The problem is this…we would expect as much for Square D to make that statement. Why…because they loose money on the replacement breakers and they dont have a classified breaker as of yet…stands to reason.
It would be foolish to think Eaton…a company that is larger that Snyder I believe…anyway the two major powerhouses at best…and think that Eaton would even begin to venture into the “Classified” breaker world unless they knew exactly what they were doing and made it clear with UL…so in the end…Square D can say what they wish…The Magnusun Moss Act has spoken on the issue of replacement parts…Eaton’s attorneys have already figured this one out…
IN the end…would you not prefer to have a NEW “classified” breaker in a panel as a replacement or lets say an off the old shelf ITE that who knows if it still functions properly…I will put my money on the UL Listed and UL Classified breakers designed as replacements for renovations anyway…but again my opinion.
Just figured I would let you all know about them…nothing more fella…
Also remember…how long is their warranty…I venture to say not a lifetime so chances are their warranty has expired in most all HI inspection cases…the new breaker that is UL Classified will have a NEW 5 year warranty and with the UL Standard put in place by Eaton on their classifieds I have no problem fighting that one in court…UL says its fine and the courts have ruled that saying someone can’t use a listed UL component which has met 3rd party testing for use in their panel by specific model number which eaton does…not allowing them would be a scare tactic by the manufacturer in my opinion to state otherwise…now in new construction a different story…it is not a replacement situation we are dealing with and since on the video it made a statement to older installations…thats why it is important to know this.
In the end…is the question that for some reason one of the largest manufactures of breakers and a pioneer in the technology cant make a breaker that works in other panels…I hope thats not the case since they make many for other manufactures as well under private contract I am told…but I can say either way because I would have to kill for with that information…lol
I hear you and I understand the Magnusun Moss Act as it applies strictly to warranties. If it were strictly “warranties” that we were addressing here, it might be appropriate to go with it in place of 110.3B.
To the unlicensed non-electrician such as myself, I cannot find a written source to tell me that a particular Cutler Hammer has been successfully tested and determined to fit into, specifically, a 1965 GE Service Panel…but I can read the inside of the GE Service Panel that tells me not to replace any GE breaker with one manufactured by someone other than GE.
110.3B tells me, in this case, that if a suitable (to the manufacturer and per his written instructions) GE replacement is no longer manufactured and available, we are going to need a new box. Right?
I respect that brother…lol…just remember that when a person buys a classified breaker they have the handout available as long as you ask for it…many supply houses just fill the orders and leave the handout in the breaker box…but if they keep it , it will show this listing.
Again i do have a list if you would ( or anyone ) would like it.
Better Yet…I got the info you can download from and read Eatons statement on their website…under the images of the classified breakers. You can download the compat. chart directly from the website I link you too.
Since I started at NACHI.TV I’ve invited (publicly and privately) numerous, qualified InterNACHI members to join us at NACHI.TV.
Most, including some of the critics posting in this thread, turned down the invitation. Flat turned down - “No.” “Never.”
I don’t want to go outside the InterNACHI pool, but the lack of participation by my fellow inspectors, my collegues, my comrades forces to me look elsewhere.
It has been written in one of my favorite books, “As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.”
I ask each member of InterNACHI to consider being the “one man.”
