Making work equipment.

[Brian OldfordParticipant @brianoldford70365]

There's more than a few contributors and lurkers on this site that are best described a "general fixers and menders".

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 31/03/2017 10:53:08:

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 31/03/2017 09:44:21:

…

P.S. The culprit appears to be

https://cdn.cookiescript.info/

but I'm not making that an active link.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 31/03/2017 09:54:29

Yep, that's the bad boy. The underhillengineering site appears to be kosher BUT their CE page has been compromised. The CE page contains an embedded link to a blacklisted site associated with phishing and other scams. The bad link link is activated simply by reading the CE Page.

Don't Open the CE Page. (Unless you enjoy taking risks!) Although we don't know what the payload does, we do know that the site hosting it is blacklisted. It's a known troublemaker, not to be trifled with. It's possible, but not guaranteed, that your ISP will block it for you. It's possible, but not guaranteed, that your computers security software will block it for you. As Clint would say: "Do you feel lucky, punk?"

Now we know it's malware, the safest countermeasure is simply to avoid it.

Dave

.

Thanks, Dave

Note: I have eMailed Underhill Engineering Ltd. suggesting it might be worth their IT team looking into this.

MichaelG.

[Mike PooleParticipant @mikepoole82104]

Advice posted on a forum must always be taken with care, although much advice is 100% some is not so good. I think everyone believes what they post to be true but I put my foot in my mouth the other day as I did not check what I thought to be true. The good thing about a forum like this is that we are all fact checkers and should bring it up if someone makes an erroneous post, being corrected is no shame and posting a correction should be welcomed. The CE marking is a minefield and the truth is probably complex. Sorting the urban myth from the facts is difficult.

Mike

[MWParticipant @mw27036]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 31/03/2017 08:21:14:

Well-said, Murray

The only thing I would add is that the 'Chinese Export' mark differs subtly [*] from the European 'CE Mark' … Which is, presumably, how they get away with it.

MichaelG.

It's a perplexing problem, the fact china are allowed to arbitrarily use the CE rather than C E mark, which is not recognised by any competent authority is bad enough, the fact that the commission wont do anything to enforce compliance is even worse.

It's clearly been made to look as close to a proper C E mark as possible, allowing them to use it with a kind of "half-in half-out" attitude, if it's not found out, then they'll believe they've bought genuine C E marked goods, if they are found out, then they can claim ignorance to this requirement and say it's their fault for not looking at it properly, though I daresay that will be harder to distinguish at 5mm and not a blown up image.

At the end of it, the manufacturer will not suffer in the slightest for their deception, the importer will, who may have believed it was C E marked. All the commission will do is beg and plead their Chinese counterparts to get on top of it, that's it.

If i'm going to be pro-active in not simply just pointing out flaws, then i might, in a hypothetical sense, suggest to the commission that they back china into a corner on this; design a new logo which could not be mistaken for anything but a proper C E mark, a china-export logo with an EU flag on it would be hard for them to justify what it's got to do with china!

If this happened anywhere else in the world there would be calls for them to sort the two out more visibly.

Edited By Michael-w on 31/03/2017 12:43:36

[CirclipParticipant @circlip]

Posted by Brian Oldford on 31/03/2017 11:47:13:

There's more than a few contributors and lurkers on this site that are best described a "general fixers and menders".

Yes, but don't forget, there are many that had a job in proper Ingineering and can quote from a practical knowledge and not just quote Theoreticals.

Regards Ian.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Michael-w on 31/03/2017 12:32:44:

[…]

It's clearly been made to look as close to a proper C E mark as possible, allowing them to use it with a kind of "half-in half-out" attitude, if it's not found out, then they'll believe they've bought genuine C E marked goods, if they are found out, then they can claim ignorance to this requirement and say it's their fault for not looking at it properly, though I daresay that will be harder to distinguish at 5mm and not a blown up image.

[…]

If i'm going to be pro-active in not simply just pointing out flaws, then i might, in a hypothetical sense, suggest to the commission that they back china into a corner on this; design a new logo which could not be mistaken for anything but a proper C E mark, a china-export logo with an EU flag on it would be hard for them to justify what it's got to do with china!

.

Michael,

I will keep this brief [because it looks like I might be on Circlip's hate list] :

The two logotypes are easily distinguishable at any scale … provided that the viewer has been made aware their existence. [which is why I posted the evidence]

The EU's attempt to produce an 'enforceable' trademark has unfortunately backfired, because it was so specific !!

So far as I am aware the Chinese version is not a trademark and cannot therefore be legally interpreted a 'passing-off'. … If the European mark had been more broadly specified it might have been more easily defended.

That simple change to the kerning means that the Chinese Export mark is not a 'mis-use' of the European mark.

The opinion of time-served Engineers would be interesting.

MichaelG.

[Commercial/Contractual Specialist with an amateur interest in engineering]

[Russell EberhardtParticipant @russelleberhardt48058]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 31/03/2017 13:12:50:

So far as I am aware the Chinese version is not a trademark and cannot therefore be legally interpreted a 'passing-off'. … If the European mark had been more broadly specified it might have been more easily defended.

From DIRECTIVE 93/68/EEC of 22 July 1993:

"The affixing of markings on the products which are likely to deceive third parties as to the meaning and form of the CE marking shall be prohibited. Any other marking may be affixed to the products or the data plate provided that the visibility and legibility of the CE marking is not thereby reduced;"

However I would also point out that the responsibility for ensuring conformity with all relevent standards/directives lies with the person or organisation that places the product on the market in the EU. So, in the case of Chinese imports it is not the manufacturer who is resposible but the importer/distributor.

If you import directly from China and do not resell the product no laws are broken. It is a case of caveat emptor.

Russell

P.S.The CE mark does not have to be on the product but can be on the packaging or the user instructions for example.

Edited By Russell Eberhardt on 31/03/2017 14:01:46

[Michael BriggsParticipant @michaelbriggs82422]

Posted by vintagengineer on 30/03/2017 21:11:07:

The CE mark is worthless as the Chinese have adopted the CE to be used on their export goods. CE = Chinese Export!

That's put me straight, I thought the marking on cheap Chinese tools was Crap Engineering …..

[Phil WhitleyParticipant @philwhitley94135]

Muzzer, Please explain how CE marking "stops you getting maimed or killed, when the chinese apply it to everything they sell in the EU, without 90% of it being tested. Report it? To whom would you report it? Look at "bigclivelive on youtube, and see some of the CE marked deathtraps coming in from China, and for sale both in shops and via the net. The BSI kitemark used to be good, but today they seem to be in the business of selling you a loose leaf folder with a few A4 sheets in it that costs about £250 unless you are a member, which also costs. We seem to have dumped rigorous testing in favour of "deemed to comply" documents, and of course we have no control over materials and manufacturing standards when anything is even made in the EU, let alone China. Witness the latest debacle with the "Hotpoint" Tumble driers (actually made by Merloni in Italy, along with Ariston, Indesit, Candy, and a whole lot of other brands they also own) Proven to catch fire and burn your house down, very poorly designed, and manufactured so cheaply it would be difficult to imagine how they could cheapen the product any more, although according to one of their service engineers, they have now been able to scrap the belt tensioner by fitting an elastic belt!! Yet they proudly carry the CE mark! It has far more to do with Tariff free trade than safety. IT IS WORTHLESS!

[John FlackParticipant @johnflack59079]

How would a genuine mfr in China adhering to EU regs make this fact known?? MADE IN CHINA comes to mind😱😱

[MWParticipant @mw27036]

Posted by Russell Eberhardt on 31/03/2017 13:57:57:

However I would also point out that the responsibility for ensuring conformity with all relevent standards/directives lies with the person or organisation that places the product on the market in the EU. So, in the case of Chinese imports it is not the manufacturer who is resposible but the importer/distributor.

If you import directly from China and do not resell the product no laws are broken. It is a case of caveat emptor.

Russell

Yes, I would agree that this is how they interpret it, but it has a kind of logic that seems to be odd, in that, by punishing the importer, the manufacturer is therefore "incentivised" to make goods that are genuinely C E marked in order to retain the business, who we can presume, after being prosecuted, would cease to use them to make the goods.

However, I don't think this is very effective, because the source of the problem hasn't been tackled. It would be like someone robbing and smashing up a shop, who was let off, so long as they reimbursed the value of goods.

Because other than losing a customer, there's no sense on their side that they've done wrong. And so they may continue to do it someone else, just like the thief. And so you get cases like phil has mentioned above, where this will continue to occur until proper enforcement comes in the country of origin.

Otherwise this is just a good example of a backseat attitude, you're waiting for something to go wrong, which is like playing roulette with the consumers safety.

Michael W

Edited By Michael-w on 31/03/2017 15:43:22

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Some of the information above is wrong (e.g. in-house equipment doesn't need CE marking).

"It depends on the product but you must CE mark work equipment that comes under the Machinery Directive and make sure it meets all of its essential health and safety requirements – even if it is only for your own use and you have no intention of supplying it to other parties."

There are also rules for assembly lines and modifying machines.

Chapter and verse is here:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/work-equipment-machinery/faq-ce.htm

Neil

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Russell Eberhardt on 31/03/2017 13:57:57:

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 31/03/2017 13:12:50:

So far as I am aware the Chinese version is not a trademark and cannot therefore be legally interpreted a 'passing-off'. … If the European mark had been more broadly specified it might have been more easily defended.

From DIRECTIVE 93/68/EEC of 22 July 1993:

"The affixing of markings on the products which are likely to deceive third parties as to the meaning and form of the CE marking shall be prohibited. Any other marking may be affixed to the products or the data plate provided that the visibility and legibility of the CE marking is not thereby reduced;"

However I would also point out that the responsibility for ensuring conformity with all relevent standards/directives lies with the person or organisation that places the product on the market in the EU. So, in the case of Chinese imports it is not the manufacturer who is resposible but the importer/distributor.

.

Exactly, Russell

… and, as the Chinese are not subject to EU legislation, the problem is obvious.

MichaelG.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 31/03/2017 16:11:13:

Some of the information above is wrong (e.g. in-house equipment doesn't need CE marking).

"It depends on the product but you must CE mark work equipment that comes under the Machinery Directive and make sure it meets all of its essential health and safety requirements – even if it is only for your own use and you have no intention of supplying it to other parties."

There are also rules for assembly lines and modifying machines.

Chapter and verse is here:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/work-equipment-machinery/faq-ce.htm

Neil

Typical. Neil spoiling our fun with facts again!

Why on earth should I derail a favourite opinion by bothering to look it up? If I believe mild steel to be made of cheese then it is. Scientists? Let me tell you about scientists, they know nothing…

Cheers,

Dave

[MWParticipant @mw27036]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 31/03/2017 17:27:42:

Typical. Neil spoiling our fun with facts again!

If I believe mild steel to be made of cheese then it is.

Cheers,

Dave

Except it would be the kind of cheese that would really give your teeth a bad day, like on the hardest side of hard cheeses.

Michael W

[davidkParticipant @davidk]

However I would also point out that the responsibility for ensuring conformity with all relevent standards/directives lies with the person or organisation that places the product on the market in the EU. So, in the case of Chinese imports it is not the manufacturer who is resposible but the importer/distributor.

If you import directly from China and do not resell the product no laws are broken. It is a case of caveat emptor.

Russell

Perhaps that's another meaning for the Chinese version of the CE mark, Caveat Emptor…

David

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by davidk on 31/03/2017 18:41:37:

Perhaps that's another meaning for the Chinese version of the CE mark, Caveat Emptor…

David

.

[HOWARDTParticipant @howardt]

I was under the impression that the CE mark was attributed to the whole assembly as sold to a third party. Any CE mark on individual components was voided once integrated into said assembly.

[Nathan SharpeParticipant @nathansharpe19746]

Joshua, yes these were large bore suction hoses up to 6" dia . For the 12" and 24" hoses the Bendix units were doubled up . We used to check the pump "suction" with a vacuum gauge fitted to a drilled through nrv ball of the correct diameter, pumps were deemed ok for hire at 20/25 ft vac. Nathan.

[Paul KempParticipant @paulkemp46892]

Definition of machinery in the machinery directive requires it to have at least one moving part, so your educator should be safely outside the machinery directive and as it is not to be put on the market also outside the scope of CE marking. So your HSE department can rest easy. Sounds like they have the usual proactive approach to getting the job done. HSE departments seem to be very focussed on why you can't do something instead of seeking out a way that you can!

Paul.

[Ian S CParticipant @iansc]

Sounds to me that it is up to the HSE to demonstrate in practice the reason they have refused it, they won't be able to so they butt out and let things be!

Well that's my idea.

Ian S C

[Author]

Posts