I can shed some light on one aspect of this. One of the reasons that FUS people (regardless of agency) can't rely on surface marking of wire is the issue of re-spooling.
When wire comes directly from a wire factory, it is placed on (usually large) spools. Both the wire and the spool may carry some agency markings. At the very least the spool will. Now the large spool goes to Joe's Small-lot Wire House, and he proceeds to degrade the safety of the wire by doing things like re-colouring (or striping), re-spooling with equipment that damages the insulation, etc. These processes, unless properly done, can degrade the insulation, so UL and CSA have invented safety approvals for wire processing facilities. These come under headings like "Processed Wire" or "Respooled Wire" that many will recognize from having seen them on UL/CSA spool tags. Any wire, whether surface-marked or not, should have either (or both) an original approval on the spool, or a Processed Wire or Re-spooled Wire approval on the spool. This tells the FUS inspector and you that the wire approval hasn't been invalidated by improper processing. By the way, I gather one of the requirements of the Processed Wire program is an insulation spark tester, that checks the insulation of the wire as it is being respooled. Neat trick. Hope this helps. Regards, Jim Eichner Statpower Technologies Corporation [email protected] http://www.statpower.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists. Honest. > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Tarver [SMTP:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, June 25, 1998 12:08 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Wire Markings Mandatory? > > In the following, I'll speak only to UL certified wire. To get an > official > reading, call the nearest UL office and ask for the client advisor, > then ask > them to direct you to an engineer working with wire and cable. > > One of the best resources for information about any UL product > category is > the Guide Card. For AWM, the CCN is AVLV2 and the Guide Card says the > Recognition Mark "on the attached tag, the reel or the smallest > shipping > container in which the product is packaged is the only method provided > by UL > to identify these products manufactured under its Recognition and > Follow-Up > Service." It follows that all markings of account are placed on the > tag, > reel or shipping container. From my previous discussions with UL's > wire and > cable people, surface markings are considered optional. > > To make things even more interesting, during recent FUS inspections of > our > factory, the FUS Rep. explicitly stated that FUS can't rely on surface > marking of AWM for wire harnesses. Go figure that one out and compare > to > your own experience. > > As for UL Listed wire, Sections 310-11 (for wire and cable) and 400-6 > (for > flexible cord) of the NEC give appropriate details for surface > marking. > > Regards, > > Peter L. Tarver > Nortel > [email protected] > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [SMTP:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 12:34 PM > > > > Now I am getting mad. I have heard from enough of you that wire > marking is > > not mandatory. > > > > I understand that EN 60950 does not require marked wire, but wire > > acceptable for the application. > > > > I had been lead to believe by a certain engineer from a certain > agency > > (who shall remain nameless) that marking certainly was mandatory. > Not > > having a copy of the wire standards, I foolishly accepted this as > gospel > > and did what I had to. > > > > I agree that marked wire is certainly the easiest way to prove > compliance. > > But if it is not mandatory, one can be creative is solving the > problem of > > proof. I am frustrated by the fact that I may have been mislead. If > this > > proves to be correct, it will just be yet one more reason why that > agency > > no longer works for our company. > > > > Can someone from one of the agencies or someone in possession of the > wire > > and cable standards please confirm or deny whether marking is > mandatory or > > not? And under what circumstances? > > > > Thank you. > > Scott > > [email protected] > > > >
