Eaton Air Conditioner Disconnects

[augie47]

The State of TN has sent out a notice to inspectors alerting them that the Eaton ACD are not to be used for EV, PV or RESISTIVE HEATING loads per manufacturer instructions (attached)
Allegedly, there have been fires involving these pullout units on resistive heating loads.
Has anyone experienced this ??

(Expanded from Eaton Publication IL007001EN )

This ACD is not intended for uses on electric vehicle (EV) charging, photovoltaic, and resistive heating applications. Eaton’s recommended disconnect switch for these applications is DPB222R.

 

[infinity]

Who would think that when you buy a disconnect that it can actually carry the marked current rating.

 

[ActionDave]

Those are the such junk anyway. They shouldn't be allowed at all. You could make a better disconnect out of Legos.

I get such a chuckle about how hung up so many guys in the electrical trade get all worried and hand wringing about "violating a ul listing" when junk like this is on the market.

 

[jaggedben]

The DPB222R is also marketed as an air conditioning disconnect. I mean it's not pull out style, but still.

 

[wwhitney]

This is very odd, as the first test in UL 1429 is Section 20 Heating and requires a 60A non-fused disconnect to carry 60A continuously until the temperature measurements stabilize, and then the maximum allowable temperature rise on current carrying parts is 50C.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[curt swartz]

Who would think that when you buy a disconnect that it can actually carry the marked current rating.

Or a 50 amp receptacle that melts when a 32 amp load (plug-in EV charger) is connected.

Seems like the manufactures and UL need a big slap on the face.

 

[jim dungar]

I wonder if the problem is related more to the Slow Make Slow Break inherent in pullout style disconnects than the continuous rating.

 

[wwhitney]

I wonder if the problem is related more to the Slow Make Slow Break inherent in pullout style disconnects than the continuous rating.

FWIW, the second test in UL 1429 for non-fused disconnects is Section 23 Overload, which requires 50 cycles of make/break at 150% of rated current.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[infinity]

These things are absolute garbage but they're also cheap so everyone uses them. I blame UL.

 

[jim dungar]

FWIW, the second test in UL 1429 for non-fused disconnects is Section 23 Overload, which requires 50 cycles of make/break at 150% of rated current.

Cheers, Wayne

But what is the load profile they are switching?

 

[letgomywago]

These things are absolute garbage but they're also cheap so everyone uses them. I blame UL.

I blame the manufacturer for not being willing to make a product that's worth the warranty they offer.

 

[infinity]

I blame the manufacturer for not being willing to make a product that's worth the warranty they offer.

If they make a cheap product that melts but it still passes the UL testing why is that the manufacturers fault? Let's agree they're both to blame.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

This is very odd, as the first test in UL 1429 is Section 20 Heating and requires a 60A non-fused disconnect to carry 60A continuously until the temperature measurements stabilize, and then the maximum allowable temperature rise on current carrying parts is 50C.

Cheers, Wayne

The same requirement as for receptacles but it doesn't work for EV loads either.

 

[wwhitney]

The same requirement as for receptacles but it doesn't work for EV loads either.

So what is the operative difference between the test and how they are being used in the field? Are the receptacles/disconnects being installed in conditions which are hotter than tested, or more hindered in heat dissipation than tested, or are the field terminations being made up more poorly than tested or what?

Cheers, Wayne

 

[jaggedben]

The same requirement as for receptacles but it doesn't work for EV loads either.

Seems like a problem with the standard.

 

[Eddie702]

Quality is a big issue with everything now. The electrical industry has gone downhill. Any equipment and devices you buy now you are constantly fighting the screws.

Metal boxes the Romex/bx clamp screws you have to fight, panel cover screws you have to fight. Plastic box screws you have to fight. Its pretty much drill/driver now

I just removed a few device boxes that were installed years ago to repull some cable. Lo and behold all the screws ran in and out easily the way they should. Big difference to the junk made now.

The difference was amazing.

 

[retirede]

So what is the operative difference between the test and how they are being used in the field? Are the receptacles/disconnects being installed in conditions which are hotter than tested, or more hindered in heat dissipation than tested, or are the field terminations being made up more poorly than tested or what?

Cheers, Wayne

IMO, it’s because new devices are used in testing. A year or two of temperature cycling, insertions, possibly corrosion due to humidity swings, etc., make them less robust.
Many pictures I’ve seen of failures appear to originate at one of the wiring terminations. Possibly loss of clamping force due to multiple thermal cycles.

 

[wwhitney]

Many pictures I’ve seen of failures appear to originate at one of the wiring terminations. Possibly loss of clamping force due to multiple thermal cycles.

Hard to differentiate after the fact between that and never having been properly torqued in the first place. Given common installation practices, I bet that's wide spread.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[retirede]

Hard to differentiate after the fact between that and never having been properly torqued in the first place. Given common installation practices, I bet that's wide spread.

Cheers, Wayne

But in some cases, it’s a year or two before it fails. In those cases, something is changing over time.