UL Approval vs. Others?

Been there, done that.

We had to compete with another company for a large contract. The bid spec said that the product must meet UL requirements. We paid to go through UL for the listing. The competitor didn't. However, the customer purchased the competitor's product. When we challenged their decision, we were told that the product only had to meet UL requirements, not necessarily be UL approved. The competitor simply stated that their product met UL's requirements. Live and learn.

By the way, we sold our product to plenty of government sites before getting UL listed without any problems. That was 12 years ago but I doubt that things have changed.

Marko

I don't think UL just another version of government standards. You can still meet governemt standards and fail the UL. I think you need to ask your customer exactly which approval they will accept.

Some differences :

You probably cannot sell your product at all unless it meets Government standards.

You must submit for UL - while some government standards let you self assess.

Government standards tend to set out an *intent* which requires judgement to apply, while the UL is specific about the exact tests to be performed and leaves little room to move.

For UL, you usually end up using UL approved cables, switches, otherwise you would have to pay to have them UL tested.

The intent of UL is the same as goverment - to prevent fire and electrocution, but UL approval can be a bracing experience.

Roger

As one who has "been through the wringer" on this issue many times, I'll offer my _personal opinion_ here:

For me, UL has proven to be the most competent and efficient agency; this becomes especially true once you have worked with them at least once or twice and have gotten to know the engineers that work with your product classification. I have never experienced anything but disappointment and frustration with the other choices, which include alternative agencies (CSA, ETL, etc.) as well as third-party firms that submit your product to UL/whomever on your behalf. UL's cost may seems steep, but that's because (again, in my experience) they give a more realistic estimate up front, with much fewer surprises once you are commited to the process.

This is my own experience of some 20+ years. Others, I'm sure, will have received different impressions and have reached different conclusions.

Brian Aase (not speak>We are just starting to make a new product that might wind up being

_______________________________________________________________________________ Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -

Hello Clive,

I'd ask. If they specifically mandate that it be tested by UL then you have to use UL.

Another one that competes in the North American marketplace is TUEV. There are several TUEV entities and locations all over the country.

That completely depends on the product. If it was me I'd first see whether a specific agency's blessing, for example UL, is mandated. Then I'd get bids from several labs along with good enough evidence about accreditation, whether that pertains to your product etc. After all, you don't want to hear at the end that a certain body wasn't authorized for this particular case or the buyer insist on this or that lab.

Also, I'd pick a lab close by. Chances are that your engineers need to be there at times and then you don't want to rack up thousands more in travel expenses.

Regards, Joerg

You might also ask in sci.engr.electrical.compliance , which is more focused on these kinds of questions.

Matt Roberds

Did you ever run into a case where the requirements for UL were more stringent than for CSA?

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

We usually went and got UL approved, but during the design phase, I would design to CSA. The UL documents were like $50 to 100, while CSA documents were $25. Not really much compared to the thousands for approval, but when your starting out on shoe-string budget and got a couple of years of design ahead of you, every little bit counts. You don't need approval until your ready for manufacturing. Hopefully by then you've got some market interest to justify the expense.

No, but then my stuff was not real radical. Alot of people design without worrying about the specs and just fix everything during testing. Mostly the specs just give good common sense advice. Don't let voltage above 24V on the user interface, you are only allowed so many uA of leakage on the Hi-Pot test ... If you don't give yourself a reasonable margin you might get into trouble. They also break down what your reponsible for. If you use UL or CSA approved modules; power supplies, power inlets, switches, connectors, relays your pretty much covered. Mostly I designed to avoid needing testing. Limit where high voltage can get and make sure everythings properly grounded and fused.

Paul C.

I read in sci.electronics.design that PaulCsouls wrote (in ) about 'UL Approval vs. Others?', on Tue, 1 Feb 2005:

..... which is the most costly and time-consuming way.

DESIGN IN! This applies to safety, EMC and anything else that's regulated.