The supposed cost is one or two orders of mag too hi for the mold cost. For much of our stuff, we design the mold and make in North America, then ship to factory - so this could not possibly be the cause of this monstrous number.
Non-recognized molder = potential fire bomb. I used to enjoy flame tests, but now just too many, so have talked the warehouse guy into testing monthly samples -> a Tom Sawyer-style scam. Brian -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of McInturff, Gary Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 2:46 PM To: 'Peter Tarver'; '[email protected]' Subject: RE: [PSES] UL recognized molders I've used us recognized molded vendors multiple time, they were all US and not China or other offshore - but the cost compared to other vendors was minimal. You're right it's a paper chase, the audit is, or at least was, on the molding process not the part being produced. UL comes in ask what your building, pulls out the process controls, and looks at how much regrind you're using, the mold temperatures etc, and may examine the random part to make certain that you meet the thicknesses called out on the drawing for the part, and off they go. They do not have to inspect every part made the just inspect that one part to the process and call you entire process and all the parts made from it as acceptable. If you were the only customer you would get hit for whatever the quarterly fee is, but if there is a 100 customer the fee should be amortized over all customers as an overhead type of item. Check the bill carefully, there is a significant cost for producing the mold but that is design and machining time and has nothing to do with any UL concerns. Molds cost lots, process inspections don't. A parallel would be using a recognized wire harness manufacturer to build you cable bundles. -----Original Message----- From: Peter Tarver [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 12:27 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PSES] UL recognized molders Brian - The UL molder's program is a paper chase for traceability. That cost seems unlikely to be directly attributable to charges they pay to UL, unless something has drastically changed under the latest management. The only way this could cost a company $10E6 is very high volume and the time to create and maintain the paper shuffle. Costs of the service is charged back to customers, as evidenced by the prices I've seen for when such molders are selected. Unless, of course, they're counting the cost of not randomly substituting materials that aren't on your AVL. Been there and to disastrous results during a flame test. Regards, Peter L. Tarver > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 11:10 > > One of the things that UL does ok is the recognized > molder program. Removes > a huge burden from my shoulders when I buy from a > supplier having a QMMY2 > file. Have now had two China factories claim UL costs > are at $10E6 USD per > annum, so are dropping factory recognition. > > 1. Is this cost reality or hyperbole? > 2. Has your company had to drop a bobbin and other > plastic vendor after > cancellation of their UL file; that is, is this > actually common? > > thanks, > Brian - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> David Heald: <[email protected]>
