Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Decoding the Inscrutable Logos On Your Electronics

Posted by samzenpus on from the be-sure-to-drink-your-ovaltine dept.

jfruhlinger writes "If you've bought a piece of electronic equipment — a computer, a printer, even a lowly power supply — you've no doubt noticed a host of inscrutable logos festooned all over it — UL, CE, FCC, TUV, RoHS, ENERGY STAR, and the like. What do they mean? Each of these compliance marks tell a story about your gadget's operation or lifecycle, and knowing what they mean can let you in on the hidden life of the gizmos you buy."

38 of 140 comments (clear)

  1. But only if... by NecroPuppy · · Score: 2

    They're stamped on there legitimately.

    For a while there, you couldn't go a week without seeing one story or another about some "UL certified" device blowing up... because the UL stamp was fake.

    --
    I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
    1. Re:But only if... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 2

      The devices didn't blow up because the UL stamp was fake. They blew up because they were cheaply built pieces of crap.

      The fake testing agency stamps were just the icing on the cake.

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    2. Re:But only if... by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If a regulatory standard does not have a publicly accessible database to confirm conformance, it is useless.

      This includes the worst such standard of all: the self-certified. See also Ethernet over powerline, RFI and Ofcom.

    3. Re:But only if... by ackthpt · · Score: 2

      The devices didn't blow up because the UL stamp was fake. They blew up because they were cheaply built pieces of crap.

      The fake testing agency stamps were just the icing on the cake.

      Quite an interesting bit on the BBC a few weeks back (I'm sure it's in their archives) on "innovation" in China - Once a company has made a product on contract they would retain some of that technology to make extra runs of the product - even going so far as to brazenly and proudly show their knock-offs at trade shows, completely overlooking the matters of copyrights and patents.

      I recently acquired a set of Syma S107 helicopters (which are a ton of fun) and while reading a little bit more on them found there are loads of knock-offs - product, packaging, manual and accessories all copied. That's a heck of an effort just to make a duplicate. Faking CE, FCC or UL stamps isn't even icing on the cake, it's testament to their attention to detail when making a copy.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    4. Re:But only if... by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hardly. Getting UL certification, or CSA certification is stupidly easy. It all comes down to manufacturing and the quality of it and why 'shit blows up'. An example, back when I was working at a plant that made medium and heavy industrial equipment for the disposal of components of ICBM's, we had everything CSA and UL tested. This test involved a disclosure of the electrical device and how it worked. The CSA certification was similar. This was followed with a POTS test and we could slap the label on.

      Besides that we also shipped this stuff to europe, and it had to be electrically certified for Germany, France, and Belgium. At least the wiring codes were easy. I always did like their rubberized 'soft' wiring vs the hardcoat we used here.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    5. Re:But only if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      If a regulatory standard does not have a publicly accessible database to confirm conformance, it is useless.

      This includes the worst such standard of all: the self-certified. See also Ethernet over powerline, RFI and Ofcom.

      TUV has an online accessible database: http://www.tuvdotcom.com/

      You just type in the certificate number (which is a tiny print under the triangle logo) and you can find everything about the test procedures and even see the signatures of the people responsible for the test.

      Disclaimer: I work in TUV.

    6. Re:But only if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      How much would it interest you to know that the Syma S107 is itself a blatant rip off a product that came before? Or that at this point in the timeline, it's utterly impossible to figure out who actually engineered these things in the first place.

      I have a small collection of these heli's as a result of my product research for my webstore. At least 12 different brand names, but only 7 different models. The other 5 are exact copies, with the only changes being stickers/paint/dye.

      Even more interesting, the best ones are the most ignored in the greater market. Such as the pico Z. Which is one of the few models of these toys that use a single rotor blade setup, instead of the counter-rotating system that most of them use. The pico Z is interesting because it's obviously an effort to shrink 3D R/C helicopters. They cut a lot out, but in principle the Pico is a micro sized version of it's larger cousins. It has a gyro, it uses a single rotor, it has a full tail rotor and automatic collective mixing (this is a result of the ESC). The down side being that it has no attitude control as a 3d heli would have, so it always flys forward and it's less controllable than the counter-rotating dual rotors, because those kind can hover, where the Pico can't (not really).

      Anyway, back on topic - it's my experience (I buy a lot of wholesale from China) that most companies could not possibly care any less about Intellectual property, and only slightly more than that about contractual obligations. As it turns out, if you can find a product you want, and they don't make it , they will go steal the design, the dies and process from someone that has it. Then they'll build the widget for you, at .01c less than the other guy. This sounds like a joke, or bullshit, but I'm not even remotely kidding. I tried to get into Airsoft (legal reasons in the US make it hard). The manufacturer I was working with is a big brand name in the field. As part of my investigations, I went to a trade expo, and as soon as I told anyone I wanted Airsoft, they said "who's?" Turns out they weren't kidding either. I asked for "cheap" copies of all the top lines, and got them. Right down to the misspelled Grock.

    7. Re:But only if... by datapharmer · · Score: 2

      yep, lots of tp-link routers from a major geek-from-an-egg online retailer that have fcc codes that don't match the fcc licensing database. They work more reliably in my experience than the "cisco" home wireless routers do though. I guess the regulatory body labels don't mean much whether they are fake or real anymore. *shrug*

      --
      Get a web developer
    8. Re:But only if... by postbigbang · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, tuffer than that.

      Dielectric strength is tested; mains separation from consumer touchable parts are tested; holes can't be big enough to stick a small screwdriver or knife into (something that conducts more than .25") into the chassis, and so on. Yes, electrical safety, but beyond first article inspection, there's a long list of details to keep an object "safe" for consumers so that liability can be reduced, and insurance costs go down.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    9. Re:But only if... by tibit · · Score: 2

      This can still be done with plenty of lip service. Just like building that's done to minimum code requirements is often a crappy place to live, designs done to minimum standard requirements usually suck.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    10. Re:But only if... by tibit · · Score: 2

      You're doing it wrong. Get in touch with a company that does consulting, contract with someone who has done hundreds of those devices. For $10k extra you'll pass. BTDT.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    11. Re:But only if... by Khyber · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "holes can't be big enough to stick a small screwdriver or knife into (something that conducts more than .25") into the chassis"

      That only applies if you're going for an Ingress Protection rating.

      Disclaimer: I make dust and water-proof lighting solutions. I have to pass this with every single product revision I make for commercial use.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  2. New section: "Tell Slashdot" by Bongoots · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'll just move on, because I can't see anything here. If I wanted to know this I would've gone to Wikipedia.

    Somehow I thought this was a news site (maybe it says something about that in the tagline?), but I must have been mistaken. Silly me.

    1. Re:New section: "Tell Slashdot" by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      /. long moved from being a news site for nerds to a tech site for people who don't have a fucking clue years ago.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:New section: "Tell Slashdot" by Ihmhi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It would have been nice if they had a chart showing the logos and explaining them. Yes, we get it, most of those are there as proof of passing certification... but which ones mean what?

      --
      Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
  3. TFA total mess by DragonTHC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    TFA is a convoluted mess of industry jargon and useless information.

    A useful article would involve the icons themselves and what they mean.

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
    1. Re:TFA total mess by Andy_R · · Score: 2

      An even more useful article would explain the difference between what they are supposed to mean (generally that the item complies with the requirements of a standards body), and what they actually mean (generally that a standards body has mandated that all items of this type have their logo on it), and what they mean in practice (in my experience, that the vendor told the manufacturer they were worried about the lack of sufficient impenetrable logos).

      If the article was really, really useful, it would dispel some of the myths that surround these logos - I've dealt with several small businesses who believe that the C E mark is a meaningless advert for the European Union that must appear on every part of every object in Europe, or the gnomes of Zurich will wreak unspecified havoc on them.

      --
      A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    2. Re:TFA total mess by dakameleon · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here's your useful article.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    3. Re:TFA total mess by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is why, on /., you read comments and not TFS/TFA. Thank you.

  4. Was it just me by pjbgravely · · Score: 2

    Was it just me or did the story actually say almost nothing. I was expecting a list of the syllables and what they meant.

    --
    Star Trek, there maybe hope.
    1. Re:Was it just me by Relayman · · Score: 2

      There's a lot more to RoHS than "states that specified substances aren't present." I could write a whole article on that one alone. Oh, gee, somebody has: Wikipedia!

      --
      If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
  5. Free windows ..... by ELCouz · · Score: 2

    Showing your product key on Slashdot is not a good idea !!!

  6. "hidden" by EdIII · · Score: 4, Funny

    knowing what they mean can let you in on the hidden life of the gizmos you buy

    They tell you when you buy them.

    Don't feed them after midnight.
    Keep them away from water.
    Avoid sunlight.

    Thought that was common knowledge.

  7. RoHS by Scott+Kevill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Rodents of Hunusual Size. I don't believe they exist.

    --
    GameRanger - multiplayer gaming service for PC and Mac games
  8. Windows Key by colsandurz45 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Does this guy realize that he just published his windows 7 product key?

  9. Where did they get this article? Demand Media? by Animats · · Score: 2

    Crap article. You'd think there would be a picture of all the logos on something, followed by a close-up picture of each logo and its explanation . But no. It's pure did not do the research.

    This looks like Demand Media content for a made-for-Adsense page. Probably paid the author about $10.

  10. Use your decoder ring by itchythebear · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Decoding the Inscrutable Logos On Your Electronics

    Mine says "Don't forget to drink your ovaltine."

    --
    If what I just said sounded like a troll, it was probably just a failed attempt at humor.
  11. Misread title? by deadhammer · · Score: 2

    Am I the only one who read the title as "Decoding the Inscrutable Legos On Your Electronics"?

    --
    I'll be honest, we're throwing science against the wall to see what sticks. -Cave Johnson
  12. Kosher? by chill · · Score: 2

    Where's the Kosher electronics?

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  13. Compliance by Jimbookis · · Score: 2

    The article is interesting and has a fair point. I have worked at three companies now where compliance was very much an afterthought and was charged at each company to get them over the line before the items went to market. Luckily I have been able to make various combinations of hardware and firmware meet C-Tick (CISPR21/22), A-Tick (S-001/2/3/4), IP-52, EN60950 etc.) with judicious application of capacitors to ground, sticky metal foil, clip on ferrites and firmware corrections. On the other hand, hardware I have designed has considered these things first up an resulted in quick testing and no revisits to the test labs. You software types have no idea! Making sure your SELV and hazardous voltage clearances right first time will save very expensive rework and restesting.

  14. Article sucks by billcopc · · Score: 3, Informative

    Even Wikipedia has better info than that paid article :P

    UL: Underwriters Lab - a safety testing outfit
    CE: Conformité Européenne (french) - Europe's equivalent of the UL
    TUV: Technischer Überwachungsverein - German safety org like the above two
    FCC: Federal Communications Commission - they license, test and certify radio equipment (cell phones, wifi, etc)
    RoHS: Restriction of Hazardous Substances - a European law restricting hazardous materials such as lead, mercury, and a few others
    ENERGY STAR: A set of energy efficiency standards primarily featured in the US, British Commonwealth nations, and parts of Europe. They are typically much stricter than national requirements.

    At the end of the day though, most of these are just marketing stickers. Yes, they require some degree of certification, but it's kind of like getting your MCSE or A+. Not having the cert does not necessarily mean your device will blow up or pop breakers, it just means the mfg didn't pay their fee to get certified. For big mainstream appliances it's kind of dumb to not have it, but on most smaller gadgets it's a non-issue.

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
    1. Re:Article sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Except that:

      - The insurance company doesn't care. I know my policy doesn't have any exclusions for nonstandard devices.
      - You lose your home from the fire, the insurance company WILL build you a new one unless they actually put an exclusion in your policy. And the "approved" devices start fires too.
      - The electrical supplier doesn't care either. I signed nothing agreeing to use only "approved" devices, they'd have a really hard time suing me for it.

      It's not against code most places. You don't even assume any more risk most places.

      And with wireless, nobody cares as long as you're not creating interference with a licensed user of a frequency. Really, nobody cares. No white vans, no arrests, no fines. It might not be technically legal (or it might be, depending on the frequency) but unless you take the local TV station or the pigs off the air, nobody gives a fuck.

      So stop it with the FUD.

  15. Sounds great, except... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

    ...the article doesn't actually tell you jack about decoding the logos. Instead, the article can mostly be summed up with, "You have lots of logos on your electronic gadgets. They mean things, like meeting safety or RF interference standards! They cost money."

  16. Need a new subslashdot by sootman · · Score: 2

    slashdot.org/s/todayilearned

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  17. Completely useless article by joost · · Score: 2

    Okay, so I tried something new and went ahead and read TFA this time. Big mistake. For something supposedly about the icons on electronic you'd expect to see the icons with their meaning printed next to them, right? But not this article! It reads like an SEO meta tag, does nothing to explain what any of those icons mean, and is full of bullshit jargon. Save yourself the trouble and don't read it. As for the slashdot "editors": fuck you guys.

  18. neat! by nimbius · · Score: 2

    this thing is three fucking pages of high-level dreck about the labels the author saw and what they mean in general
    at the end of page 3 im told not to despair and keep the faith as the industry tunes its testing parameters to top notch standards!

    i did however get a nice bombardment of inline advertising for the site, side bar adverts for the sponsors,
    and enough fucking namedropping to fill a grocery cart with products tattooed in symbols and codes
    that by the end of the article i could only appreciate from afar.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  19. For an article on decoding those icons by flimflammer · · Score: 2

    You'd expect a chart or something telling you what they were.

  20. Re:NOM? by Alan+Shutko · · Score: 2

    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.