Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

need UL for new patent grounding electrode- technology is not 8 ft long (standards)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by renosteinke View Post
    I will tell you point blank, right now, that UL is NOT going to develop a standard or create a listing for anything that is patent-protected. UL will NOT become party to a proprietary marketing scheme.

    A recent example was the development of AFCI technology. UL simply refused to act on this technology until after the patent owners surrendered their rights to the 'public domain.' Only then would UL consider examining the concept.

    UL is simply not in the business of protecting your business model.

    Finally, no matter what UL says, it has no authority to over-rule any code, standard, or law. All UL does is give their independent opinion that a product meets a safety-related standard.

    Case in point: UL lists NM cable. You still cannot use NM in places that do not allow it.
    Originally posted by renosteinke View Post
    Regarding the corkscrew / bent plate discussion ... look to the "Ufer" for guidance.

    Code only states the amount of metal in contact with the concrete .... your electrode need not be straight, can even be a coil.

    The Ufer also gives us an indication of what the OP needs to do. He needs to present the code panel with substantiation that his electrode performs at least as well as any recognized electrode, and get the panel to recognize his method. Only then can he ask UL to evaluate his product.
    UL tests and lists more than just electrical items. Why would you need to get code panels to recognize a product before UL will evaluate it? I would think it would be just the opposite. If a NRTL recognizes a product can perform a specific duty that a code panel will be more willing to accept the use of it.

    If the OP has a product that does what he claims there is no reason he can't take it to a NRTL and get it recognized by them. It would not be the first time someone has made or improved something and won't be the last. If he gets it listed Don is right - no code change is necessary it will be "other listed electrodes". Doesn't mean that in the future this particular electrode can't get specific mention, but until then it will still be allowed if listed.
    I live for today, I'm just a day behind.

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by kwired View Post
      UL tests and lists more than just electrical items. Why would you need to get code panels to recognize a product before UL will evaluate it? I would think it would be just the opposite. If a NRTL recognizes a product can perform a specific duty that a code panel will be more willing to accept the use of it.

      If the OP has a product that does what he claims there is no reason he can't take it to a NRTL and get it recognized by them. It would not be the first time someone has made or improved something and won't be the last. If he gets it listed Don is right - no code change is necessary it will be "other listed electrodes". Doesn't mean that in the future this particular electrode can't get specific mention, but until then it will still be allowed if listed.
      Where is the phrase "other listed electrode" in the code?
      Bob

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by petersonra View Post
        Where is the phrase "other listed electrode" in the code?
        Don said in post 20 it is in 250.52(A)(6). I checked and that is what I see there (2011 NEC)
        I live for today, I'm just a day behind.

        Comment


          #34
          "Why would you need to get code panels to recognize a product before UL will evaluate it?"

          A good question, and the same answer can be derived in several ways. Let's look at one fairly recent example - the illuminated clothes rod - for guidance.

          A firm began producing clothes rods with lights in them - they felt this was a particularly dramatic way to illuminate the clothes hung from the rods. They sought UL listing.

          UL cited the NEC rule that said you could not have a light -any kind of light- within 6" of the clothing in a closet. UL explained that they could not call something 'safe' when the application was specifically forbidden by the NEC. Indeed, if you look at the standards UL would use to evaluate such a product, every one references the NEC (among other standards and codes) on the first page.

          The manufacturer replied: these illuminated rods are not for closet lighting; they are display fixtures for show windows.

          Aha! said UL, that's different. The rods were evaluated, listed, and plainly marked as 'display fixtures.'

          Naturally, everyone and their favorite interior decorator began putting the things in closets. After, of course, the inspector left.

          One member of this forum figured this was pure BS, and submitted a proposal to the NEC to have the requirements for closet lights changed, to allow for the evaluation of things like LED's. Here is where things got interesting.

          The code panel rejected the proposal, asserting that there was no UL listed product. Do we see a 'Catch 22' developing? Well, the maker of the fixtures raised Cain, and UL explained things to the code panel. Things went back and forth a few times .... but, ultimately, the NEC was re-written with language remarkably similar to the rejected proposal, and the "Analysis of Changes" explanation was practically a reprint of the original proposal.

          That's how it's done.

          A look at the history of UL will show it to be as much a creature of the insurance business as is the NFPA. Indeed, it's hard to say which was the 'original' focus of both: fire sprinklers or things electrical. The two 'independent' groups are as thoroughly intermeshed as newlywed octopi. UL has folks on code panels, and the NFPA has representatives on standards committees. There is a similar situation with nearly every other code issue, from life jackets to table saws.

          It would be irresponsible for UL to 'approve' things that are not allowed. OK, so we have countless jurisdictions, and you can't please them all. It's reasonable, though, for UL to reference some manner of common standard. In this case, the NEC is one of the primary references.

          Mind you, UL does not operate in a vacuum. A look at UL's organization will show an extreme amount of participation in trade groups and standards associations. Conspiracy theories aside, UL has an interest in keeping 'in step' with the various markets they wish to serve. UL has had great success in the electrical construction and appliance industries. They have had very limited success in the control, pump, machine tool, and hot tub markets.

          Comment


            #35
            I am willing to bet UL will evaluate anything that someone pays them to evaluate.

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by petersonra View Post
              the code requires it be driven in. I don't think twisting it in counts.
              Twisting is OK. You can also lay it in a trench. As long as the rod makes contact with the earth.
              Edward
              The only thing I know, is the progressive discovery of my ignorance

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by renosteinke View Post
                It would be irresponsible for UL to 'approve' things that are not allowed. .
                I don't see that at all. I see it as no different than GM producing a car that can exceed the speed limits, it is up to the user to follow local codes / laws / standards etc.

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by edward View Post
                  Twisting is OK. You can also lay it in a trench. As long as the rod makes contact with the earth.
                  Only if you encounter a rock bottom of less than 45 degrees can an electrode be buried in a trench. Otherwise, it must be driven in.
                  Cheers and Stay Safe,

                  Marky the Sparky

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Originally posted by kwired View Post
                    Don said in post 20 it is in 250.52(A)(6). I checked and that is what I see there (2011 NEC)
                    something new I think.
                    Bob

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by petersonra View Post
                      something new I think.
                      It's in the 2008. It's not in the 2005.
                      Cheers and Stay Safe,

                      Marky the Sparky

                      Comment


                        #41
                        Originally posted by renosteinke View Post
                        ...It would be irresponsible for UL to 'approve' things that are not allowed. ...
                        They did exactly that when they listed occupancy sensors and other electronic devices that use the EGC as a grounded conductor. Then they said they would not stop listing those devices unless the NEC required a grounded conductor at each switch location.
                        Don, Illinois
                        (All code citations are 2017 unless otherwise noted)

                        Comment


                          #42
                          Originally posted by petersonra View Post
                          something new I think.
                          New for the 2008 code. It was put in to cover cases exactly like this one. Without this wording any new type of grounding electrode would have to be individually added to the list. Now, as long as you get a product listed as a grounding electrode you can use it.
                          Don, Illinois
                          (All code citations are 2017 unless otherwise noted)

                          Comment


                            #43
                            List anything that they're paid to list? OK, then to what standard .... there's the rub .... and when the standard references the NEC, they're precluded from making up other criteria.

                            An aside here: Yes, UL has strayed away from only 'testing for public safety.' Still, I'd love to hear ANY tales of ANY person with UL EVER doing something 'just for the money.' AFAIK, they've been remarkably incorruptable. I may not like them, but I won't tolerate slander, either.

                            Irresponsible to list something not allowed? Oddly enough, that's UL's position. Feel free to debate it with them. Let us know how you do with that.

                            Using the ground wire as a neutral for incidental things like motion sensors? Alas, that IS allowed by the NEC. The NEC only forbids "objectionable" current on the ground wire. Just what is 'objectionable?' Well, if you did deeply enough, I'll bet you'll find some gents got together - industry, code, UL, etc. - and just arbitrarily decided that "x" amount was the most they would allow as 'not objectionable.' I'll bet that figure has since been incorporated in some standard somewhere - and you can be certain that it's not by UL alone. Look for IEEE, ANSI, NEMA, someone else to have taken point on that.

                            I giggle at all this drivel about the meaning of 'driven.' As far as I'm concerned, it qualifies as 'driven' if you push it in with the palm of your hand.

                            Evidence of damage to the head? This tool applies all the force of a jackhammer to drive the rod- yet it never touches the head: http://www.electricsubstationsafety.com/whats_new.html

                            You can pull it out? So what? Where does the code say it can't be pulled out?

                            The only objective code requirement I see is 25-Ohm requirement ... and you can avoid that by using two rods.

                            Comment


                              #44
                              Originally posted by renosteinke View Post
                              Irresponsible to list something not allowed? Oddly enough, that's UL's position. Feel free to debate it with them. Let us know how you do with that.
                              NEC 90.7 basically says that if UL has listed an item then it is acceptable to the NEC.
                              The 2011 NEC handbook has a pretty good write up, in 110.3(B) describing how a UL Listing can be used to get around an NEC requirement.
                              Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

                              Comment


                                #45
                                Originally posted by jim dungar View Post
                                NEC 90.7 basically says that if UL has listed an item then it is acceptable to the NEC.
                                The 2011 NEC handbook has a pretty good write up, in 110.3(B) describing how a UL Listing can be used to get around an NEC requirement.
                                I don't see how anything that UL or any other listing agency can "get around" a legally adopted code rule. 90.7 is clearly talking about the factory installed parts of the listed equipment and does not permit a listing to change or "get around" a code rule as far as the non-factory installed wiring for the listed product.
                                Don, Illinois
                                (All code citations are 2017 unless otherwise noted)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X