AFCI Breakers
- Thread starter elecmen
- Start date
- Status
mbednarik
Member
- Location
- central iowa
- Occupation
- Electrician
cuttler hammer's are listed for siemens panels also.
Sierrasparky
Senior Member
- Location
- USA
- Occupation
- Electrician ,contractor
Yea but are CH listed for use in a siemens panel from Siemens?
ramsy
Roger Ruhle dba NoFixNoPay
- Location
- LA basin, CA
- Occupation
- Service Electrician 2020 NEC
Not likely.
For those who can't read the letter in this image "Murray Electrical Products, a brand of Siemens Energy and Automation, would like to advise all of its customers that the use on non-Murray labeled circuit breakers in a Murray load center will void the load center warranty..."
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
As far as I know there are no breakers "listed" for use in other brands of panels. They are only listed for use in OEM panels. There are breakers that are "classified" for use in non-OEM panels.
Hendrix
Senior Member
- Location
- New England
That was dated in 01. Could things have changed since ?
RICK NAPIER
Senior Member
- Location
- New Jersey
I have a copy of a fax from Siemens dated January 16, 2012 saying
"Siemans (ITE) load centers are only UL listed to accept Siemens branded circuit breakers. The use of any other brand, including Murray, would void our warranty and the UL Listing.
"Siemans (ITE) load centers are only UL listed to accept Siemens branded circuit breakers. The use of any other brand, including Murray, would void our warranty and the UL Listing.
Hendrix
Senior Member
- Location
- New England
Food for thought. Sorry wrong quote
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
The OP is asking about AFCI-- I have never seen an AFCI that was listed or even classified for another manufacturer.
renosteinke
Senior Member
- Location
- NE Arkansas
Cutler-Hammer has been a reliable source of AFCI breakers for Square-D panels, even when Square-D has been unable to supply them (due to recalls, etc.)
It's a distinction without a difference to try to contrast 'classified' with 'listed.' Naturally, this is a matter on which UL and some panel makers disagree. I'll go with UL.
The Murray letter is another rehash of the Square-D approach: When facts fail, inspire fear with the 'warranty' argument. Since there are specific Federal laws that address that particular argument, either the manufacturer is bluffing, or they're ignorant.
Now ... that said ... just because something 'fits' does not mean it is appropriate. One must visit the UL site, or consult the breaker manufacturers' literature, to support the decision to use an alternate brand. Just because C-H makes A breaker you can use, it does NOT follow that EVERY C-H breaker can be used in everyone's panel.
As for the HI-inspired hair-splitting of 'is a new classified breaker listed for use in an old panel' shibboleth .... not even Square D can assert that today's breakers are specifically tested for use in every panel they've ever made. If it's OK for todays' panel, it's OK for yesterdays panel- regardless of whatever mergers, aquisitions, or other business changes there have been.
It's a distinction without a difference to try to contrast 'classified' with 'listed.' Naturally, this is a matter on which UL and some panel makers disagree. I'll go with UL.
The Murray letter is another rehash of the Square-D approach: When facts fail, inspire fear with the 'warranty' argument. Since there are specific Federal laws that address that particular argument, either the manufacturer is bluffing, or they're ignorant.
Now ... that said ... just because something 'fits' does not mean it is appropriate. One must visit the UL site, or consult the breaker manufacturers' literature, to support the decision to use an alternate brand. Just because C-H makes A breaker you can use, it does NOT follow that EVERY C-H breaker can be used in everyone's panel.
As for the HI-inspired hair-splitting of 'is a new classified breaker listed for use in an old panel' shibboleth .... not even Square D can assert that today's breakers are specifically tested for use in every panel they've ever made. If it's OK for todays' panel, it's OK for yesterdays panel- regardless of whatever mergers, aquisitions, or other business changes there have been.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Here is my problem with that. UL is telling us as long as someone pays them some money (to classify the breakers) they will say that 110.3(B) does not apply. In all other cases they insist that 110.3(B) applies. As long as they have classifed breakers, it will remain my opinion that the only 110.3(B) instructions are those found in the White Book. The rest, in my opinon, are optional manufacturer's recomendations.
renosteinke
Senior Member
- Location
- NE Arkansas
UL is is simply asserting that "use only brand X" is not part of their required instructions. As I mentioned, the very concept of a manufacturer requiring the us on ONLY his parts is something that Federal Law prohibits.
The Murray letter outlines a company policy that is contrary to law. and thus cannot be enforced.
Unless, that is, somone wishes to start a new thread, where we can argue whether 110 of the NEC trump the Uniform Commercial Code part of the Federal Register.
The Murray letter outlines a company policy that is contrary to law. and thus cannot be enforced.
Unless, that is, somone wishes to start a new thread, where we can argue whether 110 of the NEC trump the Uniform Commercial Code part of the Federal Register.
ramsy
Roger Ruhle dba NoFixNoPay
- Location
- LA basin, CA
- Occupation
- Service Electrician 2020 NEC
Can we see a citation to that UCC section.
It would also help to show the scope of the UCC chapter, and its authority to show its not just a pirates code between World Trade Organization members (WTO), for the purpose of dividing the spoils in undeveloped countries with no legal system.
renosteinke
Senior Member
- Location
- NE Arkansas
I'll have to do some digging, but to paraphrase the Federal Law: a manufacturer cannot require the use of certain products to maintain a warranty unless the products are provided and installed at the manufacturers' expense.
I'll see what I can find.
Edit: Correction .... we're getting off target here. I'll post the citation after you start a new thread on the topic of warranty restrictions.
I'll see what I can find.
Edit: Correction .... we're getting off target here. I'll post the citation after you start a new thread on the topic of warranty restrictions.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
UL is on record many many times as saying all manufacturer instructions are 110.3(B) instructions.
- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
- Occupation
- Service Manager
ramsy
Roger Ruhle dba NoFixNoPay
- Location
- LA basin, CA
- Occupation
- Service Electrician 2020 NEC
1) The end of this 2008 NECA video describes how industry has shifted liability to contractors who void warranties with non-OEM or counterfeit equipment. Further,
2) My State adopts the UCC section below, which allows OEM's to explicitly limit warranty by written notice.
UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE LOCATOR
UCC 2316 as adopted by CA statue.
(2)... Language to exclude all implied warranties of fitness is sufficient if it states, for example, that "There are no warranties which extend beyond the description on the face hereof."
(3) Notwithstanding subdivision (2)
(a) Unless the circumstances indicate otherwise, all implied warranties are excluded by expressions like "as is," "with all faults" or other language which in common understanding calls the buyer's attention to the exclusion of warranties and makes plain that there is no implied warranty; ...
Cornell has a legal database for further searches:
- Status