Re: [PSES] CE Marking Provoqium

2012-08-18 Thread John Woodgate
In message qSKmE4BAA==@blueyonder.co.uk>, dated Sat, 18 Aug 2012, John Allen writes: NRTLs inspect from 2 to 4 times a year, often on an unannounced basis, and that does keep manufacturers ?on their toes? I wouldn't call that 'far' more frequent, and that sort of control can be deadly

Re: [PSES] CE Marking Provoqium

2012-08-18 Thread John Allen
John Whilst I accept the validity of some of the argument below, I have to say that whilst - particularly for the "smaller" manufacturers - the concept of actively looking for issues with existing products and then correcting them, it can often be more a matter (and particularly in the current bus

Re: [PSES] CE Marking Provoqium

2012-08-18 Thread John McAuley
In my view the European system is much more flexible for manufacturers and free from bureaucracy in its most basic form. I also find the NRTLs reasonably accessible. The most inaccessible is the IECEE CB scheme which does not allow testing at independent labs under any of the frameworks. The s

Re: [PSES] CE Marking Provoqium

2012-08-18 Thread Scott Xe
Just ensure the updated mandatory Essential Requirements. They are:- CE Marking LVD EMC ErP RoHS Recast WEEE Recast Regards, Scott On 17/8/12 11:31 PM, "John Cotman" wrote: > The CE marking process includes mandatory Essential Requirements, (written > into law), which change infrequently, a

Re: [PSES] CE Marking Provoqium

2012-08-18 Thread John Woodgate
In message <037701cd7d34$3926d4f0$ab747ed0$@mcauley>, dated Sat, 18 Aug 2012, John McAuley writes: BTW, has a new word, ?Provoqium?, been invented? I can?t find it in any dictionary. Comes up as a variation of provoke. The spelling is 'unorfadox'! Provoquium would be legitimate classical La

Re: [PSES] CE Marking Provoqium

2012-08-18 Thread Kevin Robinson
29CFR1910 applies only to the EMPLOYER and there is no requirement for OSHA purposes for a manufacturer to have their product certified by an NRTL before marketing it or selling it. The employee using the product however has the burden of demonstrating that the product meets the definition of "a

Re: [PSES] CE Marking Provoqium

2012-08-18 Thread Peter Tarver
Date sent: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 08:56:30 +0100 Send reply to: John Woodgate > In message > qSKmE4BAA==@blueyonder.co.uk>, dated Sat, 18 Aug 2012, John Allen > writes: > > >NRTLs inspect from 2 to 4 times a year, often on an unannounced basis, > >and that does keep manuf

Re: [PSES] CE Marking Provoquim

2012-08-18 Thread Arthur Michael
Hello John et al, The English language while blasted by many as difficult, is a marvel in itself. I did not need to look up the invented word "Provoquim" or "Provoquium" in any dictionary. It's meaning was obvious at first glance. Very clever of you, John Pearson! What do you think of my inv

Re: [PSES] CE Marking Provoquim

2012-08-18 Thread John Woodgate
In message <20120818095356.f4...@shelley.shelltown.net>, dated Sat, 18 Aug 2012, Arthur Michael writes: The "Law of Economics" is loud and clear; it mandates electical product safety compliance for the buyer's offerings. I think the question is 'Which is the best way to frame the 'law' - the

Re: [PSES] CE Marking Provoqium

2012-08-18 Thread John Woodgate
In message <502fb647.26423.642b...@ptarver.ieee.org>, dated Sat, 18 Aug 2012, Peter Tarver writes: 100% to 400% more often. How often would give you confidence? Actually it's 100% to 300%, but never mind. It's not about confidence, it's whether another approach is better. As a former NRT

Re: [PSES] CE Marking Provoqium

2012-08-18 Thread Brian Oconnell
Nothing I say necessarily reflects the policy of my employer. I shall endeavor to be more precise, or go home and bother other people. The CFR is Administrative Law, and is has been reinforced as such by several SCOTUS rulings, where the 'informed discretion' of agencies is the basis to make regul

Re: [PSES] CE Marking Provoqium

2012-08-18 Thread Ted Eckert
Disclaimer: I'm not arguing for one system or another. I'm only trying to provide a bit more background for the differences in the two systems based on personal experience. I've worked with both systems for a while, and I've had my share of problems with NRTLs. I also recognize that my opinions

Re: [PSES] CE Marking Provoqium

2012-08-18 Thread John Woodgate
In message <1284c8ec9fbe4d24b6397106a3caa...@tamuracorp.com>, dated Sat, 18 Aug 2012, Brian Oconnell writes: Note that the U.S. OSHA has (figuratively) declared war on the self-declaration process, and has specifically published stuff saying that the 'CE' does not indicate the any specific sa

Re: [PSES] CE Marking Provoqium

2012-08-18 Thread John Woodgate
In message rosoft.com>, dated Sat, 18 Aug 2012, Ted Eckert writes: First, none of them will stand behind a customer in court. If you have an NRTL Listed system, and it fails, it is fully your responsibility. So the NRTLs have power without responsibility. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www