Vic, I agree. It's good you took the time to yank everyone back to reality. I just didn't like reading it with ear plugs in place.
Duane >LOOKS LIKE WE'VE GOT A SERIOUS SITUATION ON OUR HANDS: > >In the good old bad days there were three major standards. > >The US controlled by UL a private corporation. > >Canada controlled by UL a quasi governmental organization. >CANADA'S STANDARDS ASSOCIATION IS CSA NOT UL. WHILE CSA, LIKE UL IS A >PRIVATE, NON-FOR PROFIT ORGANIZATION, NOT A QUASI GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION, >STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT IN CSA IS DRIVEN BY THE MEMBERSHIP THROUGH AN >ACCREDITED STANDARDS ORGANIZATION, AND STANDARDS ARE NOT WRITTEN BY STAFF >AND BLESSED BY AN INDUSTRY ADVISORY COUNCIL. THE AUTHOR OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT >KNOW WHAT SHE/HE IS TALKING OF. > >> CSA was very concerned about the industrial end and had a major focus on >> wire and insulation. (This is a little unfair to Canada) > >> At one point in order to be cost effective you had to build at least two >> products base on where your main market was. I certainly would not put >> the cost of the double insulated transformers and increased spacing into >> a product that was 90% US based. We built other more costly units for >> Europe. > >THE AUTHOR EITHER TELLS US THAT HIS ORGANIZATION DOES NOT MIND SOAKING THE >CUSTOMER FOR UNNEEDED PROTECTION WITHOUT DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT, OR HE >TELLS US THAT HE DOES NOT MIND PUTTING PRODUCTS ON THE MARKET THAT HE KNOWS >TO BE HAZARDOUS, AS LONG AS HE CAN GET AWAY WITH IT. > >> If you look at the standards now all of these things have been >> incorporated along with some national deviations - primarily to account >> for power distribution. >> Even from a susceptibility standpoint, regardless of whether you believe >> these to be rational requirements or quality issues, if you're really >> playing the global game the standards become universal. I have to be >> able to withstand all of the requirements of EN50082-1; or -2. >> The only thing we are missing is the universal acceptance of the >> independent test marks within all of the countries that have adopted the >> same basic set of safety requirements. > >IN THIS INDUSTRY ALL REQUIREMENTS ARE DERIVATIVES OF IEC PUBLICATION 60950 >AND WE'RE TESTING THE HELL OUT OF THEM TIME AND TIME AGAIN. > >UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE OF ALL INDEPENDENT TEST MARKS IS A PIPE DREAM. THE >SHEER PROBLEM OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT ALL THESE MARKS MEAN (IF >ANYTHING) IS DAUNTING. AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION NEED MORE THAN A >MARK. THEY NEED TO HAVE ASSURANCES THAT THE MARK STANDS FOR AN >ORGANIZATION WITH INTEGRITY, ETC., ETC. THAT LEADS TO THE CHURCH OF >ACCREDITATION. SOME MANUFACTURERS NOW HAVE ON AVERAGE ONE AUDIT A WEEK IN >THEIR LABS, FROM ACCREDITATION ORGANIZATIONS OF ONE STRIPE OR ANOTHER. > >WHAT IS NEEDED IS THE MOVE FROM INDIVIDUAL MARKS ON THE EQUIPMENT TO A >GLOBAL MARK THAT INDICATES THAT THE MANUFACTURER MAKES CERTAIN CLAIMS FOR >THIS EQUIPMENT, DESCIBED IN LITERATURE OR FOR AS FAR AS i AM CONCERNED IN A >DATA HOLOGRAM. IF THE MANUFACTURER GETS CAUGHT MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS, >THE FINES WILL SHUT HIM DOWN. > >THAT GETS US AWAY FROM THE MARK CONFUSION AND PUTS THE RESPONSIBILITY WHERE >IT BELONGS, WITH THE MANUFACTURER. MARKS OF >CERTIFICATION ORGANIZATIONS MAY STILL BE DISPLAYED IN THE CLAIM OF >COMPLIANCE OF THE MANUFACTURER. > > I would love to pay only once for >> the same service but right now I pay UL and TUV for the same service and >> inspections. >YOU COULD USE THE IECEE CB SCHEME TO OVERCOME MUCH OF THAT PROBLEM. UL AND >TUV WILL ACCEPT EACH OTHERS TEST REPORTS UNDER THAT SCHEME, FOR PRODUCT >SAFETY. > >(I don't believe that I can get products universally accepted without it >because of local preferences whether they be >> governmental or customer preferences - yes I know there are vendors out >> there that say they can do this and I am watching and waiting but its >> not here yet.) > >THE NOTION THAT CUSTOMERS GIVE A DAMN ABOUT WHAT MARK IS ON THE EQUIPMENT >IS A MYTH PERPETUATED BY THE CERTIFICATION HOUSES WHO HAVE SUNK MILLIONS IN >MARK RECOGNITION. THEIR RESEARCH AND OTHER INDEPENDENT RESEARCH SHOWS THAT >USERS WILL PICK WHAT IS LESS EXPENSIVE, NOT WHAT HAS A SPECIFIC MARK. >THERE IS A PROBLEM IN THE USA IN THAT THERE IS NO CENTRAL ACCREDITATION >ORGANIZATION THAT IS RECOGNIZED BY THE 5000 AUTHORITIES HAVING >JURISDICTION. YOU CAN ONLY HOPE THAT THE AUTHORITIES WILL ACCEPT THE NRTL >MARK OF OSHA. > >> Okay so maybe that was more than 2 cents worth and feel free to blow >> holes in the e-mail. Its a great debate. >> >> Let me add my 2cents worth. >> I have to compete with UL and certainly think that CE marked >> products must be accepted by US authorities having jurisdiction (as these >> should be eliminated as well, I had trouble with the Hayward City >> inspector at one time)? > >CE MARKED PRODUCTS ARE NOT GOING TO BE ACCEPTED READILY BY AUTHORITIES THAT >KNOW WHAT THE MARK STANDS FOR. THE MARK MEANS THAT THE MANUFACTURER HAS >MADE A CLAIM THAT THE EQUIPMENT MEETS THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE >APPLICABLE EUROPEAN DIRECTIVES. THE EUROPEAN UNION HAS A POST MARKET >SURVEILANCE MECHANISM IN PLACE THAT PERIODICALLY VERIFIES THESE CLAIMS AND >PUTS THOSE WHO ABUSE THAT MARK OUT OF BUSINESS WITH HEFTY FINES. EVEN IF >THE MANUFACTURER INDEED MEETS THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPLICABLE >DIRECTIVES, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE EQUIPMENT MEETS APPLICABLE US >REQUIREMENTS. THERE IS NO SURVEILLANCE MECHANISM IN THE USA AND I DON'T >SEE A RUSH ON THE PART OF THE AUTHORITIES TO START SPENDING MONEY ON >BUILDING SUCH A SCHEME. IN ADDITION, WHILE ABUSING THE CE MARKING IS A >PUNISHABLE OFFENSE IN THE EU, IT IS NOT IN THE USA. > >> Maybe they have something similar to the Hayward city inspectors >> in France (and about 20 other countries I know of), how do they feel >about >> UL, in France? > >ABOUT THE SAME AS THEY FEEL ABOUT AFNOR IN THE US, I WOULD IMAGINE. > >> And if standards, why US standards, why not the other way around, >the US >> adapting international standards (with one or two national >deviations)? > >AS ALREADY MENTIONED, US REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS INDUSTRY ARE ALREADY >HARMONIZED WITH THE IEC STANDARDS. AN ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS CANENA IS >BUSILY ADOPTING IEC STANDARDS AS TRINATIONAL (US - MEXICO - CANADA) >STANDARDS. CSA HAS ADOPTED SOME 200 IEC STANDARDS IN ELECTRICAL SAFETY AS >NATIONAL STANDARDS OF CANADA IN THE LAST 18 MONTHS. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING >ABOUT, OR WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN ??????? > >> I for one am glad that I can still find VDE or SEV etc. approved >> components, maybe these approvals are not perfect but I am sure I have a >> good defense built up should the unthinkable occur. > >PICK YOUR NRTL WITH CARE, SOME WILL AND SOME WILL NOT ACCEPT COMPONENT >CERTIFICATIONS FROM RESPECTED HOUSES OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY.
