Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: ul.com

Stories and comments across the archive that link to ul.com.

Comments · 62

  1. Send it to Underwriter's Laboratories by Animats · · Score: 2 · on Taiwanese Capacitors Leaking, Exploding
    If it blows up or catches fire, and it has a UL label, Underwriter's Laboratories wants to know about it. Fill out their report form. If you check the "Yes, I agree to ship the product to UL", they'll send you mailing instructions. You send it in, they take a look, they send it back, they pay shipping. They then apply a large hammer to the manufacturer.

    UL exists for the benefit of fire insurance companies; if something can cause a fire, they want to know about it.

  2. Re:Isn't Anyone Doing Qualification Testing? by shivianzealot · · Score: 1 · on Taiwanese Capacitors Leaking, Exploding

    There certianly are groups that test these sorts of components.

  3. Re:Phony/UL-uncertified power supplies by Animats · · Score: 2 · on Tom's Hardware Compares Power Supplies
    No, it's not legal. You can't print your own UL sticker; only a UL-authorized label printer can do that for you. On authorized stickers, all the data has to match the database. Beyond this, many UL-listed items made in China (including most electrical products) require a special hologram UL label with a "floating UL", due to previous label counterfeiting problems. US Customs spot-checks for this, and seizes tons of counterfeit merchandise each year.

    So some of those power supply labels probably are phony.

  4. Phony/UL-uncertified power supplies by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting · on Tom's Hardware Compares Power Supplies
    Let's go to the UL certification database (which, unfortunately, only seems to work for MS Internet Explorer), and check out the power supplies tested by Tom's Hardware.
    • Engelking -- no find
    • PC World -- no find
    • Verax -- no find
    • Noise Magic -- no find
    • Chieftek -- no find
    • Zalman ZM3003-APF -- Passed UL and CSA certification testing, certificates QQGQ2.E198072 (US), QQGQ8.E198072 (Canada).
    • CP4 -- no find
    • Antec True-380 -- Passed UL and CSA certification testing, certificates QQGQ2.E176105 (US), QQGQ8.E176105 (Canada).
    • Conrad -- no power supplies found
    • Levicom -- no find
    • Herolchi -- no find
    • TSP -- no power supplies found
    • Maxtron -- no find
    • Enermax EG365AX-VE -- Found Enermax EG365PX-VE(+) in database, certified for US and Canada. US certificate QQGQ2.E134014.
    • SCS -- no find
    • Coba -- no find
    • Seaconic -- no find
    • Task -- various companies use that name, no power supplies found.
    • Channel Well CWT-300ATX -- Passed UL and CSA certification testing, certificates QQGQ2.E161451 (US), QQGQ8.E161451 (Canada)
    • Topower TOP-320 P4 -- found Topower TOP-320y, passed UL and CSA certification testing, certificates QQGQ2.E130843 (US), QQGQ8.E130843 (Canada).
    • Leadman LP-6100E - found Leadman LP-6100A through LP-6100D, but not LP-6100E. US certificate QQGQ2.E107407 for earlier models.

    UL's testing agrees with Tom's Hardware. All devices that really passed UL certification were found OK by Tom's Hardware. No UL-certified device blew up, caught fire, burned out, or failed to perform at rated load. All the units that failed lacked valid UL certification. The Leadman LP-6100 E did fail under full load at Tom's Hardware, but it shut itself down properly without damage. UL hasn't rated it, although they've rated previous Leadman models.

    The Tom's Hardware article shows the data plate from the Chieftek power supply, which bears a UL marking. It's not in the database. It looks like many of those power supplies have fake UL certification, and for good reason - they don't meet specs or they're outright hazardous.

    So if it's not in the UL database, don't buy it. There are plenty of good power supplies that have real UL certification. Corporate shops probably should check for those phony brands and take appropriate action. And tell UL; they will take action for phony markings.

  5. Failures should be reported to UL and CPSC by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting · on Tom's Hardware Compares Power Supplies
    Power supplies that blow up or catch fire should be reported to Underwriters's Laboratories and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. These are online forms, but I'd suggest certified mail as well, with pictures. This is inexcusable.

    The relevant safety standard is UL 60950 (or the identical EU 60590 in Europe), "Safety of Information Technology Equipment". One of the required tests is a full-load worst-case temperature test. No way should those units have received UL or CSA certification.

    UL's certification search engine is broken today, so I can't check the power supplies listed to see if they really passed. But those certifications are public information; you can check.

    Current CPSC product recalls in the computer area include PowDec power supplies for NextLevel DSL modems and several batteries for laptops. Sounds like that list needs some additions.

  6. Re:If your power supply is UL/CSA approved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Is Your Computer a Fire Hazard Waiting to Happen?
    >You may be surprised to learn that UL (Underwriters Laborities) is a for-profit, publicly traded corporation.
    Not really, actually. I knew this...

    Please read this before spewing nonsense like this.

  7. Re:It's happened to me.. by Ignorant+Cocksucker · · Score: -1, Troll · on Is Your Computer a Fire Hazard Waiting to Happen?
    The UL Mark on a product means that UL has tested and evaluated representative samples of that product and determined that they meet UL's requirements. In addition, products are periodically checked by UL at the manufacturing facility to make sure they continue to meet UL requirements.

    From their website. I think this is what we need to avoid our power supplies gonig up in smoke.

  8. Re:Good argument for government intervention... by rho · · Score: 2 · on A DSL Co-op in Your Neighborhood?
    By that argument, we should dismantle the EPA, OSHA, the FDA, and the EPA since they are unlikely to be perfect.

    Which wouldn't get me very teary-eyed or even worried.

    OSHA accomplishes what good it does by preventing thousands from working due to regulatory overhead for things as simplistic as insufficient foot-candles in the bathrooms. (A danger? Possibly--is 30 f/c more dangerous than 35 f/c? Not really, but could cost thousands to fix).

    The FDA does some good, I'll admit. But so does Underwriters Laboratories, and they're cheaper than the FDA, too.

    I won't mention the EPA--I only piss people off when I discuss the environment.

  9. Re:"No User Servicable Parts Inside" Stickers by cmacd · · Score: 1 · on Slashback: Cheats, Entries, Loki

    One day, my trusty case power supply just gave up on me. "Oh well," I thought, "Must have blown a fuse." (I was pulling some serious power through the poor thing.) So with gleeful abandon I grabbed the nearest sharp, pointy tool and began to remove screws. I carefully grounded and opened up the power supply to change the fuse- Lo And Behold, the stupid thing was soldered in place!

    In adition to the lower cost as another poster mentioned, soldered parts are often required in order to obtain the required UL or CSA approval. If the part is in a socket, someone could stick the wrong one in, if you have to solder it in, you have a better chance of being a real tech who knows not to over-fuse.

    Some items have expensive tranformers with a fusable link hidden in the winding for the same reason. You can't jumper the fuse, but must replace the part (or more likey the entire unit) but you won't be setting yourself up for a fire!

  10. Check out Underwriters Laboratories by Deosyne · · Score: 2 · on Uncle Sam's Funhouse

    For all of you engineer geeks looking to do this kind of cool stuff, you might want to check out the Underwriters Laboratories (yeah, the UL on the back of damn near every bloody device that uses electricity :)). You know those videos you see of a robotic arm slamming a refridgerator door over and over, or dudes in lab coats and goggles watching a laser, or even a building getting torched to test the sprinklers? Probably taken from the UL. Beats working for a government agency anyhow. ;)

    Deosyne

  11. Re:Compression by GigaGoogle · · Score: 1 · on Download The Human Genome
    Of course, people actually downloading the whole human genome probable wouldn't worry about this, but couldn't they use a better compression format than .zip? I bet using bzip2 or rar would shave a couple of hundred MBs off of that 753MB file. Also, the differences in compression techniques would be interesting to see on a large group of files mainly consisting of G, A, C, and T. -- demiurge You find a file that appears important and obliterate it from memory!!! Score one for the downtrodden hacker!
    Huffman would better compression algorithm in my opinion. Huffman uses a tree to determine which encodings to use for each symbol. The encodings might be similar to this:

    This would only work for the .fa files, but .fa files can contain "N"s also. If you just want to browse the Genome, look through the pieces directory. .

  12. Re:That's why there's UL by SEWilco · · Score: 1 · on 24/7 Running PCs = Fire Risk?
    Yup, just look for the UL label.

    Underwriters Laboratory is most well known for testing that products are not likely to cause a fire. Insurance companies don't like fire, so they prefer items which have been UL tested. (Insurance companies are "underwriters" of your insurance)

    If there's a fire with a non-UL device, your insurance company will be unhappy about the situation -- nearly as unhappy as you.