Definition of “EF003991 - Detection power for test bodies”, used for example in EC002549

Last comment 14/10/2019 09:17 by Marc
· Mark as unread
Pam Pagenkopf 3 weeks ago created
What is a detection power, is it a distance or something else?
What is meant with test bodies, the notified bodies for the certification?

The values we usually use to describe our light guards are already described by other features, we wonder what this EF003991 can be.
We usually use the below values for our light guards:
• Operating distance (EF004098 - Transmission range of the safety field)
• Resolution (EF006784 - Resolution of the light curtain)
• Protected height (EF004103 - Safety field height)

Example from one of our manuals:
Marc Habets 2 weeks ago created
Hi Pam, I am not an expert, but test bodies has nothing to do with certification. But I did find a definition that hopefully makes sense to you: "For an AOPDDR (active opto-electronic protective device responsive to diffuse reflection), the ability to detect a specified test body in the protection field. For an AOPD (active opto-electronic protective device), the ability with the diameter of an opaque test body to actuate - if this is located near a light curtain in the protection field - if this is located near a multiple light barrier on the midline of any beam" 

Looking at actual product data (in 2BA) from both ABB (Jokab) and Schneider Electric I do see something that raises a question: The value for "Detection power for test bodies"is exactly the same as for the feature "Resolution of the light curtain" in all randomly selected examples, in the attached example 14 mm. That might indicate that this would be in fact a duplicate? 

Maybe your Dutch ABB colleague help:  @benmartens​ can you help us with this? 
Pam Pagenkopf 2 weeks ago created
@jeshwindsouza​ & @sargurumahalingam​ please see comments from Marc.

@marchabets​, the Product Manager actually provided an excel of BMECat where they have populated the values different for the screen shot above.

This is a little tricky as we are trying to make sure this is populated correctly and that is why we are looking for clarity on the definitions.  Jeshwin, Sarguru and I were thinking these values may be a duplicate but we are getting mixed messages.
Marc Habets 1 week ago created
As said, I just noticed the values were the same for both features, which raised my suspicions that it might be a duplicate. But we need a product expert (which I am not) to confirm or deny that. Still hoping that @benmartens​ can help us here.
Marc Habets 1 week ago created
or maybe @royleenders​, @holgerwestphal​ or @philippeoudart​?  
Holger Westphal 1 week ago created
the first thing on my mind is the english feature name - i don't think "power" fits the dutch/german term "vermogen/vermögen" in this case. Maybe "Detection capability...." is a better translation.

My understanding of that feature is: what's the smallest object (used for testing) that the sensor will safely detect?
Logically, that value will be close, sometimes identical to EF006784.
I'm a bit confused by the table from Pam: how could such a sensor safely detect an object that could sneak through between to beams?
Marc Habets 1 week ago created
Thnx for your answer @holgerwestphal​​, I followed your advice and changed the English translation of EF003991 accordingly. 
Philippe Oudart 4 days ago created
If I can bring some more suggestion @marchabets​, @holgerwestphal​.
Indeed, there is a certain redundancy between the 2 features, because the resolution corresponds to the smallest diameter (object) that the barrier is able to detect.
In eCl@ss we only have "Detection ability for test bodies" matching to EF003991, without any attribue for "Resolution"

Then, 2 possibilities:
1) We keep the 2 features and we rename the EF003991 in smallest object diameter (used for testing) or "minimum object diameter for detection".
Knowing that the valuation of both features will be identical, but it may be meaningful as well for a client who does not know the definition of the resolution.

2) Or we remove one of the 2, in this case I would rather keep the resolution EF006784.
Note, in any case I can contribute for French translation
Marc Habets 4 days ago created
@philippeoudart​ if we would delete one of both features it would make sense to keep the feature that matches with eCl@ss? 
Philippe Oudart 2 days ago created
@marchabets​ Sure, agree. Then, best is to keep EF003991 (and to push a CR to eCl@ss with same feature description !)
Marc Habets 2 days ago created
@karlpappas​ could you ask FA4 so we automatically synchronize this with eCl@ss
Join the conversation
You have to be a registered user to join the conversation.
Topic started 24 September 2019 at 16:29
Reader count 9
Comment count 11