or mentioned in any manuals,
brochures, or other written material produced by a company,
either externally or internally. If anyone is injured and an
investigation reveals agreement with this usage, the company
may be held liable.

Thoughts??

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado, USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn 

(UTC-06:00, US-MDT)




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:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html
(including how to unsubscribe)

List rules: 

Re: [PSES] Friday Question - Line Cords in China

[Douglas Powell]

I believe you are correct.

Simply shipping the wrong cord types to certain locations is actually
prohibited, and in general, including incorrect types could be viewed as
endorsement of their use in other areas. A thing that should be simple, now
gets complicated.

On occasion, I've heard manufacturers say things like "*I've heard of this
but have no official knowledge that it's true*", as a way to side step
liability. I'm not certain this is considered a valid argument, should
someone be injured.

While it's convenient and sometimes cost effective to make shipping kits
more generic, I usually recommend including in BOMs some indicator of the
ISO Alpha-2 or ISO Alpha-3 country code and make kits so the correct
materials are included for the location involved.

I find that, although seemingly simple, it's very easy to get tripped up
over such matters. I've also had difficulty in the past with multi-language
labeling, i.e. combined language labels. In certain countries people become
offended if the wrong language is on products along side their own
language. In this case I'm thinking of a 4-language label I once used.

Best regards, Doug

Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA

On Fri, Aug 11, 2023, 8:27 AM Chas Grasso  wrote:

> Hello Doug - Wow I had no idea that this issue existed. Thanks for
> bringing it up!
> As I understand that the inclusion of incorrect cords in a package spreads
> the incorrect
> conclusion that ALL of the cords are suitable for use. Did I get that
> right?
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 8:00 AM Douglas Powell  wrote:
>
>> * This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by:
>> doug...@gmail.com  *
>> --
>> All,
>>
>> I was talking with a client recently about shipping line cords to various
>> countries around the world and how some do not allow the incorrect cords
>> within a shipment while others do. Brazil, as far as I know, does not
>> permit incorrect cordage. Argentina, Australia, and China (PRC) are all
>> mutually exclusive. South Africa and India are mutually exclusive. Japan,
>> Taiwan, and the United States are all mutually exclusive. If not
>> prohibited, it is frequently cheaper to include multiple cords rather than
>> create multiple regional SKUs when products are in low-volume production.
>>
>> That said, apparently the China market often likes to use US-style
>> receptacles (types A or B), even though they use 220 V (). The US-style
>> plug has better density (twice as many receptacles in the same space as the
>> China receptacle (Type C, or I ?), and with the US receptacles, there are
>> many more aftermarket cable options available.  So I suppose that's my
>> question: "Is this usage typical in China?"
>>
>> Of course, the big issue is that the US plug is not rated for the higher
>> voltages, even though historically some people may say it works.  I even
>> fouind a website that shows this,
>> https://www.travelchinaguide.com/essential/electricity.htm
>>
>> I believe it is critical for manufacturers to not condone the use of the
>> US plug in this manner, which appears to be common practice. And I usually
>> advise that this type of usage should never be described, recommended,
>> or mentioned in any manuals, brochures, or other written material produced
>> by a company, either externally or internally. If anyone is injured and an
>> investigation reveals agreement with this usage, the company may be held
>> liable.
>>
>> Thoughts??
>>
>> -Doug
>>
>>
>> Douglas E Powell
>> Laporte, Colorado, USA
>> doug...@gmail.com
>> LinkedIn 
>>
>> (UTC-06:00, US-MDT)
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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:
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
>>
>> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
>> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
>> unsubscribe) 
>> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
>>
>> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
>> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
>>
>> For policy questions, send mail to:
>> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org
>> --
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
>> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Charles Grasso
>
> Dish Technologies
>
>  (c) 303-204-2974
>
> (w) 303-706-5467
>
> (h) 303-317-5530
>
> (e ) charles.gra...@dish.com
>
> (e2) chasgra...@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 

Re: [PSES] Friday Question - Line Cords in China

[Chas Grasso]

Hello Doug - Wow I had no idea that this issue existed. Thanks for bringing
it up!
As I understand that the inclusion of incorrect cords in a package spreads
the incorrect
conclusion that ALL of the cords are suitable for use. Did I get that right?


On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 8:00 AM Douglas Powell  wrote:

> * This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by:
> doug...@gmail.com  *
> --
> All,
>
> I was talking with a client recently about shipping line cords to various
> countries around the world and how some do not allow the incorrect cords
> within a shipment while others do. Brazil, as far as I know, does not
> permit incorrect cordage. Argentina, Australia, and China (PRC) are all
> mutually exclusive. South Africa and India are mutually exclusive. Japan,
> Taiwan, and the United States are all mutually exclusive. If not
> prohibited, it is frequently cheaper to include multiple cords rather than
> create multiple regional SKUs when products are in low-volume production.
>
> That said, apparently the China market often likes to use US-style
> receptacles (types A or B), even though they use 220 V (). The US-style
> plug has better density (twice as many receptacles in the same space as the
> China receptacle (Type C, or I ?), and with the US receptacles, there are
> many more aftermarket cable options available.  So I suppose that's my
> question: "Is this usage typical in China?"
>
> Of course, the big issue is that the US plug is not rated for the higher
> voltages, even though historically some people may say it works.  I even
> fouind a website that shows this,
> https://www.travelchinaguide.com/essential/electricity.htm
> 
>
> I believe it is critical for manufacturers to not condone the use of the
> US plug in this manner, which appears to be common practice. And I usually
> advise that this type of usage should never be described, recommended, or
> mentioned in any manuals, brochures, or other written material produced by
> a company, either externally or internally. If anyone is injured and an
> investigation reveals agreement with this usage, the company may be held
> liable.
>
> Thoughts??
>
> -Doug
>
>
> Douglas E Powell
> Laporte, Colorado, USA
> doug...@gmail.com
> LinkedIn
> 
>
> (UTC-06:00, US-MDT)
>
>
> --
>
> 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:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/
> 
>
> Website: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
> 
> Instructions: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to
> unsubscribe)
> 
> List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html
> 
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
> Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
> Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher at: j.bac...@ieee.org
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
> 
>


-- 

Charles Grasso

Dish Technologies

 (c) 303-204-2974

(w) 303-706-5467

(h) 303-317-5530

(e ) charles.gra...@dish.com

(e2) chasgra...@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:
https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/

Website:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/
Instructions:  https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: https://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pses/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Mike Sherman at: msherma...@comcast.net
Rick Linford at: linf...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Friday question

[Brian Kunde]

I'll add a little more to my post.

Our Compliance Department works with many different "Design Teams", so how
involved we get during the development of any project depends a lot on the
Team Members. Those who have been burned in the past know to get us
involved early and often.  Those projects usually go very smoothly.  But
some of our less experienced engineers/project leaders try to shy away from
our involvement until it is too late.  Those projects can be a disaster;
usually causing redesign and unwanted delays. It is learning the hard way.
We try to be as proactive as possible, but some projects are so
confidential that they do not get us involved until it is too late. Then we
have to rain on their parade if you know what I mean.  Fortunately, this
doesn't happen very often.

It used to be more common.  My old boss used to call me "The Seagull"
because when I did get involved in a new project, I tented to "Swoop in,
crap all over everything, then fly away".  That's the job.

The Other Brian

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 2:57 PM Douglas E Powell  wrote:

> Thanks Brian, I appreciate it.
>
> It was a team effort, and I provided regulatory guidance.  The team was
> very receptive to my recommendations, and it shows. BTW - I forgot to
> mention, it went from an prototype to certification in 4 months time.  In a
> few of my past lives this would have taken six months to two years.
>
> -Doug
>
>
> Douglas E Powell
> Laporte, Colorado USA
> doug...@gmail.com
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 11:28 AM Brian Kunde  wrote:
>
>> Doug,
>>
>> This is a huge accomplishment and you and your entire design team should
>> be very proud. A celebration of some kind would be expected.  For companies
>> like ours who have been making the same type of products for many years, we
>> usually pass safety inspections in the first pass because we know what we
>> are doing and have lots of experience, and have taken our lumps over many
>> years.  But for a start-up or any company making a new type of product, to
>> pass out of the gate is fantastic and almost unheard of.  Good Job!!! all
>> around.
>>
>> The Other Brian
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 1:14 AM Douglas E Powell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The reason I asked this question is because a company I have been
>>> consulting with for the last 4 months, has this week successfully had their
>>> 80 kWh energy storage system reviewed and tested for a UL 9540 listing.
>>> This a startup company and they achieved first pass certification of their
>>> product. A limited production certificate was issued and now they are at
>>> the point where they will want to ramp up for factory certification. I was
>>> duly impressed and felt priveledged to be a part of the team. I also felt
>>> this was a very rare achievement and wanted to know the experience of
>>> others in this regard.
>>>
>>> Doug
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 25, 2021, 8:12 PM Scott Xe  wrote:
>>>
 Dear Doug,

 Very interesting question and I would like to know it as well.  Suggest
 to go to the testing lab for the answer.  They should have the statistics
 in their business.

 Would you mind sharing why you want to know it, what for?  Although I
 do not have the figures I am aware of the answers why the product cannot
 pass the test in the first attempt.  Below is my experience in dealing with
 Asian suppliers in the past many years.

- No safety engineer to go thru the design against the applicable
standards before submitted for testing.
- No proper facilities to conduct the pre-tests.
- The employer does not recognise the importance of this position
and results in no safety engineer in the manufacturer.  The design 
 engineer
is also not brave enough to tell the employer that they do not have
knowledge, experience and test facilities in doing the relevant test 
 work
so the employer believes he/she looks after this as well.
- The design engineer does not have relevant knowledge and training
for the test work.  There is little education system in current
universities/vocational institutes to help the society.  Most test
engineers in public test labs are trained by the employers, not from the
current educational system.  Some small associations (TIC - Testing,
Inspection & Certification) from the industry are setting up routes to 
 be
certified testing professionals in the current educational system with 
 the
help from the Government Industry Department.  Just some improvement but
not sufficient IMO!

 Based on the above facts, it leads to other potential issues in the
 finished products.  Even if the product has passed the conformity test, the
 manufacturer may not know why their design meets the requirements.  How can
 they maintain the compliance in production?  If the manufacturer does not
 

Re: [PSES] Friday question

[Douglas E Powell]

Thanks Brian, I appreciate it.

It was a team effort, and I provided regulatory guidance.  The team was
very receptive to my recommendations, and it shows. BTW - I forgot to
mention, it went from an prototype to certification in 4 months time.  In a
few of my past lives this would have taken six months to two years.

-Doug


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


On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 11:28 AM Brian Kunde  wrote:

> Doug,
>
> This is a huge accomplishment and you and your entire design team should
> be very proud. A celebration of some kind would be expected.  For companies
> like ours who have been making the same type of products for many years, we
> usually pass safety inspections in the first pass because we know what we
> are doing and have lots of experience, and have taken our lumps over many
> years.  But for a start-up or any company making a new type of product, to
> pass out of the gate is fantastic and almost unheard of.  Good Job!!! all
> around.
>
> The Other Brian
>
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 1:14 AM Douglas E Powell 
> wrote:
>
>> The reason I asked this question is because a company I have been
>> consulting with for the last 4 months, has this week successfully had their
>> 80 kWh energy storage system reviewed and tested for a UL 9540 listing.
>> This a startup company and they achieved first pass certification of their
>> product. A limited production certificate was issued and now they are at
>> the point where they will want to ramp up for factory certification. I was
>> duly impressed and felt priveledged to be a part of the team. I also felt
>> this was a very rare achievement and wanted to know the experience of
>> others in this regard.
>>
>> Doug
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 25, 2021, 8:12 PM Scott Xe  wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Doug,
>>>
>>> Very interesting question and I would like to know it as well.  Suggest
>>> to go to the testing lab for the answer.  They should have the statistics
>>> in their business.
>>>
>>> Would you mind sharing why you want to know it, what for?  Although I do
>>> not have the figures I am aware of the answers why the product cannot pass
>>> the test in the first attempt.  Below is my experience in dealing with
>>> Asian suppliers in the past many years.
>>>
>>>- No safety engineer to go thru the design against the applicable
>>>standards before submitted for testing.
>>>- No proper facilities to conduct the pre-tests.
>>>- The employer does not recognise the importance of this position
>>>and results in no safety engineer in the manufacturer.  The design 
>>> engineer
>>>is also not brave enough to tell the employer that they do not have
>>>knowledge, experience and test facilities in doing the relevant test work
>>>so the employer believes he/she looks after this as well.
>>>- The design engineer does not have relevant knowledge and training
>>>for the test work.  There is little education system in current
>>>universities/vocational institutes to help the society.  Most test
>>>engineers in public test labs are trained by the employers, not from the
>>>current educational system.  Some small associations (TIC - Testing,
>>>Inspection & Certification) from the industry are setting up routes to be
>>>certified testing professionals in the current educational system with 
>>> the
>>>help from the Government Industry Department.  Just some improvement but
>>>not sufficient IMO!
>>>
>>> Based on the above facts, it leads to other potential issues in the
>>> finished products.  Even if the product has passed the conformity test, the
>>> manufacturer may not know why their design meets the requirements.  How can
>>> they maintain the compliance in production?  If the manufacturer does not
>>> have this knowledge, how can they plan their assurance protocol for mass
>>> production in order to validate the finished products in compliance with
>>> the original design limits before leaving the factory?
>>>
>>> Best regards, ☺
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 at 01:56, Douglas E Powell 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Out of curiosity,

 I would like to know (especially from those who have been in the
 business for a while) what is your "first pass success rate" for safety
 certifications on new product introductions? That is, to achieve a product
 safety certification from an accredited laboratory with no action items
 required coming out of the preliminary design review.  It's helpful if you
 can indicate how complex the projects are.

 In my 26 years as a compliance engineer, I've observed possibly three
 in total for products with a reasonably high complexity.

 Thanks! Doug
 --

 Douglas E Powell
 doug...@gmail.com
 http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

 -
 

 This message is from the IEEE Product Safety 

Re: [PSES] Friday question

[Brian Kunde]

Doug,

This is a huge accomplishment and you and your entire design team should be
very proud. A celebration of some kind would be expected.  For companies
like ours who have been making the same type of products for many years, we
usually pass safety inspections in the first pass because we know what we
are doing and have lots of experience, and have taken our lumps over many
years.  But for a start-up or any company making a new type of product, to
pass out of the gate is fantastic and almost unheard of.  Good Job!!! all
around.

The Other Brian

On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 1:14 AM Douglas E Powell  wrote:

> The reason I asked this question is because a company I have been
> consulting with for the last 4 months, has this week successfully had their
> 80 kWh energy storage system reviewed and tested for a UL 9540 listing.
> This a startup company and they achieved first pass certification of their
> product. A limited production certificate was issued and now they are at
> the point where they will want to ramp up for factory certification. I was
> duly impressed and felt priveledged to be a part of the team. I also felt
> this was a very rare achievement and wanted to know the experience of
> others in this regard.
>
> Doug
>
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2021, 8:12 PM Scott Xe  wrote:
>
>> Dear Doug,
>>
>> Very interesting question and I would like to know it as well.  Suggest
>> to go to the testing lab for the answer.  They should have the statistics
>> in their business.
>>
>> Would you mind sharing why you want to know it, what for?  Although I do
>> not have the figures I am aware of the answers why the product cannot pass
>> the test in the first attempt.  Below is my experience in dealing with
>> Asian suppliers in the past many years.
>>
>>- No safety engineer to go thru the design against the applicable
>>standards before submitted for testing.
>>- No proper facilities to conduct the pre-tests.
>>- The employer does not recognise the importance of this position and
>>results in no safety engineer in the manufacturer.  The design engineer is
>>also not brave enough to tell the employer that they do not have 
>> knowledge,
>>experience and test facilities in doing the relevant test work so the
>>employer believes he/she looks after this as well.
>>- The design engineer does not have relevant knowledge and training
>>for the test work.  There is little education system in current
>>universities/vocational institutes to help the society.  Most test
>>engineers in public test labs are trained by the employers, not from the
>>current educational system.  Some small associations (TIC - Testing,
>>Inspection & Certification) from the industry are setting up routes to be
>>certified testing professionals in the current educational system with the
>>help from the Government Industry Department.  Just some improvement but
>>not sufficient IMO!
>>
>> Based on the above facts, it leads to other potential issues in the
>> finished products.  Even if the product has passed the conformity test, the
>> manufacturer may not know why their design meets the requirements.  How can
>> they maintain the compliance in production?  If the manufacturer does not
>> have this knowledge, how can they plan their assurance protocol for mass
>> production in order to validate the finished products in compliance with
>> the original design limits before leaving the factory?
>>
>> Best regards, ☺
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 at 01:56, Douglas E Powell  wrote:
>>
>>> Out of curiosity,
>>>
>>> I would like to know (especially from those who have been in the
>>> business for a while) what is your "first pass success rate" for safety
>>> certifications on new product introductions? That is, to achieve a product
>>> safety certification from an accredited laboratory with no action items
>>> required coming out of the preliminary design review.  It's helpful if you
>>> can indicate how complex the projects are.
>>>
>>> In my 26 years as a compliance engineer, I've observed possibly three in
>>> total for products with a reasonably high complexity.
>>>
>>> Thanks! Doug
>>> --
>>>
>>> Douglas E Powell
>>> 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
>>>
>>> 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) 

Re: [PSES] Friday question

[John E Allen]

Rich

 

My approach at HP Bristol in the late 1980s’s was much the same, and with 
pretty much the same results during certification and then the follow-up 
inspections – although:

*   We did get caught out when building a product for another division 
because one plastic part met the material flammability spec on the dwgs, but 
the other division had changed the originally-certified material for a lower 
UL94-rated alternative, and the FUS inspector picked that up and “stopped the 
line”!
*   We nearly got caught out by a FUS inspection when a quick check on the 
line by my colleague, after the inspector arrived but before he got to that 
line, found the wrong labelling mtl in the printers – “fixed” by the time the 
inspector did get to it! 

 

I left the company soon after that (a “management” issue – my then new 
“manager” tried to treat me like someone just out of college, instead of 
someone who actually did know what had to be done, what was required, and how 
to do it! ☹ ) so I don’t know how it went later on, but I left a good system in 
place and I hope it lasted (at least until the Bristol plant was closed some 
years later).

 

“People” seem to forget the “simplest things” are often of considerable 
importance in both certification and FUS activities – notably that these should 
actually be “formal processes” which must be established and tested, and then 
followed and implemented.

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK.

 

From: Richard Nute  
Sent: 27 June 2021 00:47
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Friday question

 

 

 

Hi Doug:

 

My employer had a course entitled “Zero Defects.”  We were encouraged to apply 
it to our function.  Mine, of course, was safety certification and all that it 
entailed.  Good course as it wanted a scorecard for each activity.  

 

Using the scorecard, all my submittals went without action items.  Okay, a few 
action items that I successfully showed them where they were wrong.  I took to 
arguing with the cert engineer.  In one case, he wouldn’t accept my argument, 
so I took the product to another cert house and was successful.

 

I applied the same process to follow-up inspections.  After a year or so of no 
defects, the certification house was upset.  So, they sent a bigwig to 
accompany the inspector (probably to check whether I was intimidating the 
inspector).  No defects!  

 

Rich

 

 

From: Douglas E Powell mailto:doug...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2021 10:55 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [PSES] Friday question

 

Out of curiosity, 

 

I would like to know (especially from those who have been in the business for a 
while) what is your "first pass success rate" for safety certifications on new 
product introductions? That is, to achieve a product safety certification from 
an accredited laboratory with no action items required coming out of the 
preliminary design review.  It's helpful if you can indicate how complex the 
projects are.

 

In my 26 years as a compliance engineer, I've observed possibly three in total 
for products with a reasonably high complexity.

 

Thanks! Doug

--

 

Douglas E Powell
doug...@gmail.com <mailto: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) 
<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
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 
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 unsubscri

Re: [PSES] Friday question

[Richard Nute]

 

 

Hi Doug:

 

My employer had a course entitled “Zero Defects.”  We were encouraged to apply 
it to our function.  Mine, of course, was safety certification and all that it 
entailed.  Good course as it wanted a scorecard for each activity.  

 

Using the scorecard, all my submittals went without action items.  Okay, a few 
action items that I successfully showed them where they were wrong.  I took to 
arguing with the cert engineer.  In one case, he wouldn’t accept my argument, 
so I took the product to another cert house and was successful.

 

I applied the same process to follow-up inspections.  After a year or so of no 
defects, the certification house was upset.  So, they sent a bigwig to 
accompany the inspector (probably to check whether I was intimidating the 
inspector).  No defects!  

 

Rich

 

 

From: Douglas E Powell  
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2021 10:55 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Friday question

 

Out of curiosity, 

 

I would like to know (especially from those who have been in the business for a 
while) what is your "first pass success rate" for safety certifications on new 
product introductions? That is, to achieve a product safety certification from 
an accredited laboratory with no action items required coming out of the 
preliminary design review.  It's helpful if you can indicate how complex the 
projects are.

 

In my 26 years as a compliance engineer, I've observed possibly three in total 
for products with a reasonably high complexity.

 

Thanks! Doug

--

 

Douglas E Powell
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] Friday question

[Ron Pickard]

Fortunately, I had the full support of upper management and use of pretest 
facilities in-house (a lot of which I built). I dealt with varied product types 
across multiple compliance disciplines, environments & countries. Some products 
were variants to some degree and others were new designs.

I still kind of miss it as it kept me very busy with long nights, but my head 
was truly full of mush at the end & I'm glad I'm out now.

Great friday question (made me reminisce).

⁣Ron Pickard
Sent from my smartphone​

On Jun 25, 2021, 10:05 PM, at 10:05 PM, Douglas E Powell  
wrote:
>Amusing indeed.
>
>I have a few private answers about companies who have succeeded, but I
>suspect that many new products that passed first time were mainly
>variants
>of exisiting product lines. My question was about new product
>introductions.
>
>I am know several design engineers who have learned by way of the
>school of
>hard knocks, and either they design for compliance or at the very least
>submit designs to someone like myself before calling in the safety
>agency.
>
>Doug
>
>On Fri, Jun 25, 2021, 6:07 PM Ron Pickard  wrote:
>
>> Amusing anecdotes so far, but no answers for Doug yet.
>>
>> Over the years in a time long ago (retired for a few years now) I
>gained
>> much success with first time submissions with experience
>(relationships
>> with labs & agencies were also important for this).
>>
>> The big continuing annoyance was with product variations found during
>> factory inspections due to part availability issues and manufacturer
>> ingenuity (loved working those variation notices).
>>
>> Enjoying retirement & best regards,
>>
>> Ron Pickard
>> *Sent from my smartphone*
>> On Jun 25, 2021, at 10:59 AM, Douglas E Powell 
>wrote:
>>>
>>> Out of curiosity,
>>>
>>> I would like to know (especially from those who have been in the
>business
>>> for a while) what is your "first pass success rate" for safety
>>> certifications on new product introductions? That is, to achieve a
>product
>>> safety certification from an accredited laboratory with no action
>items
>>> required coming out of the preliminary design review.  It's helpful
>if you
>>> can indicate how complex the projects are.
>>>
>>> In my 26 years as a compliance engineer, I've observed possibly
>three in
>>> total for products with a reasonably high complexity.
>>>
>>> Thanks! Doug
>>> --
>>>
>>> Douglas E Powell
>>> 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
>>>
>>> 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 
>>>
>>
>
>-
>
>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: 

-

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 

Re: [PSES] Friday question

[Douglas E Powell]

The reason I asked this question is because a company I have been
consulting with for the last 4 months, has this week successfully had their
80 kWh energy storage system reviewed and tested for a UL 9540 listing.
This a startup company and they achieved first pass certification of their
product. A limited production certificate was issued and now they are at
the point where they will want to ramp up for factory certification. I was
duly impressed and felt priveledged to be a part of the team. I also felt
this was a very rare achievement and wanted to know the experience of
others in this regard.

Doug

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021, 8:12 PM Scott Xe  wrote:

> Dear Doug,
>
> Very interesting question and I would like to know it as well.  Suggest to
> go to the testing lab for the answer.  They should have the statistics in
> their business.
>
> Would you mind sharing why you want to know it, what for?  Although I do
> not have the figures I am aware of the answers why the product cannot pass
> the test in the first attempt.  Below is my experience in dealing with
> Asian suppliers in the past many years.
>
>- No safety engineer to go thru the design against the applicable
>standards before submitted for testing.
>- No proper facilities to conduct the pre-tests.
>- The employer does not recognise the importance of this position and
>results in no safety engineer in the manufacturer.  The design engineer is
>also not brave enough to tell the employer that they do not have knowledge,
>experience and test facilities in doing the relevant test work so the
>employer believes he/she looks after this as well.
>- The design engineer does not have relevant knowledge and training
>for the test work.  There is little education system in current
>universities/vocational institutes to help the society.  Most test
>engineers in public test labs are trained by the employers, not from the
>current educational system.  Some small associations (TIC - Testing,
>Inspection & Certification) from the industry are setting up routes to be
>certified testing professionals in the current educational system with the
>help from the Government Industry Department.  Just some improvement but
>not sufficient IMO!
>
> Based on the above facts, it leads to other potential issues in the
> finished products.  Even if the product has passed the conformity test, the
> manufacturer may not know why their design meets the requirements.  How can
> they maintain the compliance in production?  If the manufacturer does not
> have this knowledge, how can they plan their assurance protocol for mass
> production in order to validate the finished products in compliance with
> the original design limits before leaving the factory?
>
> Best regards, ☺
>
> Scott
>
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 at 01:56, Douglas E Powell  wrote:
>
>> Out of curiosity,
>>
>> I would like to know (especially from those who have been in the business
>> for a while) what is your "first pass success rate" for safety
>> certifications on new product introductions? That is, to achieve a product
>> safety certification from an accredited laboratory with no action items
>> required coming out of the preliminary design review.  It's helpful if you
>> can indicate how complex the projects are.
>>
>> In my 26 years as a compliance engineer, I've observed possibly three in
>> total for products with a reasonably high complexity.
>>
>> Thanks! Doug
>> --
>>
>> Douglas E Powell
>> 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
>>
>> 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 sdoug...@ieee.org
>> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>>
>> For policy questions, send mail to:
>> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
>> David Heald 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 

Re: [PSES] Friday question

[Douglas E Powell]

Amusing indeed.

I have a few private answers about companies who have succeeded, but I
suspect that many new products that passed first time were mainly variants
of exisiting product lines. My question was about new product introductions.

I am know several design engineers who have learned by way of the school of
hard knocks, and either they design for compliance or at the very least
submit designs to someone like myself before calling in the safety agency.

Doug

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021, 6:07 PM Ron Pickard  wrote:

> Amusing anecdotes so far, but no answers for Doug yet.
>
> Over the years in a time long ago (retired for a few years now) I gained
> much success with first time submissions with experience (relationships
> with labs & agencies were also important for this).
>
> The big continuing annoyance was with product variations found during
> factory inspections due to part availability issues and manufacturer
> ingenuity (loved working those variation notices).
>
> Enjoying retirement & best regards,
>
> Ron Pickard
> *Sent from my smartphone*
> On Jun 25, 2021, at 10:59 AM, Douglas E Powell  wrote:
>>
>> Out of curiosity,
>>
>> I would like to know (especially from those who have been in the business
>> for a while) what is your "first pass success rate" for safety
>> certifications on new product introductions? That is, to achieve a product
>> safety certification from an accredited laboratory with no action items
>> required coming out of the preliminary design review.  It's helpful if you
>> can indicate how complex the projects are.
>>
>> In my 26 years as a compliance engineer, I've observed possibly three in
>> total for products with a reasonably high complexity.
>>
>> Thanks! Doug
>> --
>>
>> Douglas E Powell
>> 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
>>
>> 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 
>>
>

-

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] Friday question

[Scott Xe]

Dear Doug,

Very interesting question and I would like to know it as well.  Suggest to
go to the testing lab for the answer.  They should have the statistics in
their business.

Would you mind sharing why you want to know it, what for?  Although I do
not have the figures I am aware of the answers why the product cannot pass
the test in the first attempt.  Below is my experience in dealing with
Asian suppliers in the past many years.

   - No safety engineer to go thru the design against the applicable
   standards before submitted for testing.
   - No proper facilities to conduct the pre-tests.
   - The employer does not recognise the importance of this position and
   results in no safety engineer in the manufacturer.  The design engineer is
   also not brave enough to tell the employer that they do not have knowledge,
   experience and test facilities in doing the relevant test work so the
   employer believes he/she looks after this as well.
   - The design engineer does not have relevant knowledge and training for
   the test work.  There is little education system in current
   universities/vocational institutes to help the society.  Most test
   engineers in public test labs are trained by the employers, not from the
   current educational system.  Some small associations (TIC - Testing,
   Inspection & Certification) from the industry are setting up routes to be
   certified testing professionals in the current educational system with the
   help from the Government Industry Department.  Just some improvement but
   not sufficient IMO!

Based on the above facts, it leads to other potential issues in the
finished products.  Even if the product has passed the conformity test, the
manufacturer may not know why their design meets the requirements.  How can
they maintain the compliance in production?  If the manufacturer does not
have this knowledge, how can they plan their assurance protocol for mass
production in order to validate the finished products in compliance with
the original design limits before leaving the factory?

Best regards, ☺

Scott

On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 at 01:56, Douglas E Powell  wrote:

> Out of curiosity,
>
> I would like to know (especially from those who have been in the business
> for a while) what is your "first pass success rate" for safety
> certifications on new product introductions? That is, to achieve a product
> safety certification from an accredited laboratory with no action items
> required coming out of the preliminary design review.  It's helpful if you
> can indicate how complex the projects are.
>
> In my 26 years as a compliance engineer, I've observed possibly three in
> total for products with a reasonably high complexity.
>
> Thanks! Doug
> --
>
> Douglas E Powell
> 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
>
> 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 sdoug...@ieee.org
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald 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] Friday question

[Ron Pickard]

Amusing anecdotes so far, but no answers for Doug yet.

Over the years in a time long ago (retired for a few years now) I gained much 
success with first time submissions with experience (relationships with labs & 
agencies were also important for this).

The big continuing annoyance was with product variations found during factory 
inspections due to part availability issues and manufacturer ingenuity (loved 
working those variation notices).

Enjoying retirement & best regards,

⁣Ron Pickard
Sent from my smartphone​

On Jun 25, 2021, 10:59 AM, at 10:59 AM, Douglas E Powell  
wrote:
>Out of curiosity,
>
>I would like to know (especially from those who have been in the
>business
>for a while) what is your "first pass success rate" for safety
>certifications on new product introductions? That is, to achieve a
>product
>safety certification from an accredited laboratory with no action items
>required coming out of the preliminary design review.  It's helpful if
>you
>can indicate how complex the projects are.
>
>In my 26 years as a compliance engineer, I've observed possibly three
>in
>total for products with a reasonably high complexity.
>
>Thanks! Doug
>--
>
>Douglas E Powell
>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: 

-

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] Friday question

[John E Allen]

Well said!

 

From: rwell...@wellman.com  
Sent: 25 June 2021 21:49
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Friday question

 

A man in a hot air balloon realized he was lost. He reduced altitude and 
spotted a woman below. He descended a bit more and shouted, "Excuse me, can you 
help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know 
where I am."

 

The woman below replied, "You're in a hot air balloon hovering approximately 30 
feet above the ground. You're between 40 and 41 degrees north latitude and 
between 59 and 60 degrees west longitude."

 

"You must be an engineer," said the balloonist.

 

"I am," replied the woman, "How did you know?"

 

"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is, technically 
correct, but I've no idea what to make of your information, and the fact is I'm 
still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help at all. If anything, you've 
delayed my trip."

 

The woman below responded, "You must be in Management."

 

"I am," replied the balloonist, "but how did you know?"

 

"Well," said the woman, "you don't know where you are or where you're going. 
You have risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. 

 

You made a promise, which you've no idea how to keep, and you expect people 
beneath you to solve your problems. The fact is you are in exactly the same 
position you were in before we met, but now, somehow, it's my fault."

 

From: Brian Kunde mailto:bkundew...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2021 12:46 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Friday question

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ship-repair-man-story-why-experts-get-paid-more-faiz-noor/

 

A giant ship engine failed. The ship’s owners tried one expert after another, 
but none of them could figure but how to fix the engine.

Then they brought in an old man who had been fixing ships since he was young. 
He carried a large bag of tools with him, and when he arrived, he immediately 
went to work. He inspected the engine very carefully, top to bottom.

Two of the ship’s owners were there, watching this man, hoping he would know 
what to do. After looking things over, the old man reached into his bag and 
pulled out a small hammer. He gently tapped something. Instantly, the engine 
lurched into life. He carefully put his hammer away. The engine was fixed!

A week later, the owners received a bill from the old man for ten thousand 
dollars.

“What?!” the owners exclaimed. “He hardly did anything!”

So they wrote the old man a note saying, “Please send us an itemized bill.

The man sent a bill that read:

Tapping with a hammer……….. $ 2.00

Knowing where to tap.. $ 9,998.00

Effort is important, but knowing where to make an effort makes all the 
difference!

 

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 2:59 PM Dennis Ward 
<0dbeaa892a40-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org 
<mailto:0dbeaa892a40-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> > wrote:

A company once made glassware. They could not figure out why it did not hold 
water.  They hired an engineer who told them to put a bottom on the glass.  It 
held water.  The manager that hired the engineer left the company and a new 
manager was hired.  He asked why this engineer was hired and did not see the 
reason for him.  So he left and the company went back to making glass ware the 
old way.  To this day, their glasses don’t hold water and they can’t figure out 
why.

 

 


Dennis Ward
Senior Reviewing Engineer
PCTEST Engineering Laboratory, LLC.
7185 Oakland Mills Road
Columbia, MD  21045
1 410 290 6652)

dennis.w...@pctest.com <mailto:dennis.w...@pctest.com>  | www.pctest.com 
<http://www.pctest.com/>  | www.element.com <http://www.element.com/>  

This communication and any attachment contain information from PCTEST 
Engineering Laboratory, LLC. and is intended for the exclusive use of the 
recipient(s) named above.

 

From: Ken Javor mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com> > 
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2021 11:19 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Friday question

 

CAUTION:This email originated from outside of Element Materials Technology. DO 
NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know 
the content is safe. Please contact IT Service Desk if you are in any doubt 
about this email.

Second hand info.

A colleague of mine, Mark Nave, was hired as an EMC engineer by Network 
Appliance in the early 2000s.  He took them to regularly passing the first time 
through.

After awhile, the VP who hired him retired or moved on, and the new VP didn’t 
have the history of not passing changing to passing.  He questioned why they 
had even hired Mark – what did he do for them?

Mark got angry, and left.

End of st

Re: [PSES] Friday question

[rwellman]

A man in a hot air balloon realized he was lost. He reduced altitude and 
spotted a woman below. He descended a bit more and shouted, "Excuse me, can you 
help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know 
where I am."

 

The woman below replied, "You're in a hot air balloon hovering approximately 30 
feet above the ground. You're between 40 and 41 degrees north latitude and 
between 59 and 60 degrees west longitude."

 

"You must be an engineer," said the balloonist.

 

"I am," replied the woman, "How did you know?"

 

"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is, technically 
correct, but I've no idea what to make of your information, and the fact is I'm 
still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help at all. If anything, you've 
delayed my trip."

 

The woman below responded, "You must be in Management."

 

"I am," replied the balloonist, "but how did you know?"

 

"Well," said the woman, "you don't know where you are or where you're going. 
You have risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. 

 

You made a promise, which you've no idea how to keep, and you expect people 
beneath you to solve your problems. The fact is you are in exactly the same 
position you were in before we met, but now, somehow, it's my fault."

 

From: Brian Kunde  
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2021 12:46 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Friday question

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ship-repair-man-story-why-experts-get-paid-more-faiz-noor/

 

A giant ship engine failed. The ship’s owners tried one expert after another, 
but none of them could figure but how to fix the engine.

Then they brought in an old man who had been fixing ships since he was young. 
He carried a large bag of tools with him, and when he arrived, he immediately 
went to work. He inspected the engine very carefully, top to bottom.

Two of the ship’s owners were there, watching this man, hoping he would know 
what to do. After looking things over, the old man reached into his bag and 
pulled out a small hammer. He gently tapped something. Instantly, the engine 
lurched into life. He carefully put his hammer away. The engine was fixed!

A week later, the owners received a bill from the old man for ten thousand 
dollars.

“What?!” the owners exclaimed. “He hardly did anything!”

So they wrote the old man a note saying, “Please send us an itemized bill.

The man sent a bill that read:

Tapping with a hammer……….. $ 2.00

Knowing where to tap.. $ 9,998.00

Effort is important, but knowing where to make an effort makes all the 
difference!

 

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 2:59 PM Dennis Ward 
<0dbeaa892a40-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org 
<mailto:0dbeaa892a40-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> > wrote:

A company once made glassware. They could not figure out why it did not hold 
water.  They hired an engineer who told them to put a bottom on the glass.  It 
held water.  The manager that hired the engineer left the company and a new 
manager was hired.  He asked why this engineer was hired and did not see the 
reason for him.  So he left and the company went back to making glass ware the 
old way.  To this day, their glasses don’t hold water and they can’t figure out 
why.

 

 


Dennis Ward
Senior Reviewing Engineer
PCTEST Engineering Laboratory, LLC.
7185 Oakland Mills Road
Columbia, MD  21045
1 410 290 6652)

dennis.w...@pctest.com <mailto:dennis.w...@pctest.com>  | www.pctest.com 
<http://www.pctest.com/>  | www.element.com <http://www.element.com/>  

This communication and any attachment contain information from PCTEST 
Engineering Laboratory, LLC. and is intended for the exclusive use of the 
recipient(s) named above.

 

From: Ken Javor mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com> > 
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2021 11:19 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] Friday question

 

CAUTION:This email originated from outside of Element Materials Technology. DO 
NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know 
the content is safe. Please contact IT Service Desk if you are in any doubt 
about this email.

Second hand info.

A colleague of mine, Mark Nave, was hired as an EMC engineer by Network 
Appliance in the early 2000s.  He took them to regularly passing the first time 
through.

After awhile, the VP who hired him retired or moved on, and the new VP didn’t 
have the history of not passing changing to passing.  He questioned why they 
had even hired Mark – what did he do for them?

Mark got angry, and left.

End of story.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261

  _  

From: "doug...@gmail.com 
<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2

Re: [PSES] Friday question

[Brian Kunde]

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ship-repair-man-story-why-experts-get-paid-more-faiz-noor/

A giant ship engine failed. The ship’s owners tried one expert after
another, but none of them could figure but how to fix the engine.

Then they brought in an old man who had been fixing ships since he was
young. He carried a large bag of tools with him, and when he arrived, he
immediately went to work. He inspected the engine very carefully, top to
bottom.

Two of the ship’s owners were there, watching this man, hoping he would
know what to do. After looking things over, the old man reached into his
bag and pulled out a small hammer. He gently tapped something. Instantly,
the engine lurched into life. He carefully put his hammer away. The engine
was fixed!

A week later, the owners received a bill from the old man for ten thousand
dollars.

“What?!” the owners exclaimed. “He hardly did anything!”

So they wrote the old man a note saying, “Please send us an itemized bill.

The man sent a bill that read:

Tapping with a hammer……….. $ 2.00

Knowing where to tap.. $ 9,998.00

Effort is important, but knowing where to make an effort makes all the
difference!

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 2:59 PM Dennis Ward <
0dbeaa892a40-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:

> A company once made glassware. They could not figure out why it did not
> hold water.  They hired an engineer who told them to put a bottom on the
> glass.  It held water.  The manager that hired the engineer left the
> company and a new manager was hired.  He asked why this engineer was hired
> and did not see the reason for him.  So he left and the company went back
> to making glass ware the old way.  To this day, their glasses don’t hold
> water and they can’t figure out why.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Dennis Ward *Senior Reviewing Engineer
> PCTEST Engineering Laboratory, LLC.
> 7185 Oakland Mills Road
> Columbia, MD  21045
> 1 410 290 6652)
>
> dennis.w...@pctest.com | www.pctest.com | www.element.com
>
> This communication and any attachment contain information from PCTEST
> Engineering Laboratory, LLC. and is intended for the exclusive use of the
> recipient(s) named above.
>
>
>
> *From:* Ken Javor 
> *Sent:* Friday, June 25, 2021 11:19 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Friday question
>
>
>
> *CAUTION:*This email originated from outside of Element Materials
> Technology. *DO NOT* click links or open attachments unless you recognize
> the sender and know the content is safe. Please contact IT Service Desk if
> you are in any doubt about this email.
>
> Second hand info.
>
> A colleague of mine, Mark Nave, was hired as an EMC engineer by Network
> Appliance in the early 2000s.  He took them to regularly passing the first
> time through.
>
> After awhile, the VP who hired him retired or moved on, and the new VP
> didn’t have the history of not passing changing to passing.  He questioned
> why they had even hired Mark – what did he do for them?
>
> Mark got angry, and left.
>
> End of story.
>
> Ken Javor
> Phone: (256) 650-5261
>
> --
>
> *From: *"doug...@gmail.com
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdougp01%40gmail.com%2F=04%7C01%7Cdennis.ward%40pctest.com%7C88845358842842b9057908d93805b82a%7C048204512a274c35a1d499fa8eb67e80%7C0%7C0%7C637602419500861154%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=Nom7a7UXJ527bnHkRi089mpkt%2FDZGEEGtcrkYwkoZC4%3D=0>"
>  <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdougp01%40gmail.com%2F=04%7C01%7Cdennis.ward%40pctest.com%7C88845358842842b9057908d93805b82a%7C048204512a274c35a1d499fa8eb67e80%7C0%7C0%7C637602419500871151%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=iCgNp4bLIAoGj1%2Bj7P21VhQyduj327%2FPrX0USjvQJLc%3D=0>
> >
> *Reply-To: *"doug...@gmail.com
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdougp01%40gmail.com%2F=04%7C01%7Cdennis.ward%40pctest.com%7C88845358842842b9057908d93805b82a%7C048204512a274c35a1d499fa8eb67e80%7C0%7C0%7C637602419500881144%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=ug8L%2FH4r8teqYsXZbKKn8PlcXv2tMTeTZ6hdztJMg6M%3D=0>"
>  <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdougp01%40gmail.com%2F=04%7C01%7Cdennis.ward%40pctest.com%7C88845358842842b9057908d93805b82a%7C048204512a274c35a1d499fa8eb67e80%7C0%7C0%7C637602419500881144%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=ug8L%2FH4r8teqYsXZbKKn8PlcXv2tMTeTZ6hdztJMg6M%3D=0>
> >
> *Date: *Fri, 25 Jun 2021 11:55

Re: [PSES] Friday question

[Dennis Ward]

A company once made glassware. They could not figure out why it did not hold 
water.  They hired an engineer who told them to put a bottom on the glass.  It 
held water.  The manager that hired the engineer left the company and a new 
manager was hired.  He asked why this engineer was hired and did not see the 
reason for him.  So he left and the company went back to making glass ware the 
old way.  To this day, their glasses don't hold water and they can't figure out 
why.


[cid:image001.png@01D769B9.861B47C0]
Dennis Ward
Senior Reviewing Engineer
PCTEST Engineering Laboratory, LLC.
7185 Oakland Mills Road
Columbia, MD  21045
1 410 290 6652)

dennis.w...@pctest.com<mailto:dennis.w...@pctest.com> | 
www.pctest.com<http://www.pctest.com/> | 
www.element.com<http://www.element.com/>

This communication and any attachment contain information from PCTEST 
Engineering Laboratory, LLC. and is intended for the exclusive use of the 
recipient(s) named above.

From: Ken Javor 
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2021 11:19 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Friday question


CAUTION:This email originated from outside of Element Materials Technology. DO 
NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know 
the content is safe. Please contact IT Service Desk if you are in any doubt 
about this email.
Second hand info.

A colleague of mine, Mark Nave, was hired as an EMC engineer by Network 
Appliance in the early 2000s.  He took them to regularly passing the first time 
through.

After awhile, the VP who hired him retired or moved on, and the new VP didn't 
have the history of not passing changing to passing.  He questioned why they 
had even hired Mark - what did he do for them?

Mark got angry, and left.

End of story.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


From: 
"doug...@gmail.com<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdougp01%40gmail.com%2F=04%7C01%7Cdennis.ward%40pctest.com%7C88845358842842b9057908d93805b82a%7C048204512a274c35a1d499fa8eb67e80%7C0%7C0%7C637602419500861154%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=Nom7a7UXJ527bnHkRi089mpkt%2FDZGEEGtcrkYwkoZC4%3D=0>"
 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdougp01%40gmail.com%2F=04%7C01%7Cdennis.ward%40pctest.com%7C88845358842842b9057908d93805b82a%7C048204512a274c35a1d499fa8eb67e80%7C0%7C0%7C637602419500871151%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=iCgNp4bLIAoGj1%2Bj7P21VhQyduj327%2FPrX0USjvQJLc%3D=0>>
Reply-To: 
"doug...@gmail.com<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdougp01%40gmail.com%2F=04%7C01%7Cdennis.ward%40pctest.com%7C88845358842842b9057908d93805b82a%7C048204512a274c35a1d499fa8eb67e80%7C0%7C0%7C637602419500881144%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=ug8L%2FH4r8teqYsXZbKKn8PlcXv2tMTeTZ6hdztJMg6M%3D=0>"
 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdougp01%40gmail.com%2F=04%7C01%7Cdennis.ward%40pctest.com%7C88845358842842b9057908d93805b82a%7C048204512a274c35a1d499fa8eb67e80%7C0%7C0%7C637602419500881144%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=ug8L%2FH4r8teqYsXZbKKn8PlcXv2tMTeTZ6hdztJMg6M%3D=0>>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 11:55:26 -0600
To: 
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2FEMC-PSTC%40listserv.ieee.org%2F=04%7C01%7Cdennis.ward%40pctest.com%7C88845358842842b9057908d93805b82a%7C048204512a274c35a1d499fa8eb67e80%7C0%7C0%7C637602419500891140%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=025qsm7rXjTtDwVfVSOWxOFQgNnxNymL9EfWpX0yzbE%3D=0>>
Subject: [PSES] Friday question

Out of curiosity,

I would like to know (especially from those who have been in the business for a 
while) what is your "first pass success rate" for safety certifications on new 
product introductions? That is, to achieve a product safety certification from 
an accredited laboratory with no action items required coming out of the 
preliminary design review.  It's helpful if you can indicate how complex the 
projects are.

In my 26 years as a compliance engineer, I've observed possibly three in total 
for products with a reasonably high complexity.

Thanks! Doug
--

Douglas E Powell
doug...@gmail.com<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdougp01%40gmail.com%2F=04%7C01%7Cdennis.ward%40pctest.com%7C88845358842842b9057908d93805b82a%7C048204512a274c35a1d499fa8eb67e80%7C0%7C0%7C637602419500901139%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000=f9iht2QzXsE682rogZoZpj2aJhWxTfYBVs9Rr%2B%2FDTb4%3D=0>
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.c

Re: [PSES] Friday question

[Ken Javor]

Second hand info.

A colleague of mine, Mark Nave, was hired as an EMC engineer by Network
Appliance in the early 2000s.  He took them to regularly passing the first
time through.

After awhile, the VP who hired him retired or moved on, and the new VP
didn¹t have the history of not passing changing to passing.  He questioned
why they had even hired Mark ­ what did he do for them?

Mark got angry, and left.

End of story.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: "doug...@gmail.com" 
Reply-To: "doug...@gmail.com" 
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 11:55:26 -0600
To: 
Subject: [PSES] Friday question

Out of curiosity, 

I would like to know (especially from those who have been in the business
for a while) what is your "first pass success rate" for safety
certifications on new product introductions? That is, to achieve a product
safety certification from an accredited laboratory with no action items
required coming out of the preliminary design review.  It's helpful if you
can indicate how complex the projects are.

In my 26 years as a compliance engineer, I've observed possibly three in
total for products with a reasonably high complexity.

Thanks! Doug
--

Douglas E Powell
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 



-

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] Friday Question - table of electrochemical potentials

[Douglas E Powell]

Hello Bernd,

Yes the table does show up in several standards and IEC 60950-1 was one of
the first where I saw it.  I have notes going back to the early 1990s from
the time when the standard was known simply as IEC 950. Since then it was
renamed IEC 60950 and later IEC 60950-1.  Now it has been replaced by IEC
62368-1 and the table is still included in Annex N. It is basically
unchanged, I might add.

Before I knew of this table, the only resource I had available was a table
for metals ranking them from most anodic to most cathodic and it was
published by a naval guide book on corrosion. The ranking system was less
than ideal since it was most likely based on empirical data and nothing was
about the specific potentials for corrosion. Even so, at the time it was
the best resource I had.

I attempted to learn more by using the various tables in chemistry
handbooks including topics such as 1st, 2nd, and 3rd ionisation potentials.
However, chemists have a propensity for diving deeply into science instead
of simply listing compatibility of metals in a table.  It is my belief that
the simplicity of the IEC table is the main reason it has survived for so
long.  And of course, one of the issues I have is that the 950 list of
metals in that table does not nearly cover all the possible alloyed metals
in use today.  In addition, it makes no attempt to address the possibility
of electroplated coatings to minimize corrosion. For example with Zinc or
Nickel.

All the best, and have a great week,

-Doug


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



On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 2:59 AM Dürrer Bernd  wrote:

> Hi Douglas,
>
>
>
> I am only aware of Table J.1 in IEC 60950-1. Are there any other IEC
> standards that reference the same or a different table?
>
>
>
> I do not know its source for sure, but the values given in this table seem
> to match those from the anodic index cited in Wikipedia (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_corrosion#Anodic_index), which
> gives the following reference: Wheeler, Gerson J., The design of electronic
> equipment: a manual for production and manufacturing, Prentice-Hall, 1972.
>
>
>
> Can anybody confirm that this is the source and happens to have a copy of
> the original publication?
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Bernd
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* Douglas E Powell 
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 5. Februar 2021 19:05
> *An:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Betreff:* [PSES] Friday Question - table of electrochemical potentials
>
>
>
> For years, I've used the same or similar table for dissimilar metals and
> the possibility of corrosion for "pairs of common metals in use". This
> table shows up in many IEC based standards and no one I know questions the
> validity. I got curious as to the source and why this particular list of
> "common metals" was chosen. Going as far back as the early 1990s I cannot
> find any attribution to the source material.
>
>
>
> Can anyone provide some background on this?
>
>
>
> Thanks, 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
> 
>
> 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/
> 

Re: [PSES] Friday Question

[Doug Powell]

  In my local area we have a ‎company Wolf Robotics. They make multi-axis robotics and degrees of motion simply indicate the number of directions possible on an articulated arm. These "robots" can be seen on their website. Another example is a medical company has developed a highly articulated robotic probe (HARP) that can thread it's way through organs and tissue with minimal damage.    DougDouglas E Powelldoug...@gmail.com ‎https://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01 ‎From: Ed PriceSent: Friday, July 22, 2016 5:07 PMTo: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGReply To: Ed PriceSubject: Re: [PSES] Friday QuestionDoug: Strange, but just a few days ago I was following up the claims of a soft-science news story which claimed robots with “nine degrees of motion.” I couldn’t find anything to back up that claim. As far as I know, I agree with your limit of six. Hmm, maybe we could get philosophical and call time a dimension? (Would that be translation along the Serling axis?) Ed PriceWB6WSNChula Vista, CA USA From: Douglas Nix [mailto:d...@mac.com] Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 2:50 PMTo: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORGSubject: Re: [PSES] Friday Question Rich, Many industrial robots have six axes or more. They are often not described in the Cartesian manner you are using as the robot actually operates in a set of spherical coordinates. They still use x, y, z, by convention, but often you’ll also find x1, y1, z1, x2, y2, z2, etc. Doug Nixd...@mac.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 <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 <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald <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 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 sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com

Re: [PSES] Friday Question

[Ed Price]

Doug:

 

Strange, but just a few days ago I was following up the claims of a 
soft-science news story which claimed robots with “nine degrees of motion.” I 
couldn’t find anything to back up that claim. As far as I know, I agree with 
your limit of six. Hmm, maybe we could get philosophical and call time a 
dimension? (Would that be translation along the Serling axis?)

 

Ed Price
WB6WSN
Chula Vista, CA USA



 

From: Douglas Nix [mailto:d...@mac.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 2:50 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Friday Question

 

Rich,

 

Many industrial robots have six axes or more. They are often not described in 
the Cartesian manner you are using as the robot actually operates in a set of 
spherical coordinates. They still use x, y, z, by convention, but often you’ll 
also find x1, y1, z1, x2, y2, z2, etc.

 

Doug Nix

d...@mac.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 
<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 <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>

Re: [PSES] Friday Question

[Douglas Nix]

Rich,

Many industrial robots have six axes or more. They are often not described in 
the Cartesian manner you are using as the robot actually operates in a set of 
spherical coordinates. They still use x, y, z, by convention, but often you’ll 
also find x1, y1, z1, x2, y2, z2, etc.

Doug Nix
d...@mac.com

"The Best Place to Succeed is where you are, with what you have." - Charles 
Schwab



> On 22-Jul-16, at 17:29, Richard Nute  wrote:
> 
>  
> ISO 8373 defines robot as "An automatically controlled, reprogrammable, 
> multipurpose manipulator programmable in three or more axes, which may be 
> either fixed in place or mobile for use in industrial automation 
> applications."  
>  
> My Roomba doesn’t fit this definition.  First, it is only two axes.  Second, 
> it is for home use, not industrial.  Third, I don’t know if it is 
> reprogrammable.
>  
> I still consider it a robot.
>  
>  
> Rich
>  
> ps:  Three or more axes?  I know x, y, and z.  What are the additional axes?
>  
>  
>  
> -
> 
> 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 >
> 


-

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] Friday Question

[John Woodgate]

Yes, that's the boring true explanation.
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
 <http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk/> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and 
Associates Rayleigh England
 
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
 
From: alfred1520list [mailto:alfred1520l...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 10:50 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Friday Question
 
Hi Rich,

> ps:  Three or more axes?  I know x, y, and z.  What are the additional axes?

I've heard about six axes robots. I think they are the three translational 
axes, i.e. left/right, up/down, back/forth, and the three rotational axes which 
may not be aligned with the translational axes. Think your shoulder and arm 
give you the three translational movement, and your wrist gives you limited 
rotational movement. So a six degree robot is super human:)
On July 22, 2016 2:29:05 PM PDT, Richard Nute <ri...@ieee.org 
<mailto:ri...@ieee.org> > wrote:
 
ISO 8373 defines robot as "An automatically controlled, reprogrammable, 
multipurpose manipulator programmable in three or more axes, which may be 
either fixed in place or mobile for use in industrial automation applications." 
 
 
My Roomba doesn’t fit this definition.  First, it is only two axes.  Second, it 
is for home use, not industrial.  Third, I don’t know if it is reprogrammable.
 
I still consider it a robot.
 
 
Rich
 
ps:  Three or more axes?  I know x, y, and z.  What are the additional axes?
 
 
 
-

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 <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) 
<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org <mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com <mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> > 

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-

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 <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) 
<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org <mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com <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 
<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 <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>

Re: [PSES] Friday Question

[John Woodgate]

The real Susan Calvin hasn't been born yet. The Susan Calvin born in 1982 is 
her grandmother. Her daughter Anna, now 14, will marry her cousin Robert.
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
 <http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk/> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and 
Associates Rayleigh England
 
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
 
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 10:31 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Friday Question
 
Well, it was certainly not autonomous and therefore not a robot. It was just 
projection of force from a remote location.  We have been doing this since the 
first caveman picked up a stone and chucked it at a rabbit, or another caveman. 
 It is arguable whether it is good for the republic (what’s left of it) for 
police to be able to project force in this manner against the civilian 
population, but that is not hardly an engineering issue.  

The engineering issue for a radio-controlled killing or destruction device is 
that it fail safe. Plenty of engineering precedent for that.  When they get to 
the point of killer robots who are given a mission and allowed to autonomously 
execute that mission as they best see fit, then it will be time to address much 
more complex liability issues.

 Isaac Asimov is rolling over in his grave.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


  _  

From: Doug Powell < <mailto:doug...@gmail.com> doug...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: Doug Powell < <mailto:doug...@gmail.com> doug...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 14:53:02 -0600
To: < <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] Friday Question

All 

I haven't done one of these Friday questions in a few years so I thought I 
would toss one out...

With the many recent updates to safety standards that the incorporate 
provisions for safety risk assessment, I find the topic of misuse and 
intentional misuse often comes up in RA team meetings.  My question is if there 
are any valid elements within this news article that could be included in those 
meetings when working with autonomous or semi-autonomous robotics?  
 ‎ 
<http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/what-dallass-shooting-means-for-the-ethics-of-robotics/>
 
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/what-dallass-shooting-means-for-the-ethics-of-robotics/

ISO 8373 defines robot as "An automatically controlled, reprogrammable, 
multipurpose manipulator programmable in three or more axes, which may be 
either fixed in place or mobile for use in industrial automation applications." 
 

Now I realize the context of the news article is not industrial and possibly 
this definition needs updating.  I have had opportunity to do certification 
work with unmanned aerial robots (not drones) to UL 1740 and RIA R15_06-1999, 
both of which UL has had some involvement.  

Any thoughts?


-- 

Douglas E Powell​​

 <mailto:doug...@gmail.com> doug...@gmail.com
 <http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01> 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> emc-p...@ieee.org>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:  
<http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html> 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/> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ 
can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc.

Website:   <http://www.ieee-pses.org/> http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions:   <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)  
<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules:  <http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html> 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas < <mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell < <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> mcantw...@ieee.org> 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  < <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald < <mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> 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 
<emc-p...@ieee.org <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-compli

Re: [PSES] Friday Question

[alfred1520list]

Hi Rich,

> ps:  Three or more axes?  I know x, y, and z.  What are the additional axes?

I've heard about six axes robots. I think they are the three translational 
axes, i.e. left/right, up/down, back/forth, and the three rotational axes which 
may not be aligned with the translational axes. Think your shoulder and arm 
give you the three translational movement, and your wrist gives you limited 
rotational movement. So a six degree robot is super human:)

On July 22, 2016 2:29:05 PM PDT, Richard Nute  wrote:
> 
>
>ISO 8373 defines robot as "An automatically controlled, reprogrammable,
>multipurpose manipulator programmable in three or more axes, which may
>be either fixed in place or mobile for use in industrial automation
>applications."  
>
> 
>
>My Roomba doesn’t fit this definition.  First, it is only two axes. 
>Second, it is for home use, not industrial.  Third, I don’t know if it
>is reprogrammable.
>
> 
>
>I still consider it a robot.
>
> 
>
> 
>
>Rich
>
> 
>
>ps:  Three or more axes?  I know x, y, and z.  What are the additional
>axes?
>
> 
>
> 
>
> 
>
>
>-
>
>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: 

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

-

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] Friday Question

[Ken Javor]

My response and Mr. Woodgate’s crossed, and are largely similar in content.

But I slightly demur on this statement:

“Since we can't even train cops (in US and even Britain) not to use lethal
force when it's totally unjustified, It will probably be a very long time
before robot AI is trustworthy enough to go armed.”

While I can’t speak for the UK, I suspect it is a largely similar situation
to the US, in that police are basically patrolling enemy territory when they
are called on to make split-second life-and-death decisions under what
amounts to battlefield conditions.  Police are meant as a “thin blue line”
to protect civilized society from a small percentage of bad actors. When
police are placed in a situation where the majority or at least a
significant minority of the surrounding population see them as an occupying
force, they (the police) are acting outside the traditional police job
description.  Just as in urban fighting in Iraq/Afghanistan, where US and
allied forces were placed in a similar untenable situation being attacked by
enemies while being hamstrung by rules protecting against collateral damage,
a very appealing solution is to remove soldiers/police and replace them with
radio-controlled substitutes.

I see this as a major growth industry in the US/UK/EC unless the lawless
element is somehow persuaded to respect the norms of civilized society, or
forcibly removed from it.  I’m betting on the “robots.”

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: John Woodgate <jmw1...@btinternet.com>
Reply-To: John Woodgate <jmw1...@btinternet.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 22:18:10 +0100
To: <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Friday Question

The definition is clearly out-of-date; it doesn't even cover an autonomous
lawn-mower. 
 
The police device wasn't a robot, let alone an autonomous one.  They could
have used an unmanned police vehicle or a shopping trolley. There are no
ethical issues beyond the general one of the justification of lethal force.
 
Autonomous robots with lethal weapons are a very different kettle of ethical
fish. Since we can't even train cops (in US and even Britain) not to use
lethal force when it's totally unjustified, It will probably be a very long
time before robot AI is trustworthy enough to go armed.
 
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
www.jmwa.demon.co.uk <http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk/>  J M Woodgate and
Associates Rayleigh England
 
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
 
From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 9:53 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Friday Question
 

All 

 

I haven't done one of these Friday questions in a few years so I thought I
would toss one out...

 

With the many recent updates to safety standards that the incorporate
provisions for safety risk assessment, I find the topic of misuse and
intentional misuse often comes up in RA team meetings.  My question is if
there are any valid elements within this news article that could be included
in those meetings when working with autonomous or semi-autonomous robotics?

 
> 
>  
> ‎http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/what-dallass-shooting-means-for-the-ethi
> cs-of-robotics/

 

ISO 8373 defines robot as "An automatically controlled, reprogrammable,
multipurpose manipulator programmable in three or more axes, which may be
either fixed in place or mobile for use in industrial automation
applications."  

 

Now I realize the context of the news article is not industrial and possibly
this definition needs updating.  I have had opportunity to do certification
work with unmanned aerial robots (not drones) to UL 1740 and RIA
R15_06-1999, both of which UL has had some involvement.

 

Any thoughts?

 

 

-- 

 

Douglas E Powell​​

 

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

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) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com>
-


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion lis

Re: [PSES] Friday Question

[John Woodgate]

Additional axes: hand, felling, chill, stone, Germany and Italy in WW2.
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
 <http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk/> www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and 
Associates Rayleigh England
 
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
 
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 10:29 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Friday Question
 
 
ISO 8373 defines robot as "An automatically controlled, reprogrammable, 
multipurpose manipulator programmable in three or more axes, which may be 
either fixed in place or mobile for use in industrial automation applications." 
 
 
My Roomba doesn’t fit this definition.  First, it is only two axes.  Second, it 
is for home use, not industrial.  Third, I don’t know if it is reprogrammable.
 
I still consider it a robot.
 
 
Rich
 
ps:  Three or more axes?  I know x, y, and z.  What are the additional axes?
 
 
 
-

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 <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) 
<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html> 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <sdoug...@ieee.org <mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com <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 
<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 <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>

Re: [PSES] Friday Question

[Ken Javor]

Well, it was certainly not autonomous and therefore not a robot. It was just
projection of force from a remote location.  We have been doing this since
the first caveman picked up a stone and chucked it at a rabbit, or another
caveman.  It is arguable whether it is good for the republic (what’s left of
it) for police to be able to project force in this manner against the
civilian population, but that is not hardly an engineering issue.

The engineering issue for a radio-controlled killing or destruction device
is that it fail safe. Plenty of engineering precedent for that.  When they
get to the point of killer robots who are given a mission and allowed to
autonomously execute that mission as they best see fit, then it will be time
to address much more complex liability issues.

 Isaac Asimov is rolling over in his grave.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: Doug Powell 
Reply-To: Doug Powell 
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 14:53:02 -0600
To: 
Subject: [PSES] Friday Question

All 

I haven't done one of these Friday questions in a few years so I thought I
would toss one out...

With the many recent updates to safety standards that the incorporate
provisions for safety risk assessment, I find the topic of misuse and
intentional misuse often comes up in RA team meetings.  My question is if
there are any valid elements within this news article that could be included
in those meetings when working with autonomous or semi-autonomous robotics?
 

>  ‎http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/what-dallass-shooting-means-for-the-eth
> ics-of-robotics/

ISO 8373 defines robot as "An automatically controlled, reprogrammable,
multipurpose manipulator programmable in three or more axes, which may be
either fixed in place or mobile for use in industrial automation
applications."  

Now I realize the context of the news article is not industrial and possibly
this definition needs updating.  I have had opportunity to do certification
work with unmanned aerial robots (not drones) to UL 1740 and RIA
R15_06-1999, both of which UL has had some involvement.  

Any thoughts?


-- 

Douglas E Powell​​

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 



-

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] Friday Question

[Richard Nute]

 

ISO 8373 defines robot as "An automatically controlled, reprogrammable, 
multipurpose manipulator programmable in three or more axes, which may be 
either fixed in place or mobile for use in industrial automation applications." 
 

 

My Roomba doesn’t fit this definition.  First, it is only two axes.  Second, it 
is for home use, not industrial.  Third, I don’t know if it is reprogrammable.

 

I still consider it a robot.

 

 

Rich

 

ps:  Three or more axes?  I know x, y, and z.  What are the additional axes?

 

 

 


-

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] Friday Question

[John Woodgate]

The definition is clearly out-of-date; it doesn't even cover an autonomous 
lawn-mower. 
 
The police device wasn't a robot, let alone an autonomous one.  They could have 
used an unmanned police vehicle or a shopping trolley. There are no ethical 
issues beyond the general one of the justification of lethal force.
 
Autonomous robots with lethal weapons are a very different kettle of ethical 
fish. Since we can't even train cops (in US and even Britain) not to use lethal 
force when it's totally unjustified, It will probably be a very long time 
before robot AI is trustworthy enough to go armed.
 
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
  www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and 
Associates Rayleigh England
 
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
 
From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 9:53 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Friday Question
 
All 
 
I haven't done one of these Friday questions in a few years so I thought I 
would toss one out...
 
With the many recent updates to safety standards that the incorporate 
provisions for safety risk assessment, I find the topic of misuse and 
intentional misuse often comes up in RA team meetings.  My question is if there 
are any valid elements within this news article that could be included in those 
meetings when working with autonomous or semi-autonomous robotics?  
 
 
‎http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/what-dallass-shooting-means-for-the-ethics-of-robotics/
 
ISO 8373 defines robot as "An automatically controlled, reprogrammable, 
multipurpose manipulator programmable in three or more axes, which may be 
either fixed in place or mobile for use in industrial automation applications." 
 
 
Now I realize the context of the news article is not industrial and possibly 
this definition needs updating.  I have had opportunity to do certification 
work with unmanned aerial robots (not drones) to UL 1740 and RIA R15_06-1999, 
both of which UL has had some involvement.  
 
Any thoughts?
 
 
-- 
 
Douglas E Powell​​
 
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  > 

-

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] Friday question - RoHS

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

All this talk makes me want a R-O-L-A-I-D-S.

-Doug

 

From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of 
ralph.mcdiar...@ca.schneider-electric.com
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 11:10 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Friday question - RoHS

 


What not just say the letters,  R - O - H - S  ?That would seem to be the 
clearest and easiest thing to do. 
_
 

Ralph McDiarmid  |   Schneider Electric   |  Renewable Energies Business  |   
CANADA  |   Project Technologist 
Phone: +1-604-422-2622  |   Fax: +1-604-421-3029  |   
Email: ralph.mcdiar...@ca.schneider-electric.com 
mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@ca.schneider-electric.com   |   Site: www.xantrex.com 
http://www.xantrex.com/   |   Address: 8999 Nelson Way, Burnaby, BC V5A 4B5, 
CANADA 

*** Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail 




From: 

Dave Coleman david.cole...@selex-comms.com 

To: 

EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 

List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: 

12/14/2009 01:36 AM 

Subject: 

Re: [PSES] Friday question - RoHS

 







I prefer 'Roz', or if I get a blank look 'Rose' 

Definitely not 'Rosh', as I find (a lot) people who pronounce it 'Rosh' spell 
it that way in documents / memos etc. 

Best Regards,
Dave Coleman AIIRSM
SELEX Communications Ltd.



Powell, Doug doug.pow...@aei.com 
Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org 

11/12/2009 19:21

 

To

EMC PSTC emc-p...@ieee.org 

cc


Subject

Friday question - RoHS

 







All, 
 
“What is the correct way to pronounce the acronym RoHS?” 
 
This little question has plagued me for several years and every time I think I 
have it right, some professional comes along and says it another way.  So, I 
thought I would ask this esteemed group of individuals.  I know of several 
variants and there even may be more choices. 
 
1)  Those who spell out “R-o-H-S” 
2)  Those who say “Roe-Hoss” 
3)  Those who say “Rosh” 
4)  Those who say “Ross” 
 
What is the consensus? 
 
Thanks, 
 
 
-doug 
Douglas E. Powell
Engineering Manager
Corporate Product Compliance
Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. 
  

This message, including any attachments, may contain information that is 
confidential and proprietary information of Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. 
The dissemination, distribution, use or copying of this message or any of its 
attachments is strictly prohibited without the express written consent of 
Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. 
-

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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@socal.rr.com
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com 



This email and any attached files contains company confidential information 
which may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the person(s) or 
entity to which it is addressed and solely for the purposes set forth therein. 
If you are not the intended recipient or have received this email in error 
please notify the sender by return, delete it from your system and destroy any 
local copies. It is strictly forbidden to use the information in this email 
including any attachment or part thereof including copying, disclosing, 
distributing, amending or using for any other purpose.

In addition the sender excludes all liabilities (whether tortious or common 
law) for damage or breach arising or related to this email including but not 
limited to viruses and libel.
SELEX Communications Limited is a Private Limited Company registered in England 
and Wales under Company Number 964533 and whose Registered Office is Lambda 
House, Christopher Martin Rd, Basildon, SS14 3EL. England.
-

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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@socal.rr.com
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

Re: [PSES] Friday question - RoHS

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

What not just say the letters,  R - O - H - S  ?That would seem to be the 
clearest and easiest thing to do. 
_
 

Ralph McDiarmid  |   Schneider Electric   |  Renewable Energies Business  |   
CANADA  |   Project Technologist 
Phone: +1-604-422-2622  |   Fax: +1-604-421-3029  |   
Email: ralph.mcdiar...@ca.schneider-electric.com 
mailto:ralph.mcdiar...@ca.schneider-electric.com   |   Site: www.xantrex.com 
http://www.xantrex.com/   |   Address: 8999 Nelson Way, Burnaby, BC V5A 4B5, 
CANADA 

*** Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail 




From:   Dave Coleman david.cole...@selex-comms.com 
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:   12/14/2009 01:36 AM 
Subject:Re: [PSES] Friday question - RoHS







I prefer 'Roz', or if I get a blank look 'Rose' 

Definitely not 'Rosh', as I find (a lot) people who pronounce it 'Rosh' spell 
it that way in documents / memos etc. 

Best Regards,
Dave Coleman AIIRSM
SELEX Communications Ltd.



Powell, Doug doug.pow...@aei.com 
Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org 

11/12/2009 19:21


To
EMC PSTC emc-p...@ieee.org 
cc
Subject
Friday question - RoHS








All, 
 
“What is the correct way to pronounce the acronym RoHS?” 
 
This little question has plagued me for several years and every time I think I 
have it right, some professional comes along and says it another way.  So, I 
thought I would ask this esteemed group of individuals.  I know of several 
variants and there even may be more choices. 
 
1)  Those who spell out “R-o-H-S” 
2)  Those who say “Roe-Hoss” 
3)  Those who say “Rosh” 
4)  Those who say “Ross” 
 
What is the consensus? 
 
Thanks, 
 
 
-doug 
Douglas E. Powell
Engineering Manager
Corporate Product Compliance
Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. 
  

This message, including any attachments, may contain information that is 
confidential and proprietary information of Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. 
The dissemination, distribution, use or copying of this message or any of its 
attachments is strictly prohibited without the express written consent of 
Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. 
-

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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at 
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 
http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html  

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas emcp...@socal.rr.com mailto:emcp...@socal.rr.com 
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org 
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com mailto:dhe...@gmail.com  



This email and any attached files contains company confidential information 
which may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the person(s) or 
entity to which it is addressed and solely for the purposes set forth therein. 
If you are not the intended recipient or have received this email in error 
please notify the sender by return, delete it from your system and destroy any 
local copies. It is strictly forbidden to use the information in this email 
including any attachment or part thereof including copying, disclosing, 
distributing, amending or using for any other purpose.

In addition the sender excludes all liabilities (whether tortious or common 
law) for damage or breach arising or related to this email including but not 
limited to viruses and libel.
SELEX Communications Limited is a Private Limited Company registered in England 
and Wales under Company Number 964533 and whose Registered Office is Lambda 
House, Christopher Martin Rd, Basildon, SS14 3EL. England.
-

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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at 
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 
Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 
http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html 
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org