Perhaps I should have been more explicit in my response to Tania. UL does not "require" evaluation of Class 2 powered product, but _will now_ evaluate Class 2 powered products, whereas they flat refused to in the past.
I hope this clarifies what I intended to say. Regards, Peter L. Tarver Nortel ptar...@nt.com > -----Original Message----- > From: ron_pick...@hypercom.com [SMTP:ron_pick...@hypercom.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 1998 1:37 PM > > Hi Peter & Tania, > > "Require? No. Will they? Yes,". I'm intrigued. When will this breakover > > occur? Also, I'm curious. How is UL, as a NRTL, able to require Listing > of any > product in any product category? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel a > NRTL is > able to List a product, not require a product to be Listed. I believe > that it's > the responsibility of a higher power, such as OSHA, the 29CFR series, the > > National Electric Code or Canadian Electric Code, and/or others to make > that > call. > > Or, is there a move afoot to elevate UL's status? :-) > > I'm just trying to get clarification. Please advise. > > Best regards, > Ron Pickard > ron_pick...@hypercom.com > > > ______________________________ Reply Separator > _________________________________ > Subject: RE: US NRTL required ? > Author: "Peter Tarver" <peter.tarver.ptar...@nt.com> at INTERNET > Date: 9/22/98 11:17 AM > > > Require? No. Will they? Yes, under certain circumstances and certain > product categories, like ITE. Laptops for instance. > > Peter L. Tarver > Nortel > ptar...@nt.com > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Grant, Tania (Tania) [SMTP:tgr...@lucent.com] > > Sent: Monday, September 21, 1998 6:24 PM > > > > Thank you, Peter, for your clarification. > > > > You used the past tense below;-- does this mean that NOW UL does require > > > Listing > > when connected to a Class 2 power source????? > > > > I definitely recall many years ago a CSA engineer telling me that we > > need not have submitted a device attached to a CSA Certified power > > source, but since he was here already, I went through the process > > anyway. > > > > Tania Grant, Lucent Technologies, Octel Messaging Division > > tgr...@lucent.com > > > > > > ---------- > > From: Peter Tarver[SMTP:peter.tarver.ptar...@nt.com] > > Sent: Monday, September 21, 1998 1:18 PM > > > > I just came across some typographical errors. My apologies. > > Please refer to the below for corrections in "<<<text>>>". > > > > Peter > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tarver, Peter [MPK:4N02:EXCH] > > Sent: Monday, September 21, 1998 9:40 AM > > > > In paragraph 1 - > > > > For a long time, UL (and I believe CSA) thought any > > device deriving power from a Class 2 source > > <<<did not need>> listing. > > > > In paragraph 4 - > > > > > Table SA12.1 indicates that single alkaline-<<<manganese>>> > > dioxide D cells, > > > nickel-cadmium AA, C and D cells are all capable of delivering > > greater than > > > 8A at one minute of loading. I find this strange, but my > > discussions with > > > Randy Ivans indicate that there is data to support these > > claims. > --------- This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, j...@gwmail.monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
