Breakers compatible with Federal Pacific Stab-Lok Load Center

Page 4 of 6  
replying to Irreverent Maximus , Let's get it right! wrote:

... and you totally ignored NEC 110.3(1) (8): "Other factors that contribute tothe practical safeguarding of persons using or likely to come in contact with the equipment".
The issue if not about the ampacity of power cords, wall receptacles, etc.. The issue is a "Listed" appliance can and is being interfaced with a branch circuit that is beyond the Listing and/or labeling requirements of the "Listed" appliance. It not "all bets are off" at the consumer level. Such thinking totally ignores the "Testing for Public Safety" of the Listing effort. The Engineers and Architect's of Record and well as the local regulatory inspection agencies are NOT doing their job. The installations cannot be NEC compliant because latent fire and shock hazards do exists ... and the consumer doesn't even get a vote!
The smallest standard size circuit breaker is 15-amperes. Do you really think a "Listing" agency, such as U.L., AGA, CSA, ETL, etc. would put their listing mark on a product that couldn't operate safely from a 15-ampere circuit?
Does it make any sense to protect a fractional horsepower bathroom exhaust fan with a 20-ampere circuit breaker? A 15-ampere circuit breaker would provide more protected ... and is most likely what the "Listed" equipment is rated for anyhow ... because of it's fractional horsepower load.
Horsepower available from a 20-ampere receptacle: 746 watts per horsepower/hr. However, a motor is not a purely resisttive device. It has inductive and capacitive characteristics. Subsequently to answer your question, I'll need to know how many vars (a measure of imaginary power) or volt-amperes (a measure of total power), or the power factor of the motor to answer your question. In addition, is the line to line voltage 120, 240, etc? Makes a difference ... but obviously you already know that!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, December 19, 2013 11:46:01 AM UTC-5, Let's get it right! wrote:

Perhaps you can show us examples of UL listing tags that say: "This appliance may only be used on a circuit with a 15 amp breaker". "Using it on a circuit with a 20 amp breaker is not allowed and dangerous". I've bought and used a lot of appliances, lights, etc and don't ever recall seeing any such thing. If this issue was 1% of the problem you make it out to be, you would think there would be required warning labels like that all over the place. I've never seen one.

Does it make any sense to protect floor lamps that have 18 gauge cords with 15 amp breakers on the circuits they get plugged into? Yet apparently the UL and NEC are OK with that. As for protecting the small fan with a 20 amp breaker, it depends on what else is on that circuit. If it serves other loads, that warrant a 20 amp breaker, then AFAIK, it's allowed. The motor has it's own overload protection. And if it's not allowed, perhaps you can show us the install instructions for some typical bath fans that say you can't put them on a 20 amp breaker.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
replying to snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net , Let's get it right! wrote:

That label "15-ampere" is there for a purpose. Surely you're not advocating ignoring it ... are you? (Ref: NEC Article 240.5(b)(1))
Also look at NEC Article 240.5 (B) (2) regarding ampacity of fixture wire.
Your ignorance is showing. Either get with the NEC program ...or get the hell out of it. You may be a source for fire/shock hazards that exist today!.
A 15-ampere circuit breaker provides more protection than a 20-ampere circuit breaker, and is a standard ampere rating for circuit breakers (REF: NEC Article 240.6 (A).
Either provide backup for your argument ... or get the hell out of the way.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, December 20, 2013 10:47:01 AM UTC-5, Let's get it right! wrote:

What 15 ampere label? I just looked at a cordless phone base station, a hair dryer, a Breville electric kettle, and a Brother multi-function copier/printer. All say UL listed, 120 V, 60 Hz and the amps/watts, the printer being 9.6A. No where does it say that it can't be plugged into an outlet that is on a 20 amp circuit. So, what label exactly are you referring to? If this is such a danger, then is should be easy to find a user manual for any of this common appliances that says not to plug it into a circuit that is greater than 15 amps. I've yet to see one.
Surely you're not

What "it" is that? There is nothing on my appliances labels or instructions that I'm ignoring. It shows they are UL listed, 120V 50/60 hz, 5 amps, 600 watts, that's all.

You must be a troll. Do you not realize that 20 amp circuits with 15 amp outlets are permitted in the NEC and that they are being installed by licensed electricians in millions of houses? And passed by the electrical inspectors?
And you have yet to explain the alleged fire/shock hazard that this presents compared to a simple floor lamp that uses an 18 gauge cord on a 15 amp circuit.

Nonsense. There are standard ratings for circuit breakers of 100 amp too, so what? You really are confused.

I just did. I'm waiting for you to show us an appliance manual for any commonly used household appliances that say that it can only be used on a 15 amp circuit. I've read many of them over decades and I don't ever recall seeing any such thing. Cite please.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
replying to snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net , Let's get it right! wrote:

You missed the point. Even if the label say 0.1 amperes, it's appropriate to apply the device to a branch circuit of not more than 15-amperes, the smallest standard size breaker ... which provides the maximum protection..
Goggle McMaster Carr, Three conductor indoor/outdoor extension cords. Nearly all are rated at a maximum of 10 to 15 amperes at 125 VAC. A 20-ampere circuit breaker will not protect such devices. A 15-ampere circuit breaker will.
Just because this is the way it's been done in millions of houses doesn't make it right. In fact, it supports my argument (Get it Right).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 19:49:02 +0000, Let's get it right!

protect a 15 amp cord

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, December 23, 2013 11:21:08 PM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Nothing was missed either by me or the others here, like CL, none of whom agree with you. Like most people, I plug most appliances, lamps, etc into whatever receptable is closest and convenient. Exceptions would be if it were a large load and then I would consider what else is on the circuit. The folks who write the NEC obviously understand that and they are OK with putting 15 amps receptacles on 20 amp circuits. If you disagree, as Bud suggested, feel free to take it up with them.
And my point is that if this is in fact a safety issue, that you should not plug a 1 amp device into an outlet on a 20 amp circuit, why exactly doesn't any device manual say that? Curious thing. They have all kinds of safety warnings, but I don't ever recall one for an appliance, light, etc saying "Warning! Not to be used on a circuit with a breaker larger than 15 amps" Can he show us some examples?

Right. You could overload a 10 amp cord on a 15 amp breaker by 33%. If you put a 15 amp cord on to a circuit with a 20 amp breaker, you only overload it by 25%.
>

As Bud suggested, he should take that up with the NEC and UL who are obviously OK with it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
replying to clare , Let's get it right! wrote:

Intelligence? You realize a 15-ampere circuit breaker provides more protection than a 20-ampere circuit breaker? You are aware of that ... aren't you?
As far as the ampacity of the conductors, it has nothing to do with the problem ... as long as it's been evaluated as part of the "Listing" effort.
So ... you gonna do it like the NEC requires, or or you gonna ignore the responsibilities imposed upon you by NEC?
Have a save 2014! I'm done trying to educate the "EXPERTS"(?).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 19:45:01 +0000, Let's get it right!

laws are put in place, stupid people will continue to kill themselves and burn down their homes. When you get close to Idiot Proof, they just come up with a better idiot.
If you never put more load on a cord than it was designed for AND maintain the cord properly, using it for the purpose it was made for, you won't have a problem.
If, on the other hand, you require 5 amp devices ONLY be plugged into circuits that are protected to 5 amps, and 15 amp devices only be connected to 15 amp protected circuits, you will need EVERY outlet separately protected, and you will need numerous different outlets in all locations so you can plug everything into an outlet that is protected to the rating of the device, or you will require every device to have it's own user resettable overcurrent protection in the plug - which is how it has been done in some european countries (where, by the way, the building wiring is not nearly as well "protected" as it is in North America. Ring wiring topology is a real bugger to adequately protect as it is fed from both ends.
So have a happy new year, and I'mm GLAD you are done trying to educate experts. That way I don't need to add you to my filter.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/30/2013 4:50 PM, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:
<snip>

He's a troll. The whole "Let's get it right!" schtick when he's knowingly posting incorrect information should have been your first clue.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/30/2013 10:27 PM, sms wrote:

That was my summation. <PLONKED> and moved on. Either that or he is an incompetent idiot.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/30/2013 6:50 PM, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Many people don't understand that circuit breakers in North American electrical systems have both a thermal trip and a magnetic trip. The thermal part works like a slow blow fuse so motor starting loads don't immediately kick the breaker but there is also a magnetic trip for when there is a short circuit. That's why the table lamp with the 18awm cord will trip a breaker if the light switch under the bulb shorts out but you can also slowly add loads to a circuit until the breaker will trip after a predetermined amount of time. If a breaker panel is hot due to circuits carrying heavy loads, other breakers will trip from the heat before normal overload current is reached. Of course there are all sorts of different ratings for breakers like HACR for breakers used for HVAC loads but your standard breaker won't trip immediately when a microwave oven or window AC starts up but short the cord and it will trip immediately. ^_^
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, December 30, 2013 2:45:01 PM UTC-5, Let's get it right! wrote:

Where is your data to show that this is a real safety issue in the real world? The folks that deal with safety and have the statistics of the real safety hazards, ie NEC, UL are aware of the fact that you can have 15 amp receptacles on a 20 amp circuit. The NEC specifically allows it. As Bud suggested, if you disagree, take it up with them. I suggest you have your data available that shows this is in fact a real safety issue.
There a hundreds of millions of 15 amp receptacles out there and there are plenty of 10 amp, 18 gauge ext cords available. Some of those circuits have 15 amp breakers, some 20 amp. Should be easy to show us the devesatation being caused. Statistics please. And also the statistics are going to show a clear difference between the fires, etc caused by those on a 20 vs 15, right?

Nonsense. As has been told to you a dozen times now, you can buy a 10 amp extension cord and plug it into a 15 amp receptacle on a 15 or 20 amp circuit. To say that the ampacity of the conductors has nothing to do with it is ridiculous. There are lights in my house that have 18 gauge cords, UL listed, no fuses in the lights for additional protection. The ampacity of the cords is basically the core of your safety issue. An 18 gauge, 10 amp extension cord is not rated to support 15 amps or 20 amps. You could have a partial short in one of those lights so that it draws 15 amps, exceeding the rating of the cord conductors.

Who is the "you" that is ignoring exactly what? At least tens of millions of homes have been built with 15 amp receptacles on 20 amp breakers, as allowed by the NEC. They have been inspected. More of those will be installed, inspected and pass electrical inspection this week.

As Bud said, take it up with the NEC folks and UL. They are the experts that matter and apparently they don't agree with you or this would not be permitted under the code. I'm sure they will give it the attention it deserves.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
replying to Nate Nagel , Let's get it right! wrote:

I agree that NEC allows using a NEMA 5-20 and 5-15 receptacle protected with a 20-ampere branch circuit breaker, and as long as you don't interface a Listed appliance rated at not more than 15-amperes with these receptacles, it's a non-problem.
However, the mere fact that someone provide such interfaces, and those interfaces can be used by "Listed" cord connected equipment is proof that NEC Article 110.3 (A) (8) was not done
110.3 Examination, Identification, Installation, and Use of Equipment (A) Examination. In judging equipment, considerations such as the following shall be evaluated: (8) Other factors that contribute to the practical safeguarding of persons using or likely to come in contact with the equipment.
These are the responsibilities of the engineer of record as well as the local regulatory and code inspection agency. They have totally ignored the "Testing for Public Safety**" aspect of the "Listing" effort.
They've failed miserably with respect to this NEC article. The public is not protected because the require interfaces (receptacles) for "Listed" equipment utilizing NEMA 5-15 plugs and cord sets has not been provided for "Protection" as defined by NEC. Additionally, try to find a power cord set with NEMA 5-15 plug in your McMaster Carr catalog that's rated for more than 15 amperes! If there are any, then "ALL" listed cord connected equipment would have to use it. We have NEMA 5-20 plugs for that ... and they won't interface with a NEMA 5-15 receptacle for good reason!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 16:44:01 +0000, Mis-application of listed appliances --- inadequate branch circuit protection.

Not "easily", but it's possible. The flaw in your argument is that the circuit breaker is there to protect the wiring in the house, not the appliance plugged into it.

How does a "listed appliance" cord with branch protection of 20A get a NEMA 5-15 plug on it? That sounds very fishy.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/16/2013 10:44 AM, Mis-application of listed appliances --- inadequate branch circuit protection. wrote:

Extension cords may have an amp rating that is the current the end user can use the cord at. If there is a 15A rating that does not mean the cord can not be used on a 20A circuit. The cord would have to be marked "for use only on 15A circuits". I have never seen such a cord, and considering the way UL and the NEC work I doubt they exist.

Fire marshals can enforce UL requirements. Your opinion is not consistent with UL requirements.

Requirements are not being ignored. You just don't understand UL and NEC requirements.
Anyone can submit a code change proposal.
And anyone can petition the UL to change their standards.
I am sure your proposals will be appropriately considered.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
replying to bud-- , Let's get it right! wrote:

The problem isn't the listed device. The problem is branch circuit protection (20-amperes) is not compatible with the listed devices. Subsequently, the listed device is being allowed to operated beyond the parameters for which it was listed (up to 15-ampere branch circuit protection), and creates a fire/shock hazard because the listed device could/does have the opportunity to fail not-safe!
Got any listed appliances that have NEMA 5-15 plug and cord sets that are protected according to NEC? Highly likely. The regulatory inspection agency in change of inspecting your home/office probably screwed up!
Proof: On a 20-ampere branch circuit, load an extension cord until the current draw approached 20-amperes. It can be done ... and have a fire extinguisher on hand ... because it most probably will burn up ... and the circuit breaker will not trip ... until there is a dead short.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/16/2013 3:45 PM, Let's get it right! wrote:

Listed extension cords made with #18 wire are readily available. The rating in the NEC for #18 cord is 10A (400.5). According to you, that can't be used on even a 15A breaker.
The requirements for overcurrent protection of cords is in 240.5. There are several methods of protection. "Listed" cords are considered protected (240.5-B-3). UL know that cords with a 15A plug may be used on 20A circuits. The system is working as intended. The cord will have a current or wattage rating. It up to the user to use the cord according to the ratings provided.
For cordsets that we put together (field assembly), the wire must be #16 or larger on a 20A circuit (240.5-B-4). The NEC rating for #16 is 13A (400.5). The NEC explicitly allows cords rated 13A on a 20A breaker.

Yes, it is highly likely.
Listed appliance (and lamps, etc) will have a cord large enough to supply the appliance when used as instructed. Cords of listed appliance cords are considered protected (240.5-B-1).
Appliances are protected as UL and the NEC intended.

Nonsense. They are enforcing the code as written.

Your breakers may only trip on dead shorts. Mine trip at the rated current.
And I use cords according to their rating.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
replying to bud-- , Let's get it right! wrote:

The regulatory inspection agency has the responsibility for 110.3B also ... and they should understand and acknowledge that Listed equipment will be interfaced with such branch circuity protection. You either go all the wall with NEC ... or accept fire and shock hazards as a daily part of life. If done in strict accordance with NEC, fire and shock hazards should not exist. This just isn't happening in the real world!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/16/2013 3:47 PM, Let's get it right! wrote:

As I have already explained, "listed" devices will be "approved" by the AHJ under 110.2.
110.3 (inspection) is irrelevant to listed devices -inspectors do not "inspect" listed devices. They determine that the listed devices are used according to the manufactures instructions and the conditions of listing.

The system is working as intended by the NEC and UL.
Anyone can submit a code change proposal.
And anyone can petition the UL to change their standards.
I am sure your proposals will be appropriately considered.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.