Actually, folks I was mildly disagreeing with Peter. I see a whole world of difference between a three ring binder and something that has at its core intent the ability to do harm. I can see why UL would List an inherently dangerous thing such as a three ring binder but not a triggering mechanism for something that when it works correctly does very bad things on purpose. Schools are full of three ring binders but there has yet to be a single hostage situation by somebody wielding a three ring binder - even one of those 4 inch deep bad boys. On the other hand people like to actually use the things that go boom on purpose. I'm not sure I would want to convince the survivors that the product met some sort of safety standards. So I was just trying to point out the difference in the categories. Apparently I failed and simply confused the issue. Gary -----Original Message----- From: Ralph Cameron [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 6:58 AM To: Gary McInturff; 'Peter Tarver'; [email protected] Subject: Re: Electrical safety of firearms Gary/ Peter: I think the point to be made is what liability is reasonable when it comes to manufacturing something that has the potential to become a nuisance. Certainly its not intentional to cause harm or nuisance but there are laws of Physics and a dedication to safety and if one can minimize the effects from lack of EMC then that is responsilbe engineering. I get the feeling at times that marketing outweighs sound engineering design. There is a hidden benefit in buying a product with the CE mark and that is if it is sold in North America it will probably have the CE accreditation which is a bonus for the consumer, even though the product will not be warranted for it. My experience has been that there have no products with the CE mak that require any further suppression to make them perform their intended function. Ralph Cameron EMC Consultant for Suppression of Consumer Electronics (After sale) ----- Original Message -----
From: Gary McInturff <mailto:[email protected]> To: 'Peter <mailto:[email protected]> Tarver' ; [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 4:21 PM Subject: RE: Electrical safety of firearms None of which are designed to intentionally do harm, for good or bad. Beyond that who wants a Listed three ring binder etc? Gary -----Original Message----- From: Peter Tarver [ mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ] Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 9:08 AM To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: Electrical safety of firearms Other inherently unsafe products: three-ring binders (mechanical hazard) any pointed writing implement (mechanical hazard) plain old mechanical staplers (mechanical hazard) paperweights (mechanical hazard) pushpins (mechanical hazard) bath tubs and swimming pools (drowning hazard) in-sink garbage disposals (mechanical hazard) refrigerators and freezers (suffocation hazard) Some of which, UL will List. Regards, Peter L. Tarver -----Original Message----- From: Peter Merguerian Rich, I tried to List such a device with UL some time ago and they told me that they could not List because it is inherently unsafe! However, I succeeded in getting TUV GS for the system.
