Re: Dealers: More Security for the Buck

[Crash Gordon® <NONE@xxxxxxxx>]

http://www.ul.com/






"Celso Lujan" <clujan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message =
news:d5pat6$n6c$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Devin wrote:
> >=20
> >>
> >> The system is not UL approved, and I don't believe it will ever be=20
> >> sent to them for approval.  The cost of UL testing is prohibitive =
and=20
> >> all it does is add a name to the product. It doesn't make the =
product=20
> >> better or worse.
> >=20
> >=20
> > If it isn't UL Listed. Then i doubt it would get CSA approved up =
here.=20
> > And we wont touch a product that isn't. Too easy for an inspector to =

> > have ya rip it out. And most engineering firms and builders(even =
home)=20
> > require it when your qouting on thier projects, Commercial or=20
> > residential. Like one of the others said it will shut out most of =
the=20
> > market this is intended for.
> >=20
> > Just some food for thought.
> Devin:
>=20
> Thanks a lot.  It seems you feel like most other contributors to this=20
> group, and while I did not have to go throught the UL hassle for=20
> govenment installations, it appears I will have to do it for =
commercial=20
> applications.
>=20
> Any ideas on how to start the process of getting a listing?  And as=20
> Robert Bass indicated it appears the system has to be listed for it's=20
> intended use.  The difficult part about the whole thing seems to be =
the=20
> fact that many different components can be added as enhancements to =
the=20
> system.  Do they all have to be listed; even-though, they have been=20
> individually listed by the Underwriters Labs?  Any inputs would be=20
> appreciated.
>=20
> Thank you very much for your inputs.
>=20
> Celso Lujan