Doug, >1) "Designed to meet (safety standards list) ... " > > ___ highly acceptable > ___ acceptable > ___ no opinion > _X_unacceptable > comments:________
Tracking changes that affect safety becomes the responsibility of the user. This is no better than non-agency marked products. To me it means that the product may or may not meet all of the requirements of the standard and that the manufacturer is not responsible for keeping up with the standards to ensure "designed to meet" intent. >2) "Designed to meet (safety standards list) and tested by (self) ... " > > ___ highly acceptable > ___ acceptable > ___ no opinion > _X__ unacceptable > comments:________ Same as 1 above. Again, tracking changes that affect safety becomes the responsibility of the user. This is no better than non-agency marked products. I would only consider these products if they were not safety critical. We obtain safety marks for our products and the safety agencies do not like components that do not have a safety mark. Traceability and factory inspections become a hassle without the safety mark. >3) "Designed to meet (safety standards list) and tested by (third party) ..." > > ___ highly acceptable > ___ acceptable > ___ no opinion > _X__ unacceptable > comments:________ Same issues as with 1 & 2 above. If tested by third party, why not go the extra distance and get a safety mark? How "available" is the test report? How much time will need to be expended to confirm the acceptability of the component? >4) "Complies with (safety standards list) and tested by (self) ... " > > ___ highly acceptable > ___ acceptable > ___ no opinion > _X__ unacceptable > comments:________ Same as 2 above. Here I would at least think that the "whole" standard had been applied to the product. Again, this would be the standard dated at a certain point in time. Any changes to the standard after that date would not be incorporated. How much time would be spent on finding the date of the standard used? >5 "Complies with (safety standards list) and tested by (third party) ... " > > ___ highly acceptable > ___ acceptable > ___ no opinion > _X__ unacceptable > comments:________ Same as 4 above. Again, if tested by third party, why not go the extra distance and get a safety mark? How "available" is the test report? How much time will need to be expended to confirm the acceptability of the component? I would be interested in a copy of the results. later Dave --------- This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], [email protected], or [email protected] (the list administrators).
