My friend bought a UL listed George Forman electric grill which doesn't have an on/off switch; necessitating the consumer to regularly plug and unplug the unit during each use. Naturally when unplugged under load, an arc would result possibly burning the receptacles contacts, and when commonly left plugged-in, it could easily overheat contributing to a grease fire. When I complained to UL that the grill should not have been approved without a switch, they mearly stated that the unit complies with NEC 422.33a. My point is that just because something has a UL label on it, one shouldn't assume it means that the device is safe; sometimes it's just a marketing tool.
Remember that a UL label does not ensure safety
- Thread starter cosmos
- Start date
- Status
- Location
- Simi Valley, CA
Just because we don't like something doesn't mean that it's not right.
I have questioned UL on a couple of products and found out that I was correct and also found out that UL was looking into the same products because they were not being built as they were submitted to UL.
I have questioned UL on a couple of products and found out that I was correct and also found out that UL was looking into the same products because they were not being built as they were submitted to UL.
- Location
- Massachusetts
cosmos said:
1) Receptacles and plugs are designed to make and break a load.
2) The unit has a thermostat and very likely a second high limit switch to keep it from overheating.
I don't see a problem, many soldering irons also have no switch.
Last edited:
JohnJ0906
Senior Member
- Location
- Baltimore, MD
My George Foreman grill is like this, and I have had no problems.
brantmacga
Señor Member
- Location
- Georgia
- Occupation
- Former Child
if your wife cooked anything like mine, you would have a better appreciation for the george forman lean mean grilling machine. don't you screw this up for me.
weressl
Esteemed Member
iwire said:
Of course it would have been prudent from the manufacturer - ya hear me Georie? - to turn the thrmostat to the lowest setting before un/plugging the unit.
831
Senior Member
- Location
- South Jordan, Utah
Anyone ever been thru the process of having UL inspect and approve a product? Like right there w/ the agent? They're just people and can be persuaded too.
ELA
Senior Member
- Occupation
- Electrical Test Engineer
This reminds me of my Electric Range.
When we moved into our house we found that the stove top (Ceramic top) took a very long time to boil water. I started diagnosing why and found that when set on "HI" (what I would expect to be 100% power) the element actually cycles on and off.
Looking into it further I found that after a few minutes the element would "overheat" and cycle off and then on again via it's overtemperature snap switch. (didn't matter if what size pot or if no pot was over the element)
I complained to the manufacturer and they ignored me. I tried again stating that I considered this design to be unsafe and then they agreed to have a tech come out and look at it. After 1/2 hour of testing he concluded nothing was wrong and it worked as designed.
( personally he agreed with me that he would not own one, he uses gas
These are UL listed devices and I consider them to be a terrible design. I have worked with and designed industrial heater circuits and we never relied on the over- temperature device as a "control". In fact all of our over-temperatures would be "locked out" until manually reset.
Have any of you encountered these types of ranges? My guess is that they didn't predict the overtemperature situation in the design stage and then somehow got away with calling it "normal operation".
When we moved into our house we found that the stove top (Ceramic top) took a very long time to boil water. I started diagnosing why and found that when set on "HI" (what I would expect to be 100% power) the element actually cycles on and off.
Looking into it further I found that after a few minutes the element would "overheat" and cycle off and then on again via it's overtemperature snap switch. (didn't matter if what size pot or if no pot was over the element)
I complained to the manufacturer and they ignored me. I tried again stating that I considered this design to be unsafe and then they agreed to have a tech come out and look at it. After 1/2 hour of testing he concluded nothing was wrong and it worked as designed.
( personally he agreed with me that he would not own one, he uses gas
These are UL listed devices and I consider them to be a terrible design. I have worked with and designed industrial heater circuits and we never relied on the over- temperature device as a "control". In fact all of our over-temperatures would be "locked out" until manually reset.
Have any of you encountered these types of ranges? My guess is that they didn't predict the overtemperature situation in the design stage and then somehow got away with calling it "normal operation".
LawnGuyLandSparky
Senior Member
ELA said:
I had the same problem, yanked it out and went with gas. I was at the point of boiling anything that need it out on the gas grill, it was 2x faster.
Ceramic flat top ranges look nice. That is all they do.
- Location
- Wisconsin
- Occupation
- PE (Retired) - Power Systems
I think many people are surprised to learn that product testing standards typically do not address performance or quality. If and when performance is a requirement, standards usually only deal with bare minimums.
ELA
Senior Member
- Occupation
- Electrical Test Engineer
jim dungar said:
I have been involved in testing for certifications.
I just got done working on a project to help a customer get their product listed to UL 864. I have worked with all kinds of product testing standards that are very particular about the safety and electrical performance of a product.
This was a Whirlpool product and shame on them.
- Location
- Wisconsin
- Occupation
- PE (Retired) - Power Systems
ELA said:
Unless the product standards specify how long it takes to boil a quantity of water, how can you say the device is underperforming per its listing?
ELA
Senior Member
- Occupation
- Electrical Test Engineer
I do not believe I said it was under performing per a UL listing.
What I did say, was based on my knowledge of standards of what constitues a safe heating circuit.
The fact that it takes too long to boil is just a side note to the fact that overtemperature snapswitch is being exercised every 4 minutes when at the HI setting.
A solid state device is used to "control" the heater duty cycle. When set at 100% (HI) this control is on 100% of the time. The sealed element then over heats and the snap switch opens for a couple of minutes until it cools and recloses.
At this point the snap switch has become part of the control circuit rather than a safety device. Perhaps it is designed-in as a "dual purpose" device. That would be some good marketing...
If some chose to call this normal and acceptable operation then they are free to do so. It certainly does not meet the types of heater standards for industrial heaters I am used to working with. In these circuits snap switches are relied upon as only an overtemperture safety device and not to be cycled as a normal part of operating.
I also guess that they can argue that the range top is normally attented during operation and that could lower the required level of safety required.
Mostly I meant to express my opinion that this is a poor design that results in poor performance as well.
What I did say, was based on my knowledge of standards of what constitues a safe heating circuit.
The fact that it takes too long to boil is just a side note to the fact that overtemperature snapswitch is being exercised every 4 minutes when at the HI setting.
A solid state device is used to "control" the heater duty cycle. When set at 100% (HI) this control is on 100% of the time. The sealed element then over heats and the snap switch opens for a couple of minutes until it cools and recloses.
At this point the snap switch has become part of the control circuit rather than a safety device. Perhaps it is designed-in as a "dual purpose" device. That would be some good marketing...
If some chose to call this normal and acceptable operation then they are free to do so. It certainly does not meet the types of heater standards for industrial heaters I am used to working with. In these circuits snap switches are relied upon as only an overtemperture safety device and not to be cycled as a normal part of operating.
I also guess that they can argue that the range top is normally attented during operation and that could lower the required level of safety required.
Mostly I meant to express my opinion that this is a poor design that results in poor performance as well.
wptski
Senior Member
- Location
- Warren, MI
What about a Leviton Smart Lock Pro 20A #7899-W that the test button fuctions yet a GFCI tester shows a trip time of 132ms? UL standard is 25ms max. Other GFCI's tested shows around 30ms trip time.
I called Leviton's HotLine and was told to email their engineers at tech support. I did on 11/1 and heard nothing yet. I resent the email on 11/3.
Will I ever hear from them? How many people test GFCI's before installing them?
I called Leviton's HotLine and was told to email their engineers at tech support. I did on 11/1 and heard nothing yet. I resent the email on 11/3.
Will I ever hear from them? How many people test GFCI's before installing them?
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Bill,
The maximum permitted time to trip in seconds is equal to the quanity (20/fault curret in milliamps) raised to the 1.43 power. The application of this formula would permit a 7 second trip time for a 5 mA ground fault.
Don
Are you sure? It is my understanding that the maximum trip time for a Class A GFCI under the UL standard is a mathamatical relationship as follows:
The maximum permitted time to trip in seconds is equal to the quanity (20/fault curret in milliamps) raised to the 1.43 power. The application of this formula would permit a 7 second trip time for a 5 mA ground fault.
Don
wptski
Senior Member
- Location
- Warren, MI
Don:don_resqcapt19 said:
No, I'm not sure! Actually, I did a Google search for "GFCI trip time" and came across a post of yours going back a few years stating the same thing. That same formula is listed in the Ideal SureTest 61-165 that I used too. Frankly, I don't understand it!
There were numerous other Google hits mentioning the 25ms max.Last weekend I check probably 6-8 GFCI's installed in a house rebuild after a fire in 1998 and one installed by the HO since then. All read 28ms except the added one which was 52ms. A portable unit called a Shock Buster checked at 32ms.
Isn't that UL 943 for GFCI standards?
- Status