Results 14 to 15 of 15
02-21-2009, 09:12 AM #14
sysint, maybe its me but you seem to hold a lot of pent up anger. Can you elaborate as to why codes, stds, and listings and UL in particular make you so upset? If there is a basis for this frustration, we would like to know. As I said, I know of one case where there was a major impropriety that came out in court so they are not angels. That had to do with their testing lab--not stds. promulgation. If you could provide an example of how the system is bogus/ wrong/ unfair, I think we're all ears. Meanwhile, take it easy dude. This isn't worth having a stroke over (- hypocrisy from the mouth of the usual offender)
02-21-2009, 03:18 PM #15Permanently Removed
- Join Date
- May 2002
Hearthman, with all due respect learn to read. My problem isn't with codes and standards, it is with UL. There is no reason municipalities should refer, reference or demand anything UL. ANYTHING.
Underwriters Laboratories -- WHO owns them?
These people are a money making machine working directly for insurance agencies. Hardly an unbiased situation.
NONE of their standards should see light of day as a requirement. As they say, they don't APPROVE products. Therefore neither should the municipality... but YOU do it and many municipalities do it based on their opinions.
TIME to get AN INDEPENDENT system.
Anyway, I've already GAVE you the example. Please read it this time.
AGAIN: We have a product for communication in UL864 smoke control (as a system). The SAME HARDWARE is used in a communication product that has extra logic to be 100% Redundant. We would have to completely retest this product (as a system). Further we have a device that has duplicate routing -(again same hardware) and guess what? YEP, RETEST as a system.
So, the system is bogus/ wrong/ unfair--- TELL me how you justify it. I'm all ears I guess...
Your UL is crap and every time I hear standard UL-anything I cringe. Biggest joke in the industry and I wish they would get sued more often. They broke the monopoly and now somebody needs to start suing groups and municipalities that ONLY refer to UL standards or demand that any independent NRTL must refer to a UL "equivalent".
Honestly I prefer the CE mark because it puts the responsibility back on the product manufacturer, where it belongs. Not some money making, finding a way to protect insurance companies Underwriters Laboratories....
So, Hearthman, tell me how many Quadrafire Mt. Vernons have a UL listing? Can somebody that bought one that has extensive smoke damage SUE UL as long as they are putting on a stamp of responsibility? I'll tell you something, you would have an Army of insurance company lawyers instantly available to bury the poor person that tries.
http://www.ultruth.com/ -- Maybe UL can rewrite history too.
THERE can't be enough of this for UL:
When first adopted, OSHA regulations gave two examples of approval organizations: Underwriters Laboratories (UL) and Factory Mutual Research Corporation (FMRC). In 1983, OSHA was ordered by a court to remove the specific references to UL and FMRC in a successful lawsuit brought by a private lab. In 1988, OSHA revised its regulations to remove the references, and established the NRTL Program to recognize other organizations as NRTLs, such as Curtis Straus.
FRANKLY, I'm sorry people refer to this UL standard:
Underwriters Laboratories' senior vice president and chief operations officer Charlie Abounader used his time here on day two of the CSAA annual meeting to effectively say, "We're sorry." While also announcing a number of new initiatives, Abounader went out of his way to acknowledge UL's slow response times and complete mishandling of UL 864's 9th edition roll-out.
"Our managing of the process was poor," said Abounader, who joined UL from GE less than one year ago. "We had no plan, and we failed. It's hard to fail if you don't have a plan, but we accomplished it ... We'll make a commitment that it will never happen again." He even said things might get worse before they get better, as more new products continue to come in for listing. However, "we'll finally be through the muck by year-end," he predicted. "You'll start seeing reductions in service time."
I should probably be able to find THOUSANDS of examples for you...
Last edited by sysint; 02-21-2009 at 04:02 PM.