Kyle, The molding of the plastic identification into the parts worked for me when I was with NCR/AT&T. I implemented this method of identifying the plastics as a result of the UL Follow-UP Inspector's recommendation. If the plastic identification molded into the plastic part matched that called out in the UL report, all was well. This was not a big effort to implement as I remember.
Best Regards Pryor -----Original Message----- From: Ehler, Kyle <[email protected]> To: PRYOR MCGINNIS <[email protected]>; Price, Ed <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> List-Post: [email protected] Date: Monday, September 20, 1999 10:27 AM Subject: RE: help (plastics marking) >I'm probably mistaken, but it would seem that just having the plastic >material marked on the parts would not be enough proof because of the chance >of mis-marking. Have I missed something here? This just seems too easy. > >I presently use a system of lot marking codes with a simple one-page >document that is shipped with each batch of parts from the vendor. The >document has the name of the vendor's QA person in signature and the >relevant lot numbers for each shipment from the factory and the exact >plastic material name and/or number with the UL 94xxx flame rating. All I >do then for the inspector, is pull the recent shipment tracking sheet from >our receiving/inspection department as filed under the part number and let >him/her witness the document and a few of the marked parts from the bin on >the assembly line... > >There should be a caveat here: >Many times a plastic part is used as a subassembly into a finished part. >The problem with this system is that tracing back a part number for a >finished part may not lead one into the subassembly part(s) so a disconnect >will occur making it difficult and time consuming to trace some parts to the >source unless you maintain a listing of parent part numbers and drawings for >inclusion to finished assemblies. This also means you must keep the list >current as engineering/manufacturing changes. >-blech! > >I have wanted to switch to a system similar to what Pryor uses, but with >dozens of individual parts, this will easily become an arduous task for me >and I'm not sure if it is acceptable anyway. If I'm gonna go to all that >effort I'm also going to combine the markings to include a plastic material >name/number, flame rating and the chasing arrows (recycling) mark. This >would satisfy the UL inspector, the 'greenies' and life's end recyclers. I >know for a fact that IBM uses a system such as this now along with the >'recognized component' mark, but it seems to me that this mark would lend >the credibility to make such a system acceptable...am I expecting too much? > >Btw, Hello Pryor !! > >Kyle Ehler [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >Assistant Design Engineer >LSI Logic Corporation (formerly NCR, AT&T GIS and Hyundai) >3718 N. Rock Road >U.S.A. Wichita, Kansas 67226 >Ph. 316 636 8657 >Fax 316 636 8889 >Fax 316 636 8315 > > -----Original Message----- > From: PRYOR MCGINNIS [SMTP:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, September 18, 1999 9:43 AM > To: Price, Ed; [email protected] > Subject: Re: help > > > I have experienced good results by requesting the Part/Component >molder to > mold the plastic identification in the part/component. > > Pryor McGinnis > [email protected] > > -----Original Message----- > From: Price, Ed <[email protected]> > To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]> > Date: Friday, September 17, 1999 11:04 PM > Subject: FW: help > > > > > >Posted for [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>:-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):- ) > >Ed Price > >[email protected] > >Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab > >Cubic Defense Systems > >San Diego, CA. USA > >619-505-2780 (Voice) > >619-505-1502 (Fax) > >Military & Avionics EMC Services Is Our Specialty > >Shake-Bake-Shock - Metrology - Reliability Analysis > >>:-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):- ) > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Linstrom, John (IndSys, GEFanuc, CDI) > >> [SMTP:[email protected]] > >> Sent: Friday, September 17, 1999 2:44 PM > >> To: 'Price, Ed' > >> Subject: RE: help > >> > >> > >> My question: we have a UL mark on a box we build. One of the >requirements > >> that the auditors check is flammability of materials. 2 parts >give us > >> trouble - a molded bezel and a plex screen. Both are materials >purchased > >> elsewhere by our fabricators. UL says either assemble a 'paper >trail' > that > >> shows continuous control of the materials, or use a 'recognized > >> fabricator' (read buck$) to make our parts. Neither fab. house is > >> recognized or wants to be. UL is VERY evasive about the required > >> documents for the 'trail'. Any one have this experience - and >succeed? > >> Thanks- > >> > >> John Linstrom > >> Computer Dynamics > >> PH 864.281.7768 x266 > >> FX 864.675.0106 > >> [email protected] > >> > >> > > > >--------- > >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], [email protected], or > >[email protected] (the list administrators). > > > > > > > --------- > 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], [email protected], or > [email protected] (the list administrators). > > --------- 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], [email protected], or [email protected] (the list administrators).
