Uh huh... I had more than a strong feeling that I wasn't alone with the bad experiences. ....'nuff said in the complaint dept., though... I think the best thing to do today is to find the most appropriate ISO/ANSI harmonized standard and pay the lab of your choice to certify your compliance. Next, tell the huge corporate customer that you think UL, ETL, et al is a big joke, and that you have actually designed and produced your product in compliance with a real standard that is not based on graft. It takes guts, but I was able to pull this one off a couple of times in recent years. If they really are up front as a customer, they may check with their corporate attorney, who will tell them that what you offered is at least as good as UL/ETL in the case of an accident or injury related lawsuit. back in the days when I couldn't afford to think about paying a lab, I still was able to make a living by buying a copy of each appropriate standard, then documenting every last detail of my designs with references to the related paragraph headings in the standard. I have made my share of mistakes, but in 20 years of doing this in an industry that combines paper, lots of electricity, heat and flammable chemicals, I have had one close call that consisted of a little smoke(15+yrs ago), no fires, no related injuries, and have never been hauled into a single lawsuit. btw, they tell me that are quite a number of NRTL's out there aside from UL & ETL.... ...and thanks for sharing the enlightening link. Chris > > I don't want to get into too much ETL bashing here, but I am also > encouraging our company to go elsewhere. They tested one of > our products > to the wrong safety standard. They then tested another to the > wrong EMI > standard (for Europe). They're supposed to be the standards > experts (so I > don't have to try to figure this all out). > I've learned a LOT by reading > news:sci.engr.compliance , but I'd sure > like the lab to know more than I do! Getting > an accurate report out of them was also a challenge. > I visited the lab for our EMI tests and think their > facilities and > staff were good at completing a specified test. The problem was WHICH > test. I don't have all the EMI standards memorized, but I think they > tested some of our stuff to CISPR22 (or maybe 20, it's for > ITE) while it > should have been done to CISPR15 (luminaires and associated > equipment). > Turns out the lab we were using didn't have the equipment for CISPR15. > > > Harold > > > On Thu, 7 Mar 2002 16:58:49 -0500 Chris Loiacono > writes: > > Ah, ETL, a real trap.... > > About a year ago ETL was all over the news (or vice-versa) because > > their > > widespred corruption was exposed in several high-profile cases. They > > typically charge fees that are about 1/2 of what UL testing costs, > > but many > > of their labs were found to be nowhere near the US standards for > > "NRTL's" > > They also could not produce a document trail that showed that many > > of their > > tests were ever performed at all. Repeat customers were found to > > have been > > given much less stringent testing at lower cost. I investigated a > > competitor's ETL listings also, and found them allowing the makers > > to > > display their marking on horrfyingly dangerous equipment that had > > never been > > tested- because a product name was used that was similar to an > > altogether > > different listed product. If not for the politics of the day, they > > would > > have lost their US national recognition last year. Oddly enough, ETL > > was > > owned by an overseas company, and it's primary market was US. > > > > IMHO, they are a really sloppy conglomeration of budget test houses, > > and > > theyhave shown me that are overly laxed when it comes to testing > > products > > that impact their bottom line. > > There may be some ETL facilities that are more professional, so I > > can't > > apply this to every location. > > > > I have also tested them by sending several identical requests for > > quotes, > > and received completely different responses regarding cost and the > > list of > > required tests. > > > > It seemed to me at the time that they must have all the people who > > were ever > > discharged by UL for incompetence working for them. > > > > This is a real concern, because US law is such now that no primary > > powered > > equipment can be sold in the US unless it is either listed or > > approved by a > > Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory. I believe ANSI sets up the > > standards for the Lab Certs. > > If the law were inforced, we'd lose many, many products instantly. > > If the > > Labs were made to maintain real qualifications, we'd lose 1/2 of the > > capacity to test these products. > > > > > > We're currently using ETL to test to UL standards. > > > Our products > > > are ETL listed. > > > > -- > > http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList > > mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu > > > > > > FCC Rules Online at http://hallikainen.com/FccRules > Lighting control for theatre and television at http://www.dovesystems.com ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. -- http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu -- http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu