I respectfully disagree. However, I think it is because of the very narrow points I am trying to make with regard to products sold in the US may have confused things for everyone. You are making assumptions that it was sold in the EU, I haven't seen anything to suggest that. A US domestic product doesn't need to comply with CE standards. US products do not need to comply with CE norms, only those intended for sale or shipped to EU. It's not relevant to whether the amp is "safe" or not safe in the US. (Based on the informed opinions in this thread, and the fact that they are offering to "fix it" I don't think it is safe, but what I think doesn't matter). "You couldn't sell that in the EU, or China, or Timbuktu" has no bearing on the issue at hand. It doesn't violate any laws in the US.Incorrect.
One does not have to put a CE marker on the device BUT all electronic devices intended for consumers DO need to comply to CE norms.
This amp may well comply to class-II. It would have to be tested for this and must comply to CE standards when sold to consumers in the EU.
It does not have the proper IEC inlets for that, there is no class-II symbol on it. The used IEC plug suggests it is a class-I product but is NOT a class-I product simply because safety ground is not connected to the chassis (metal parts that can be touched).
As far as we know NO such test reports are available and likely have not been done either.
The fact that Bob offers to have the ground pin connected on request says enough as well...
The amp may well be safe to use though and might even be 'properly grounded' when connected using RCA plugs. That does not take away the fact that the used 'method' of providing ground lift is not correct.
When ground lift were the goal the IEC pin should have been connected to the chassis and audio ground should not have been tied to the chassis.
Would you agree with this or do you have a different opinion ?
If a product such as that did injure someone or cause a fire, the issue in a civil court would be whether it was "defective" in either design or as built. If you prove the product is defective, the manufacturer is strictly liable for all foreseeable damages. Evidence that it was defective would come from design engineers in that field, probably EEs, who would testify to what is "reasonable and customary" engineering practice for similar products in the US. The plaintiffs' experts would testify why it falls below a reasonable standard, the defendant would find people to say why it is reasonable. A jury would decide. Neither side would be able to put in evidence of what the EU requires, what a CE certification would have done/not done, or even a UL certification. If there was a government standard for that specific product (US autos for example) that could be relevant, but there doesn't appear to be. What would be relevant is what the reasonable engineering standard is in the US for similar products and why the product either does, or does not meet that standard.
This amp may well comply to class-II. That would be relevant and the defense would be asserting that if they had an expert and evidence to support that. If "Class II is a term of art limited to CE/EU" it wouldn't be that term, but it would be that is an normal accepted design practice in the US. A good defense expert would evaluate the design and test exemplar products.
It would have to be tested for this and must comply to CE standards when sold to consumers in the EU. Completely irrelevant to this discussion, or in court if it injured the purchaser in the US (or any end user, privity of contract isn't required).
It does not have the proper IEC inlets for that, there is no class-II symbol on it. The used IEC plug suggests it is a class-I product but is NOT a class-I product simply because safety ground is not connected to the chassis (metal parts that can be touched). I'm sure the Plaintiff would be hammering this home with qualified experts. It is relevant for purposes of this discussion and in court.
When ground lift were the goal the IEC pin should have been connected to the chassis and audio ground should not have been tied to the chassis.
Would you agree with this or do you have a different opinion ? I'm not qualified to give an opinion on that. I'm just a country lawyer (who had about 50 Mr. Coffee fire case in the late 1980s). However, based on some of the opinions by electrical engineers in this thread, and product designers, I would say that is probably true. Like you said, the fact that they offered to fix it, and that it is no longer available speaks volumes. Amir tested the 350W amp, and would like to know how they grounded that. But again, trying to say it is defective because it would be required for CE is a red herring. Just not germane to the discussion, just like UL certification wasn't. It would be important to the people who love DIY amps, design and build them. There are two sides to every story, I think a lot of the grounding issue discussion was in response to what Bob Carver said about it. I would like to hear an electrical engineer who works in the field of designing audio related type products take on it, not the 3 prong/2 prong, but the way it was tied to chassis, relied on RCA connections. I would be very interested if that was the norm/std back in 60s, 70s with audio equipment that that things have evolved.
As of yesterday, people were still posting that electrical codes (at least they got that right) required that "household appliances" be UL rated. That's demonstrably false and it is a dangerous belief for people to come away with. Thinking that everything you plug into the wall in your home (in the US) has been independently tested and certified for safety is a very, very bad assumption, and I would think the last thing that a science/engineering-based forum would want to go unaddressed. A lot of people have that assumption, I did until I started looking at the backs of my audio equipment, then kitchen appliances, laptops, desktops, etc.
Objective evaluation and analysis of products like this is the purpose of this forum (at least my understanding) and a byproduct of that is clearing the smoke and snake oil. The specs pretty much sealed the fate of that, and from glancing at the 350 Amp review from last August, didn't really cause me to feel any better about their specs. The three prong IEC going to two prong and the way it was grounded should have been pointed out in the review (a the loose screw), and glad it was. However, for it to generate the opinions that used CE and UL in support of the opinions that it wasn't to "standard" a "violation" or other similar terms were doing way more harm than good. For those that live in the UK/EU I guess they can breathe a sigh of relief that it would never be certified or shipped into their country the way it was. For us here in the US, we need to remain ever-vigilant (except for toys and children's clothes).