renosteinke
Senior Member
- Location
- NE Arkansas
Larry, the NEC is absolutely silent as to my various bias. 
All we're discussing is whether the use of CFL's is consistant with the 'listing and labeling.' I have posted the UL statement that such use is consistant with the listing. Others have asserted, and included citations from the manufacturers, that such a replacement is not consistant with the labelling.
Therefore we have a conflict between the listing and the labeling.
Some might say that the NEC language requires the use to comply with BOTH the listing and the labeling. Such was exactly the position taken by Square D when they started marking their panels 'use our breakers only.' UL vigorously opposed this construction, asserting that the Square D marking wasn't the 'labeling' that the NEC was talking about.
UL has similarily stated that CFL's are Type-A incandescents, at least as far as their requirements are concerned. (Or, as Mills Lane would put it, a "distinction without a difference). This isn't a position I have to defend - the moment I was asked to post the UL statement, the argument became one with UL. To say that "I" have not supported my statement is to say that UL doesn't know what they're talking about, that UL knows nothing about Haz-Loc testing, and is incapable of making engineering decisions.
I've said plenty of uncomplimentary things about UL in the past, but I haven't come close to saying THAT.
All we're discussing is whether the use of CFL's is consistant with the 'listing and labeling.' I have posted the UL statement that such use is consistant with the listing. Others have asserted, and included citations from the manufacturers, that such a replacement is not consistant with the labelling.
Therefore we have a conflict between the listing and the labeling.
Some might say that the NEC language requires the use to comply with BOTH the listing and the labeling. Such was exactly the position taken by Square D when they started marking their panels 'use our breakers only.' UL vigorously opposed this construction, asserting that the Square D marking wasn't the 'labeling' that the NEC was talking about.
UL has similarily stated that CFL's are Type-A incandescents, at least as far as their requirements are concerned. (Or, as Mills Lane would put it, a "distinction without a difference). This isn't a position I have to defend - the moment I was asked to post the UL statement, the argument became one with UL. To say that "I" have not supported my statement is to say that UL doesn't know what they're talking about, that UL knows nothing about Haz-Loc testing, and is incapable of making engineering decisions.
I've said plenty of uncomplimentary things about UL in the past, but I haven't come close to saying THAT.
