Slashdot Mirror

When someone tells you about a topic, including its history, that's a hint that they might know something about the topic. They are therefore unlikely to be fooled by you making up stuff out of thin air.

> While "Underwriters" can mean insurance companies, it doesn't have to. And doesn't in this case.

It was founded by the Western Insurance Union and Chicago Underwriters Association in 1893
https://www.ul.com/aboutul/his...

> Oh, and later teh government gave it the ability to run legally binding tests on product safety.

What statute is that? If you plan to go look, let me suggest you not waste too much time looking for such a thing.

> And while car companies may advertise "it's safer", it does take a neutral third party observer to say whether it is.

Typically the third-party rating advertised is the IIIHS rating. Guess what IIHS stands for? Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Noticing a trend? Electrical safety (UL) - insurance companies.
Fire code (NFPA) - insurance companies.
Auto safety (IIHS) - insurance companies.

So who, exactly as responsible for creating and advancing safety standards? Insurance companies. They are really, really good at analyzing and minimizing risk because that's how they can be successful and make money, by reducing the risks of their customers.

https://benchmarks.ul.com/news... [ul.com]

You know what's funny about that article? Apple came out and admitted they were intentionally slowing down the devices on updates, of course for "good" reasons, completely refuting the claim by the article that Apple was not doing that. Their benchmarks didn't catch it.

Step out of the reality distortion field.

Try to follow the thread. Then shut up.

https://benchmarks.ul.com/news... [ul.com]

You know what's funny about that article? Apple came out and admitted they were intentionally slowing down the devices on updates, of course for "good" reasons, completely refuting the claim by the article that Apple was not doing that. Their benchmarks didn't catch it.

Step out of the reality distortion field.

You have no proof of that so its not actually a fact.

https://benchmarks.ul.com/news...

Why do searches for "iPhone slow" spike when new models are released?

Our benchmarking data shows that, rather than intentionally degrading the performance of older models, Apple actually does a good job of supporting its older devices with regular updates that maintain a consistent level of performance across iOS versions.

That said, there are some factors that might affect people's perception of performance after updating an older device with a newer version of iOS. An update might add new features that use more resources or require more processing power. New apps developed for the latest models might not run as smoothly on older devices. Conversely, apps designed for an earlier version of iOS might not take full advantage of optimizations in the latest version. And then there is always the psychological effect of knowing that there is a new and improved model available, which can make your own device seem outdated.

Here are the answers to your concerns:

Underwriter's Laboratory.

Liability Insurance and tort law creates incentives for the insurer to make sure the store doesn't poison its customers and does it much more efficiently and effectively.

Amazon has gotten better about such things. You no longer have to go through the foreign support people with the forms and scripts. They now have a direct contact for unsafe product issues:

Note: If your post is about a product you think might be unsafe, please report this information to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) or contact Amazon directly at product-safety@amazon.com.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/help...

I would add UL (underwriters laboratories) and several others. UL moves a bit slow and reactive instead of proactive, but they certainly are zealous about protecting their brand. Products with their mark, that test out unsafe, will be quickly dropped from Amazon and elsewhere.

Unfortunately, this doesn't help with all those 2GB USB flash drives from China, which are labeled and firmware hacked to appear to have 64+ gigabytes of usable space.

Which is why UL has a database of UL certified products. Enter number, get yea or nay.

For example how do I know that medicine is safe to take. I am unable to test it for myself, not being a biochemist.

Do you do an EE analysis on the electrical products you buy, or do you look for the UL (Underwriters Laboratories) sticker? Drugs are an interesting example here because the FDA has crowded out any private provider, where it's hard to compete against "free", especially when "private non-profit" is illegal.

a mechanical engineer to decide whether a car was safe

So you don't go by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety crash test ratings? Consumer Reports even includes their data and adds additional criteria like comfort and maintenance ratings.

I have no choice but to rely on the government for many things, because I am unable to get the required expertise to be completely self-reliant.

Have you ever checked on whether a doctor was board certified, whether a bike helmet was ANSI or Snell rated, or whether a manufacturing company was ISO9001?

The only time you don't have a choice is when the government has come in to take over an industry. Ask the organic food folks, where the third party certifying organizations have been driven out of business by the feds, who allow non-organic material in foods that are allowed to be labeled as "organic" by them (but were not by the independent parties).

I can't help thinking that the average Slashdot reader has already watched every episode of Good Eats and knows not to do this already.

Insert "North American" between "average" and "Slashdot".

However do I remember this video made by Underwriters Laboratories from many years ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbLqFQQdvoY

Companies want to show their products are safe and effective which is why they would pay for independent testing.Underwriter Laboratory was in business for years testing products for safety.
Please see http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/corporate/aboutul/history/

Of course there are long term side effects. Whose body is it? Who gets to decide what you put in your body? I argue you should be free. You claim someone else owns your body and can tell you what to do with it. I don't agree.

I had exactly the same question, and figured it out eventually. It's a official Mexican technical standard, which is managed by a technical committee similar to other national standards bodies.

http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/corporate/contactus/faq/marks/nom/

For the longest time, I thought it meant something like "Name", since NOM appeared in the inset in the HP48 where you could put an engraved nameplate.

Or oil companies policing themselves.

Assertion: Oil companies self regulate.

This is false statement. The US federal government was regulating the ‘Deep Water Horizon’ http://www.gomr.mms.gov/. If they performed their duties adequately, then the disaster in the gulf would not have happened. Point of fact, the US has a regulated market, not a free market. The false choice you raise is the following: A society picks either (Government Regulation) or (Corporations behaving the way they wish). In a free market BP would be responsible for every drop of oil which damages private property, as they would not have limited liability. That’s some hefty risk, which is why they’d need to purchase insurance. Their insurer would recognize the risk, and would need some way to evaluate it and ensure large scale quality control.

This is where private firms step in, such as UL: http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/

A government regulator is not sufficiently accountable. If disaster strikes, they lose their jobs and the next round of bureaucrats step in. On the other hand, UL’s entire future is dependant solely on the accuracy of their ratings and recommendations. If half of the electrical appliances UL approved caught fire, their competitors would be more trust worthy in the eyes of insurers, and UL would lose business.

There are models that meet MIL-STD-810.

No there aren't! There is no such thing as 'meeting MIL-STD-810 standard'!

MIL-STD-810, "Department of Defense Test Method Standard for Environmental Engineering Considerations and Laboratory Tests" suggests how certain environmental conditions, such as vehicle vibration and ballistic shock, could be simulated in the laboratory. For some of these test methods it also suggests parameters and limits for different applications. A large part of the standard is devoted to explaining how the tests should be chosen and tailored for the particular application in order to produce relevant data for the engineering process. There is no certifying authority to give you a badge of approval if you pass some test, as there are no standard test facilities for these tests either!

Compare this to for example the IP Code which has specific descriptions and limits on what a device has to withstand in order to be specified in the IP class. Further more there are independent test companies with the standardized test facilities to give you a certificate that the device can indeed withstand environmental conditions equivalent to a specific IP class.

Further more no actual product could 'comply' with all the test methods in the 810 standard. With anything with more functionality than a metal brick one would have to limit the test methods and parameters for it to survive them. Consequently a manufacturer would have to specify which methods and what parameters and test configurations were used in order for anyone to deduce if the product might survive some environmental condition.

The truth is, most products that have MIL-STD-810 slapped on them have never been tested - merely 'designed to meet' some arbitrary interpretation of the standard ... The funny thing is, Panasonic Toughbooks have indeed been tested extensively - there are cool videos of the tests on their website - but those tests are IP Class tests which they have to perform.

Actually, I can't think of a single seal of approval, or certification, that means anything.

I'll expand your mind then. Try the UL and the NFPA seals and listings.

Of course if something is not up to spec (lets say a manufacturer certified with one material and used another in production), then most people have a right to sue the manufacturers for not following the standards they were certified under as well as it being known that the problem wasn't the certification but the production afterward.

Electricity generated using coal is indistinguishable from electricity generated by any other means.
Minnesota cannot legally tax carbon that is released in another state.

As science-minded people, of course we see that there are not multiple "types" of electricity (or perhaps more accurately "electrical power"), but I wonder if legally there can be.

If there was some sort of MN certification authority for "organic" food, and non-organic food was taxed differently that organic food, would MN be allowed to tax non-certified food from out of state at the non-organic rate? They seem to be allowed to prohibit certain food from out of state under various health reasons according to someone else who linked to court cases about the MN food inspection. What about safety standards? California seems to be able to set vehicle emission standards for in-state sale - Dimedici's argument seems to be based on the idea that the regulation specifies some sort of specific product, a CA emmissions automobile is physically different than a non-CA emmissions automobile. This seems like a pretty reasonable position, but then again, legal truths are often not particularly "reasonable" in my observation. Hasn't the US Supreme Court ruled that Tomatoes are vegetables, while biologically they would be classified as fruits - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_v._Hedden

For some standards (EnergyStar and Underwriters Lab http://www.ul.com/ for example) two identical products could exist where the only difference is their certification by those bodies - could MN tax ES or UL certified products differently? If the answer to that is "yes", then having a tax on non-certified energy production would not seem to be different.

If I understand correctly, you are proposing to tax everybody and pass on the money to the artists

You sound as if you think that's a bad idea. And, that's only one way to compensate artists. Nor does it have to be the government. There are many non-government organizations in control of many aspects of our lives. For instance, standards bodies such as ISO, groups that test products for safety such as the UL. There are hundreds of charities, religious organizations, and other NGOs.

i.e. creating a complete state control over culture.

Complete? Stop being dramatic. No way will any organization, however powerful, be able to ram bad entertainment down unwilling throats. No one can stop you from singing anything you want in the shower. And there's no reason for it. In contrast, as we have seen, private entities have powerful motivation to manipulate us. It is private enterprise that brought us the horrors of Payola and Clear Channel. An example of another system in which governments are intimately involved is highway systems. Yet the government does not dictate what sort of cars people drive, so that people who feel their needs are best served by a large pickup or wagon can have them, and without having to justify it to anyone.

And, need I remind you, you and I and everyone else are the state? You do get to vote on things. You can write letters to your representatives, and, amazingly, they will sometimes be read and even acted on! Stop talking as if the the government and you are "ships in the night".

Why should people who passionately dislike certain artists be forced to finance them?

This tired argument again. As if that doesn't happen under the current system. Or wouldn't happen under any other system you can think of. A rising tide lifts all boats. Patronizing any musician helps all musicians.

If there were no legal and technical hurdles to file sharing

There aren't. The legal hurdles are almost totally ineffective. Nor is there any way for a legal approach to be effective. Yes, they killed Napster. But they couldn't kill file sharing. As to technical hurdles, it's hard to say what the ultimate limits of networking, digital storage and such might be. Artificial limitations are bypassed and ignored at will. DRM is a sad joke.

there would be some sort of "freeamazon.com" where all current music, books and software in the world can be downloaded for free, right?

There are many such. Usenet. Lots of encrypted anonymizing ones such as Tor. The ones we've all heard of such as BitTorrent, Napster, Kazaa, etc. They don't have quite everything in the world of course, but they have lots more than the lame local bricks and mortar places, and more than Amazon, since Amazon actually has far less on hand than they list. Really weak when you want something obscure and Amazon needs weeks for physical media to wend its way through a backordering process, if they can get it at all, compared to just being able to get it right now through P2P.

Wouldn't that mean that the people who write those books, companies that create all those applications, games etc and artists and recording companies who write and produce all that music, and studios who make all those movies would be out of business instantly?

No. Since when is copyright some kind of holy, blessed thing that is the only righteous and known way to earn a living from art? There are many other ways. Better ways. I don't know what it will take to persuade people like you to stop clinging to what you think is customary, traditional, and effective, when it has been so warped and beaten as to be none of those. Maybe if you read enough Slashdot, you'll eventually have a change of heart? It is hearing of the extreme and unfair measures of the enter

If a UL-rated power supply blows up on you, UL wants to know. There's a form for reports. They accept pictures (.JPG or .GIF). If you're willing to ship the failed product to UL, they'll send you mailing instructions.

The image on that site isn't good enough to allow reading the certification number below the UR symbol. After some enhancement in Photoshop, it looks something like "E??430?", but I can't be sure.

Product reviewers: please provide a clear photo of the nameplate on anything you review.

The UL database does have an entry for this item.

• Class: Power Supplies, Information Technology Equipment Including Electrical Business Equipment - Component
• UL certification: E214301
• ALLIED LEADER INTERNATIONAL LTD E214301
  1ST FL
  18 WU CHUN 7 RD, WU GU INDUSTRY AREA
  WU GU SHIANG, TAIPEI TAIWAN
• Model: AL-D500EXP
• Input voltage: 230VAC.

The UL certification database has UL's test numbers, and they're above the ones from "jonnyGURU.com". But the UL database lists this as a supply intended for 230V power only. They list all the other Allied power supplies as "115/230VAC", but not this one. JonnyGuru reported that the primary side blew out, not the secondary side. Running on 115V, the primary side has to draw twice the current required at 230V. (Yes, that's how switching power supplies work.)

So this thing is mislabeled, or was submitted for testing with a different label. It went through UL testing as 230V only, and won't work on 115V.

They should have checked each power supply for a UL marking, and an entry in the UL Certification Database. Things seem to be getting better, though; the power supplies tested did not blow up or catch fire at full load. That's a big improvement from a few years ago.

The basic UL requirements are 1) no overload problems at full load, 2) no explosion or fire under output overload/short conditions, and 3) no single component failure can cause a fire (i.e. there should be a fuse of some kind in there.) It's permitted for an overloaded unit to fail and never work again; that's not a safety issue. Some no-name power supplies had real problems meeting those basic conditions.

Underwriters Laboratories http://www.ul.com/ulprodcert.html

And who will oversee the overseers? And how can the agencies be independent when they are being "overseen"?

you cannot totally rely on any single agency for anything. That's why you have indepenedent groups do indepenedent tests. Except, if they are all "overseen" by the same overseer, they are not independent. In fact, there is in effect only one agency.

That's why we have agencies like NIST, ASTM, SAE, UL, and others. They are independent, monitored by government agencies, and composed of a wide variety of groups so that they can't be easily subverted by any one group. It is these groups that certify laboratories and test procedures and ensure that testing is done in a rigorous and scientific fashion. Yes, you can't have 100% certainty that an agency is completely immune to influence but you can take reasonable steps to safeguard against it.

Oh and by the way, where did I say anything about a single agency or oversight group? The best would be several independent evaluations and oversights. Again, it's up to the consumer to judge the proper level of validation to which they feel comfortable about a product. To some people all it takes is a smiling face in a TV commercial, to others it will be many years of intense scrutiny. Personally, I tend toward the latter.

Its possible that these incidents are statistically insignificant given the number of products sold that don't explode. Or there would be new rules proposed in the codes to address these problems. These folks just live for writing new rules. In fact, there are some pretty strict rules covering electrical installations in hazardous locations like gas stations. Its just that no construction code can keep someone from running an extension cord and plugging in a PC around gas fumes.

The company should have much more to offer than just the source code. Given that the machine is to be used as evidence in court and was purchased under contract to state specifications, there should be Engineering documentation backing up its design and performance (that's capital-E Engineering, signed off by a P.E. licensed to practice in Minnesota). For example, have the device's hardware and software reliability been demonstrated to meet any industry standards for quality and reliability? There are standards for household appliances* that require such documentation for their embedded software's safety features. Evidence in criminal cases can hardly be held to less stringent quality standards than a household thermostat. That documentation should exist, and the attorney probably is trying to either get it into evidence or make the company admit it doesn't exist.

(*) Software is covered in Annex H of EN/IEC/UL 60730-1

Ah, it would seem that in truth, it's only for electrical safety guidelines, kind of like when the UL requires a recall for faulty/dangerous components To my knowledge, UL does not enforce recalls. They merely release public notices like these bulletins and the respective government agencies, retailers and redistributors take action from there. don't remember the relevant standard numbers for consumer electronics There is not just one, there are many, many standards for different types of electronics. UL 1950 and UL 60950 cover a good percentage of computer and computer-based equipment. Of course, many types of consumer electronics have their own individual standards. You can browse all of UL's standards and the scope of each standard on their website, but the actual text and requirements of the standards is not available online.

True, but do you know what is involved in getting UL certification?
It's mostly about $$. Here is UL's price list for standards (don't remember the relevant standard numbers for consumer electronics).
That's just what you pay for the documentation the testing is extra.

This is important, because there are too many unapproved power supplies out there. Those are the ones that fail, or worse, catch fire, when loaded up to their rated load.

The heat pipe arrangement looks like an afterthought. A simpler design would have the power semiconductors on the back plate with the fins. That's how industrial power supplies are usually built.

This is important, because there are too many unapproved power supplies out there. Those are the ones that fail, or worse, catch fire, when loaded up to their rated load.

The heat pipe arrangement looks like an afterthought. A simpler design would have the power semiconductors on the back plate with the fins. That's how industrial power supplies are usually built.

1. Make everyone shareholders. I think this idea is no better than what we have now, and probably worse. Anyway, set a "release" price on new works (ideas, art). When enough people have collectively put up enough money to meet the price, release it to these people only. They are now shareholders. Whenever outsiders want in, they buy shares. Everyone who is already in gets a bit of this money, thus the incentive not to give away property. You can't sell out, because proving that you've forgotten an idea is impossible. As more people buy in, the share price goes DOWN, because what it is really doing is spreading the release price plus some profit out among more and more people. It doesn't go down entirely proportionally, so that early adopters are rewarded for their discernment, and of course the creators/inventors/authors are the first people in. As an example, suppose the release price was $1 million. 100,000 people put up $1, 50,000 put up $2, and a wealthy impatient person puts up the other $800,000. Then it's a hit and a million people decide to jump in for $1 each. The first shareholders will get some, not all, of that money, and the share price can be lowered to, say, 75 cents. When the price goes below some minimum (1 cent?) the shareholding arrangement is dissolved and the "properties" are thereafter public domain.

2. Similar to 1, but skip all the shareholder stuff and release it to the public, not to "shareholders". Rather like this idea.

3. Change to a "Creditright" system. All ideas are freely available. The only obligation is give credit where due. Accreditations are counted. How exactly this can be achieved without inconvenience, cheating, or violating privacy isn't easy, but it can be done, and has been done for centuries. The process is called "voting". Voting is of course a high stakes, expensive, slow, trouble prone and inconvenient process, but I think computers and the Internet could really be an enabling force here, making it possible to have the needed frequency of votes at a reasonable level of convenience and reliability. Then, to "promote the arts and sciences", appropriate organizations will have as their sole duty keeping the counts and giving out money proportionately. Something like Distrowatch could be a starting point. They would be funded by tax revenue, which makes sense because if it is everyone who "owns" an idea because trying to restrict copying is absurd, then it is everyone who should reward the creators proportional to the value of the idea. Shut down the patent office and set those people to these new duties. Perhaps the government should do it, maybe by having an agency devoted to the task. Or perhaps independent corporations would handle the task. After all, we have safety organizations such as Underwriter's Laboratories. So, like every time someone listens to a song, the counter for that song ticks up another spot. All this does is count votes. The problem of haggling over how much money each vote is worth can be left to annual budget battles. If the government feels that there isn't enough research, it's very easy to pump more money into this system. Also, could have charitable organizations help out. Great way to "feed starving artists". All kinds of questions can be fairly handled in this "Creditright" system. One example is "reach through patents". Would be easy to count. For example, if a particular song uses a particular new instrument, could have anything from add 1 to the count for that instrument, or add the counts for that song to the counts for that instrument. Let voters or arbitrators or the courts or official boards or committees decide how the counts should be interpreted, and what they're worth. But of course we would develo

Now I have actually figured out that in the country where there are a multitude of responsibility write-offs (read USA) the electrical plugs are still "unsafe at any handling" (compare with Unsafe at any speed) I have since figured out that the Underwriters Laboratories isn't doing a good enough job when they are checking the safety of our household utilities. A most notably thing is the electrical plug for 220V 30/50A applinces where you actually can grab around the plug and come in contact with both the live pins at the same time when inserting/removing the plug. This can be prevented by a design that protects the user from coming into contact with the pins while inserting the plug. This picture shows the outlet in a well that actually serves two purposes - protecting the userd during insert/removal and also catching any mechanical sideway stresses that can break the pins inside the connector.

I have also noted that NEMA is not doing a very good job either since the amount of different electrical plug pinnings that are present is more confusing than helping. Too many pin configurations for the same electrical rating is not very good.

The issue that I would like to point out is that even if there is an international standard that standard isn't followed and adopted as superseding the national standards.

Fire proof safes aren't all heat proof. I was told by our insurance company recently that the FP safes and cabinets are only rated that for durable goods such as paper (which can withstand a lot of heat in some situations), metal, etc. but CD/DVD substrates will melt or distort rather quickly because they're so thin.

You just need the right kind of fire safe, one that is rated for class 150 or class 125 (tape & disk) instead of class 350 (paper).

I'd sooner put them in a safe deposit box at a bank where the vaults are much safer in most scenarios.

While I'm sure the bank has better physical security, they are also a bigger target. And safe deposit boxes have no protection from fire (although the bank probably has a sprinkler system).

As you would have found if you'd clicked on the company link in the article, the company name is "High Performance PC LTD". Now try searching the UL database again (look for file E245388), and post a correction. Moderators may want to do the same thing.

There's a company listing:
HIPER ENTERPRISE CO LTD
E224709
5TH FL
79 MIN-SHENG EAST RD, SEC 4
TAIPEI 105, TAIWAN

But they have no listings for PC power supplies. They're listed as a maker of circuit and battery chargers. The Hiper web site says they're in Guangdong province, China. So this may be a different company.

What this outfit seems to do is buy power supplies and repackage them. But, because they change the wiring, fan, and connectors, any certification applying to the original power supply is now invalid. Hiper should have run their power supplies through UL certification under their own name. They didn't.

This matters. If you read serious reviews of power supplies, where they're connected to a dummy load and run at their rated power, you find that many power supplies won't deliver their rated power. Some catch fire under full load.

When you look at the loser power supplies in those reviews, the ones that burn up are never in the UL database. And most of the ones that work properly under full load are.

UL loads the things up to full load at the top end of their temperature range and runs them for a few days. That's all. UL certification only means that it won't catch fire. That's a good first step, These guys didn't take it.

For each company you list, I can list a hundred that are trying to help humanity by making the world a better place.

I don't need to list a hundred, but to support your case: I work for Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. I get to make the world a safer place and have a cool job. How many private companies can you think of that make that big of a difference in the world? Not very many, I assure you.

Net go down? Call your representative. Can't get newsgroups on your pc? Better call the mayor. Geesh. That's JUST the ticket, sure. Next up, the politicians will be running on IT issues --"Vote for me, I promise OV-3 connectivity in every home!"
Seriously. If a traffic signal goes down, do you call the mayor? No. I guarantee you, politicians will not be campaigning their promises of 'internet connectivity' for quite a while. They are still too busy lying to us about taxes and gerrymandering.

Putting the system in charge of net connectivity would truly be the work of an idiot.

Try substituting 'net connectivity' with 'traffic signaling' or 'road maintenance'.

Putting the system in charge of traffic signaling would truly be the work of an idiot.

Putting the system in charge of road maintenance would truly be the work of an idiot.

Who sounds like an idiot now? You wanna know something? I pay over $50 a month for Comcast cable internet. Why? They want to make a profit, and they are charging me to provide media services I do not use. I don't want a friggin ISP! I don't want the 'value-adding services', I just want a gateway to the internet. Thats it. Do I have a choice? No. DSL is not offered in my neighborhood yet and Comcast is the only way to get high-speed internet(excluding Satellite, which sucks if you play games needing low latency). If my county or city goverment said 'Hey, want 10Mb up/down for $25?', me and all of my neighbors would pounce on it.

On a related note, if it has a UL mark and blows up, report that to UL. If you check the box "Yes, I agree to ship the defective product to UL", they will send you shipping instructions, pay your shipping costs, examine the product, and return it to you. They also accept JPG and GIF files of the defective or phony product.

So it's a phony UL certification label.

UL tightly controls what appears on a UL label. Only authorized UL label printers can print them, and only when UL authorizes a specific label. UL even insists on approving the label layout. No way did that label go through UL approval.

If you look at the Taiwan Youngyear line of power supplies, you won't find anything that matches the Ultra XConnect unit. The UltraXconnect has a bay of power outlets for DC power, and all the Taiwan Youngyear supplies have the usual cables and connectors hanging out.

Ultra may be buying Taiwan Youngyear power supplies, opening them up, modifying them by adding their own connector bay, and relabeling the product. But that makes them a manufacturer. They have to get their own UL certification after they've moldified up the box.

And for good reason. Remember, this power supply blew up when loaded to its rated load.

A UL "recognition" mark (backwards RU) does not necessarily indicate a problem. It's simply an approval for a component that is to be used by OEMs for building a final product, rather than being a product intended for retail sale. There are "Conditions of Acceptability" that must be met in the final product. But products destined for retail sale to consumers should have the "Listing" mark ("UL" logo, or equivalent from other test labs). Use the UL online database to check out the approvals: http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/template/LISEXT /1FRAME/index.html.

• The HIPER HP3S350 appears to be the first of the phonies. The label has the UL "recognized component mark" (the reversed-R U symbol), but there's no UL certification number. That's an indication of a phony; all UL marks must be accompanied by a UL certification number, an E followed by digits. Certification numbers can be easily checked with UL here.

  Looking up HIPER in the UL database, HIPER has a few products listed, but none of them are computer power supplies. So that's a brand to avoid.

• Jeantech's power supply label also has the UL component logo without a certification number. They're not in the UL database at all. Uh oh.

• The Seasonic SS 400-FB power supply has a proper UL marking, and the certification number E104405 is in the UL certification database. There's not an exact match on model; an SS-400FS was certified and this is an SS-400FB. That's sloppy, but this company is clearly trying to comply.

• SilentMax has no UL logo at all. It blew up under test. It's clear why that one doesn't have a UL certification.

• The Ultra Xconnect blew up under test. There's a UL marking, but no file number, on the label. Ultra Products has no listings in the UL database. So that's another phony.

Consistently, every power supply with a valid UL mark passed. And every power supply that blew up lacked a valid UL mark.

UL tests power supplies by loading them up to their rated load at their maximum rated temperature and running them for hours or days. They also test for safe behavior if short circuited, overloaded, or overvoltaged. They're not concerned with power quality, just safety. The device must not blow up or catch fire, even after a single component failure.

Report phony UL marks to UL at 1-877-UL-HELPS (854-3577). They arrange for seizure at U.S. Customs, and catch about $12 million a year of hazardous components, which are then crushed.

• The HIPER HP3S350 appears to be the first of the phonies. The label has the UL "recognized component mark" (the reversed-R U symbol), but there's no UL certification number. That's an indication of a phony; all UL marks must be accompanied by a UL certification number, an E followed by digits. Certification numbers can be easily checked with UL here.

  Looking up HIPER in the UL database, HIPER has a few products listed, but none of them are computer power supplies. So that's a brand to avoid.

• Jeantech's power supply label also has the UL component logo without a certification number. They're not in the UL database at all. Uh oh.

• The Seasonic SS 400-FB power supply has a proper UL marking, and the certification number E104405 is in the UL certification database. There's not an exact match on model; an SS-400FS was certified and this is an SS-400FB. That's sloppy, but this company is clearly trying to comply.

• SilentMax has no UL logo at all. It blew up under test. It's clear why that one doesn't have a UL certification.

• The Ultra Xconnect blew up under test. There's a UL marking, but no file number, on the label. Ultra Products has no listings in the UL database. So that's another phony.

Consistently, every power supply with a valid UL mark passed. And every power supply that blew up lacked a valid UL mark.

UL tests power supplies by loading them up to their rated load at their maximum rated temperature and running them for hours or days. They also test for safe behavior if short circuited, overloaded, or overvoltaged. They're not concerned with power quality, just safety. The device must not blow up or catch fire, even after a single component failure.

Report phony UL marks to UL at 1-877-UL-HELPS (854-3577). They arrange for seizure at U.S. Customs, and catch about $12 million a year of hazardous components, which are then crushed.

• The HIPER HP3S350 appears to be the first of the phonies. The label has the UL "recognized component mark" (the reversed-R U symbol), but there's no UL certification number. That's an indication of a phony; all UL marks must be accompanied by a UL certification number, an E followed by digits. Certification numbers can be easily checked with UL here.

  Looking up HIPER in the UL database, HIPER has a few products listed, but none of them are computer power supplies. So that's a brand to avoid.

• Jeantech's power supply label also has the UL component logo without a certification number. They're not in the UL database at all. Uh oh.

• The Seasonic SS 400-FB power supply has a proper UL marking, and the certification number E104405 is in the UL certification database. There's not an exact match on model; an SS-400FS was certified and this is an SS-400FB. That's sloppy, but this company is clearly trying to comply.

• SilentMax has no UL logo at all. It blew up under test. It's clear why that one doesn't have a UL certification.

• The Ultra Xconnect blew up under test. There's a UL marking, but no file number, on the label. Ultra Products has no listings in the UL database. So that's another phony.

Consistently, every power supply with a valid UL mark passed. And every power supply that blew up lacked a valid UL mark.

UL tests power supplies by loading them up to their rated load at their maximum rated temperature and running them for hours or days. They also test for safe behavior if short circuited, overloaded, or overvoltaged. They're not concerned with power quality, just safety. The device must not blow up or catch fire, even after a single component failure.

Report phony UL marks to UL at 1-877-UL-HELPS (854-3577). They arrange for seizure at U.S. Customs, and catch about $12 million a year of hazardous components, which are then crushed.

• The HIPER HP3S350 appears to be the first of the phonies. The label has the UL "recognized component mark" (the reversed-R U symbol), but there's no UL certification number. That's an indication of a phony; all UL marks must be accompanied by a UL certification number, an E followed by digits. Certification numbers can be easily checked with UL here.

  Looking up HIPER in the UL database, HIPER has a few products listed, but none of them are computer power supplies. So that's a brand to avoid.

• Jeantech's power supply label also has the UL component logo without a certification number. They're not in the UL database at all. Uh oh.

• The Seasonic SS 400-FB power supply has a proper UL marking, and the certification number E104405 is in the UL certification database. There's not an exact match on model; an SS-400FS was certified and this is an SS-400FB. That's sloppy, but this company is clearly trying to comply.

• SilentMax has no UL logo at all. It blew up under test. It's clear why that one doesn't have a UL certification.

• The Ultra Xconnect blew up under test. There's a UL marking, but no file number, on the label. Ultra Products has no listings in the UL database. So that's another phony.

Consistently, every power supply with a valid UL mark passed. And every power supply that blew up lacked a valid UL mark.

UL tests power supplies by loading them up to their rated load at their maximum rated temperature and running them for hours or days. They also test for safe behavior if short circuited, overloaded, or overvoltaged. They're not concerned with power quality, just safety. The device must not blow up or catch fire, even after a single component failure.

Report phony UL marks to UL at 1-877-UL-HELPS (854-3577). They arrange for seizure at U.S. Customs, and catch about $12 million a year of hazardous components, which are then crushed.

I'd see a number food safety companies come into existance. A maker of a food products would have to prove that their food is safe to the satisfaction of the certifying company in order to be able to put the company's trademark on their product, just as with UL underwriting.

For example, take the L out of the UL logo and you have the logo for Orthodox Union, a faith based organization one of whose duties is to certify food as kosher, or safe for Jewish consumption.

UL labs has the force of government law and insurance companies.

They say that they're a not for profit company. As for insurance companies, they're private companies too. Heck, there's a control. If the underwriter screws up, the insurance companies drop their listing, and consumers stop considering that label, because it'd invalidate their insurance.

As for the 'backing of law', it's mostly an aftermarket phenomenon.

The second question down pulls up a page that says
There are no laws specifying that a UL Mark must be used. However, in the U.S. there are many municipalities that have laws, codes or regulations which require a product to be tested by a nationally recognized testing laboratory before it can be sold in their area.

Just a comment about Underwriters Laboratories...

As an employee of the company, I can say with reasonable confidence that It's not a consortium of anything; nor is it a government-backed initiative.

It's a privately held, not-for-profit corporation that performs 3rd-party safety testing. Very much like Consumer Reports, with the exception that we do not do performance testing (unless a customer wants it.)

Later...

Together with the IBM adapter recall last week , it would seem the CPSC is getting better at picking out product safety faults than UL whom the manufacturers actually pay to do this kind of thing.

Worth mentioning is the forged UL safety label problem. If a power supply doesn't have a UL or CSA label, don't buy it. It will probably catch fire if shorted or even heavily loaded. A UL label must have the UL logo and a certification number. UL certifications can be looked up here. This is worth doing for desktop computer power supplies, for which forged certifications are a big problem. The ones that catch fire are almost invariably uncertified. UL requires that no single component failure can cause a fire.

Tests they didn't do, and should have:

• Look up the UL certification for the unit, and check that the unit actually passed UL testing. Many power supplies, especially from China, have forged UL certifications. (UL had about 80 shipments seized at U.S. Customs last year for this.) UL's test include surviving a dead short and not catching fire for any single component failure. Uncertified power supplies are almost always the ones that catch fire.

  Checking the UL database is easy. Check any power supplies you have, and if the E-number isn't in the database or doesn't match the unit, report it to UL and have a serious talk with the seller.

• Test the power supply with input voltages at the bottom and top of the rated range, and measure the regulated outputs. This is basic stuff.
• Test the power supply in a hot box, with temperature maintained at the high end of the specified temperature range. This should be done with the unit loaded up to its rated load, and should continue for at least 72 hours. This, again, is a basic QA test.

Nothing Anandtech did seemed to use a 'scope, let alone a spectrum analyzer.

But that doesn't make those wires safe to touch, does it?

Likewise to the FCC's Part 68 rules, the Underwriters Labortories does not allow manufacturers to sell products that expose you to those power lines, do they?

UL has online certification search. Look up those E-numbers and make sure that they match the manufacturer info. Report phonies to UL and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. If you're in telecom or data center operations, it's definitely worth checking wall transformers against the database.

A power supply that passes UL testing will not catch fire if dead-shorted indefinitely. It will not catch fire due to a single-component failure. Some of the phonies will catch fire if merely loaded up to their rated load.

Some review site (ExtremeTech?) did a PC power supply review a few months back, and many of the power supplies wouldn't deliver their rated voltage at full load. Three of the power supplies caught fire. All the ones that passed were in the UL database. None of the ones that caught fire were.

That UL label really means something.

UL has online certification search. Look up those E-numbers and make sure that they match the manufacturer info. Report phonies to UL and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. If you're in telecom or data center operations, it's definitely worth checking wall transformers against the database.

A power supply that passes UL testing will not catch fire if dead-shorted indefinitely. It will not catch fire due to a single-component failure. Some of the phonies will catch fire if merely loaded up to their rated load.

Some review site (ExtremeTech?) did a PC power supply review a few months back, and many of the power supplies wouldn't deliver their rated voltage at full load. Three of the power supplies caught fire. All the ones that passed were in the UL database. None of the ones that caught fire were.

That UL label really means something.

If you'll look at a product with the UL logo, there should be a File Number listed there with it. I'm looking at the bottom of my keyboard and see "E140034." If I go to the UL website and search by this file number, it brings up details on the component that was approved. If you see a UL logo with no File Number, something's probably wrong.

UL is very strict about using their logo and certifications on a product.

**I worked at a company that bought existing components (including the enclosure) to make motor control centers and PLC cabinets. We were UL "compliant" as long as we used a very specific set of standards handed to us by UL dictating what components we used and how we used them. UL also came and inspected our work occasionally to make sure it was up to snuff. We were not entitled to put a UL stamp on our finished product, however.