# Square D QO Tandem breakers



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

Has anyone seen this new style yet? It has some funny metal hook on the end that clips onto the plastic bar. They don't sit level and you cannot use them facing each other, they hit.
http://www.homedepot.com/p/Square-D...cuit-Breaker-QOT2020CP/100021761#.UeHTQnfD_X4


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Victory Pete said:


> Has anyone seen this new style yet? It has some funny metal hook on the end that clips onto the plastic bar. They don't sit level and you cannot use them facing each other, they hit.
> http://www.homedepot.com/p/Square-D...cuit-Breaker-QOT2020CP/100021761#.UeHTQnfD_X4


They're meant to be installed in panels that are designed to allow tandems. If they're installed properly, they should not cause any problem.

It's not a new design.... it's been around for decades.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Victory Pete, what you need are the $35 CTL breakers :whistling2:


----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

480sparky said:


> They're meant to be installed in panels that are designed to allow tandems. If they're installed properly, they should not cause any problem.
> 
> It's not a new design.... it's been around for decades.


I have around 500 old breakers and there are many of the tandems with the normal attachment clip. I have never seen these before. The specs doesnt say anything about a "special" QO panel.
Quote from link:
"This breaker offers 2 circuits in the space of just 1 and is compatible with QO load centers"


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Victory Pete said:


> I have around 500 old breakers and there are many of the tandems with the normal attachment clip. I have never seen these before. The specs doesnt say anything about a "special" QO panel.


That hook is on all normal tandems to make sure you can't put it into a panel that isn't supposed to accept tandems (like a 20-20 or a 40-40). Only a 20-40 or 30-40 will accept those hooks.

If you buy the more expensive CTL version, it will hook on like a normal breaker.


----------



## kbsparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Those breakers with the standard clip are "non-ctl" type and have a label on them "for replacement use only" or similar wording.

They cost more than double the QOT type with the large leg clip.


----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

HackWork said:


> That hook is on all normal tandems to make sure you can't put it into a panel that isn't supposed to accept tandems (like a 20-20 or a 40-40). Only a 20-40 or 30-40 will accept those hooks.
> 
> If you buy the more expensive CTL version, it will hook on like a normal breaker.


I was looking for the normal ones, all they had were these. They did fit though, the metal hook wrapped right around the plastic bar and the conduction point clipped on as usual. It just sits a little higher in the back.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Victory Pete said:


> I have around 500 old breakers and there are many of the tandems with the normal attachment clip. I have never seen these before. The specs doesnt say anything about a "special" QO panel.
> Quote from link:
> "This breaker offers 2 circuits in the space of just 1 and is compatible with QO load centers"



If you mean this by the 'hook':










They are only listed for specific panels that are designed to allow tandems.

This style:










is only intended to replace _existing _tandems.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Victory Pete said:


> I was looking for the normal ones, all they had were these.


That IS the normal one.

The other ones are not to be used unless its an old panel or some other code crap.

The point, your panel won't accept tandems.


----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

480sparky said:


> If you mean this by the 'hook':
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Those are different, the ones I got have the levers side by side. Also the metal clip is a bit different.


----------



## kbsparky (Sep 20, 2007)

480sparky said:


> If you mean this by the 'hook':
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Funny thing in that the "replacement use only" breakers outsell the regular tandem type, EVEN THOUGH THEY COST TWICE AS MUCH!!


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Victory Pete said:


> Those are different, the ones I got have the levers side by side. Also the metal clip is a bit different.


It doesn't matter, it's the same thing.

How many spaces and circuits does your panel have?


----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

HackWork said:


> That IS the normal one.
> 
> The other ones are not to be used unless its an old panel or some other code crap.
> 
> The point, your panel won't accept tandems.


There was already one of the "$35 normal attachment" kind in this panel. That is what I thought I would be getting.


----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

HackWork said:


> It doesn't matter, it's the same thing.
> 
> How many spaces and circuits does your panel have?


 
20 space panel installed in the 1980's


----------



## oliquir (Jan 13, 2011)

some of them are canadian breakers, canadian panel accept regular tandem without the hook, my panel is a 40/80, not the same rules in US


----------



## Split Bolt (Aug 30, 2010)

Pete, long story short: If the breaker doesn't sit exactly right, you have the wrong breaker and need to find the right breaker and pay the extra $$$. Whether it's the old-style 480 pictured or the new style doesn't matter, as Hack said.


----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

Split Bolt said:


> Pete, long story short: If the breaker doesn't sit exactly right, you have the wrong breaker and need to find the right breaker and pay the extra $$$. Whether it's the old-style 480 pictured or the new style doesn't matter, as Hack said.


 
Well, they do fit on the buss bar the same, so I think they will be fine. They are just tilted a tiny bit. the hook is holding the back down just like the other style. It seems like a stupid design to me, if they didn't want these to fit they should have come up with another scheme.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Victory Pete said:


> Well, they do fit on the buss bar the same, so I think they will be fine. They are just tilted a tiny bit. the hook is holding the back down just like the other style. It seems like a stupid design to me, if they didn't want these to fit they should have come up with another scheme.


Square D uses a notch in the rail to accept claasified tandems. It's their method for a rejection feature. Other brands usually use a scheme on the buss bar.


----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

480sparky said:


> Square D uses a notch in the rail to accept claasified tandems. It's their method for a rejection feature. Other brands usually use a scheme on the buss bar.


Right, but it doesn't really work though.


----------



## drspec (Sep 29, 2012)

Victory Pete said:


> Right, but it doesn't really work though.


It does if you use the right tandem in the panel they're listed for. I've never had a problem with them myself.


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

Victory Pete said:


> 20 space panel installed in the 1980's


You need the ones without the hook. Little more money but at least it will be done right.


----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

drspec said:


> It does if you use the right tandem in the panel they're listed for. I've never had a problem with them myself.


A. The "normal" tandems were not available.
B. The "abnormal" tandems were all they had and I got them installed, therefore their "incompatibility" design doesn't work.


----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

sbrn33 said:


> You need the ones without the hook. Little more money but at least it will be done right.


That is what I set out to purchase, they didn't stock them. I consider it done "right", my customer is not tripping breakers anymore. These tandems are in the panel very securely, just a little tilted.


----------



## Split Bolt (Aug 30, 2010)

Victory Pete said:


> That is what I set out to purchase, they didn't stock them. I consider it done "right", my customer is not tripping breakers anymore. These tandems are in the panel very securely, just a little tilted.


Sorry, I have to disagree with you. It is not done "right" if you are using breakers that are not listed for use in the panel. Maybe it will work fine forever, but that little angle might mean the clamp is not seated exactly right onto buss. You can't just say it's "right" because the listed breaaker was not readily available. That argument doesn't fly with the Internet. I can go on line right now and have one at my door tomorrow!


----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

Split Bolt said:


> Sorry, I have to disagree with you. It is not done "right" if you are using breakers that are not listed for use in the panel. Maybe it will work fine forever, but that little angle might mean the clamp is not seated exactly right onto buss. You can't just say it's "right" because the listed breaaker was not readily available. That argument doesn't fly with the Internet. I can go on line right now and have one at my door tomorrow!


The angle is negligible and if you look closely at how the buss clamp functions, you will see any miniscule angle is totally insignificant. My customer who cant afford a new service right now thinks it is "done right", he is happy he doesn't have 2 circuits on one breaker any more. I don't order from the internet while I am doing service calls for customers who can only be home at a certain time because they have a work schedule. There are a lot of factors at work here that you cannot be possibly aware of. Thanks for your opinion.


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

My SE uses those class CTL rejection clip tandems. There are slots in the mounting rail where you can use them properly. The clue is in the panel schedule, where it shows circuits split into A and B.
I installed it in the early 80's.


----------



## Split Bolt (Aug 30, 2010)

Victory Pete said:


> The angle is negligible and if you look closely at how the buss clamp functions, you will see any miniscule angle is totally insignificant. My customer who cant afford a new service right now thinks it is "done right", he is happy he doesn't have 2 circuits on one breaker any more. I don't order from the internet while I am doing service calls for customers who can only be home at a certain time because they have a work schedule. There are a lot of factors at work here that you cannot be possibly aware of. Thanks for your opinion.


You don't need to convince me, I don't care either way. I'm just saying convenience & money factors do not make something that's wrong "right." You would only need to convince your insurance provider, the homeowner's insurance provider and possibly a jury if something goes wrong and the house burns down.


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

Mr. Split bolt is correct. Your panel has now lost it's UL rating, and you are responsible.


----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

Split Bolt said:


> You don't need to convince me, I don't care either way. I'm just saying convenience & money factors do not make something that's wrong "right." You would only need to convince your insurance provider, the homeowner's insurance provider and possibly a jury if something goes wrong and the house burns down.


 
Again, you have no experience with this house, we have made a huge improvement in the overall condition of this ancient electrical system. Any nitpicking of our "workaround" for this situation is not necessary. The customer could barely pay for what we have done as it is. Real world problems often require practical solutions.


----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

big2bird said:


> Mr. Split bolt is correct. Your panel has now lost it's UL rating, and you are responsible.


UL rating? this old system, you must be kidding. as a licensed insured electrician I take full responsibility for my work. No further scolding or reprimanding is needed.


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

Victory Pete said:


> UL rating? this old system, you must be kidding. as a licensed insured electrician I take full responsibility for my work. No further scolding or reprimanding is needed.


Not reprimanding. Just stating a fact.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Voctory Pete, you came into this thread not wanting to hear anything different than what you already knew. I don't see what the point is at all...


----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

big2bird said:


> Not reprimanding. Just stating a fact.


 
Having worked in this house, my facts supercede your facts.


----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

HackWork said:


> Voctory Pete, you came into this thread not wanting to hear anything different than what you already knew. I don't see what the point is at all...


 
I have learned a few things, I wanted to hear reasonable replies not scoldings.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Victory Pete said:


> I have learned a few things, I wanted to hear reasonable replies not scoldings.


You weren't hearing any scoldings.

It's clear that you just wanted people to affirm your idea of doing it wrong. No one is going to do that, so why bother?


----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

HackWork said:


> You weren't hearing any scoldings.
> 
> It's clear that you just wanted people to affirm your idea of doing it wrong. No one is going to do that, so why bother?


Incorrect, no affirmation needed except from myself and the homeowner. Some just cant let this go. It is very common on internet forums. Human nature can be quite predictable.


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

You keep bringing the happy homeowner into this. You are the pro they are happy because they don't know any better.
Don't worry the panel cover will hold that breaker on to the buss.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

big2bird said:


> My SE uses those class CTL rejection clip tandems. There are slots in the mounting rail where you can use them properly. The clue is in the panel schedule, where it shows circuits split into A and B.
> I installed it in the early 80's.


Another clue is the model number. Panels with numbers like 2020 and 3030 are not designed for tandems. Numbers like 2030, 3040 and 2040 are.


----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

sbrn33 said:


> You keep bringing the happy homeowner into this. You are the pro they are happy because they don't know any better.
> Don't worry the panel cover will hold that breaker on to the buss.


 
He does know better, he watched me put the breakers in. I know those breakers are secure, they are just as secure as any other. That is why it is a bad design.


----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

480sparky said:


> Another clue is the model number. Panels with numbers like 2020 and 3030 are not designed for tandems. Numbers like 2030, 3040 and 2040 are.


 
Well apparently all QO panels will accept the $35 tandems, if they are locally available. So what is the point of these ones with the hook?


----------



## kbsparky (Sep 20, 2007)

The point of them is make you buy the more expensive ones.

They are marked "for replacement use only" but nobody heeds those warnings.

Keeps the manufacturer off the hook for violation of their CTL listings, while making `em boatloads of $$$ at the same time.


----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

kbsparky said:


> The point of them is make you buy the more expensive ones.
> 
> They are marked "for replacement use only" but nobody heeds those warnings.
> 
> Keeps the manufacturer off the hook for violation of their CTL listings, while making `em boatloads of $$$ at the same time.


 
Right! I would have bought those ones if they were both available, though.


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

Victory Pete said:


> Well apparently all QO panels will accept the $35 tandems, if they are locally available. So what is the point of these ones with the hook?


You just don't get it do you?


----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

sbrn33 said:


> You just don't get it do you?


Oh yes I do "get it". Some of these replies are proving my point.


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

Victory Pete said:


> Having worked in this house, my facts supercede your facts.


Thanks. I will tell my lawyer buddies this one. They're gonna love the "quote of the day.":laughing::laughing::laughing:


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Victory Pete said:


> Oh yes I do "get it". Some of these replies are proving my point.


You're just the innocent thread starter and everyone else is out to get you.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

sbrn33 said:


> You just don't get it do you?


I get it, good buddy, I get it.


----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

big2bird said:


> Thanks. I will tell my lawyer buddies this one. They're gonna love the "quote of the day.":laughing::laughing::laughing:


Lawyers? Maybe you should tell your local AHJ instead.


----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

HackWork said:


> You're just the innocent thread starter and everyone else is out to get you.


Not everyone.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Victory Pete said:


> Well apparently all QO panels will accept the $35 tandems, if they are locally available. So what is the point of these ones with the hook?



To prevent people from being hacks and installing them in panels they're not deisigned for tandems.

I can't see what's so difficult to understand about this? Some panels are made by the manufacturer to accept tandems, others are not. Installing a tandem in a panel that is not designed to accept them and then saying "Well, it fits and it works.... it must be OK" is totally hack.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

480sparky said:


> Installing a tandem in a panel that is not designed to accept them and then saying "Well, it fits and it works.... it must be OK" *is totally hack*.


Which is ok. I think most people here have done it once or twice. Just don't go looking for a pat on the back.


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

480sparky said:


> To prevent people from being hacks and installing them in panels they're not deisigned for tandems.
> 
> I can't see what's so difficult to understand about this? Some panels are made by the manufacturer to accept tandems, others are not. Installing a tandem in a panel that is not designed to accept them and then saying "Well, it fits and it works.... it must be OK" is totally hack.


Remember, the rejector clip is hardened steel. Can't use a hacksaw. You have to grind it off.:laughing::laughing:


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

Victory Pete said:


> Lawyers? Maybe you should tell your local AHJ instead.


Bill might get a kick out of it. I'll tell him.:thumbsup:


----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

480sparky said:


> To prevent people from being hacks and installing them in panels they're not deisigned for tandems.
> 
> I can't see what's so difficult to understand about this? Some panels are made by the manufacturer to accept tandems, others are not. Installing a tandem in a panel that is not designed to accept them and then saying "Well, it fits and it works.... it must be OK" is totally hack.


Why do the $35 tandems fit in all QO panels? Answer that and then I will try to "understand" your point. I understand they don't want people to overload a panels buss, but what is the point if you can install the $35 tandem.


----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

HackWork said:


> Which is ok. I think most people here have done it once or twice. Just don't go looking for a pat on the back.


Who is looking for a "pat on the back"? Instead I seem to be getting a "kick in the pants".


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

Victory Pete said:


> Why do the $35 tandems fit in all QO panels? Answer that and then I will try to "understand" your point.


You can "fit" 40 splices in a 4's box. That is also not correct.:no:


----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

big2bird said:


> You can "fit" 40 splices in a 4's box. That is also not correct.:no:


That didn't answer the question.


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

Let me try this. Panel labels state what CB's can be used in a panel to maintain listing. You can "fit" a GE breaker in a Bryant panel, however, you are "supposed" to only use the listed CB's.
That work?


----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

big2bird said:


> Let me try this. Panel labels state what CB's can be used in a panel to maintain listing. You can "fit" a GE breaker in a Bryant panel, however, you are "supposed" to only use the listed CB's.
> That work?


Apples (rotten) and oranges.


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

How about this :

"How long is a piece of string?"


----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

big2bird said:


> How about this :
> 
> "How long is a piece of string?"


 
So you cant answer the question: 

"Why do the $35 tandems fit in all QO panels?"

I think we are done here.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Victory Pete said:


> So you cant answer the question:
> 
> "Why do the $35 tandems fit in all QO panels?"
> 
> I think we are done here.


There is a certain time that you can legally use those breakers. I am not sure when that time is, 480sparky probably knows. 

Just because it fits, it doesn't mean that you could use it. big2bird gave you the perfect example of this, yet you dismissed it like everything else.


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

Victory Pete said:


> So you cant answer the question:


I can, but I don't think you will ever understand it.:no:


----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

big2bird said:


> I can, but I don't think you will ever understand it.:no:


Why are you making assumptions about my comprehension skills?


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Victory Pete said:


> So you cant answer the question:
> 
> "Why do the $35 tandems fit in all QO panels?"
> 
> I think we are done here.


Simple: They're a throwback to back in the day where few HO's did their own wiring, the vast majority of those who did electrical were consummate professionals (didn't do hack work), and _knew better_.

Then along comes the Big Box DIY stores, whose sole purpose is to sell products (safety and codes be damned). Suddenly everyone's an electrician, and Square D realized people were putting tandem breakers into panels not designed for them. Although they changed the design (to the rejection feature with the hook designed to go into a rail with a slot), that didn't change all the panels out there that were already installed.

So to this day, there's a certain element that simply cannot accept the fact that "it fits and it works" does not mean "it's correct and safe".


ETA: Direct from Schenider:


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

Victory Pete said:


> Why are you making assumptions about my comprehension skills?


I am not sure. Maybe 40 posts of your denial?

When my daughter was 3, she took the game with round and square pegs, and beat the square peg into the round hole and smiled. 

For some reason, this thread reminded me of that.

You said "The breaker is not flat, it rides up in back, but that's okay.

Maybe you need a bigger hammer?:laughing:


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

So it's only legal to use those in panels made before 1967.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

HackWork said:


> So it's only legal to use those in panels made before 1967.



And if memory serves, only to replace existing tandems. But I could be wrong on that.


----------



## mgraw (Jan 14, 2011)

480sparky said:


> And if memory serves, only to replace existing tandems. But I could be wrong on that.


 You are correct. They are required to be labeled for replacement only.


----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

480sparky said:


> Simple: They're a throwback to back in the day where few HO's did their own wiring, the vast majority of those who did electrical were consummate professionals (didn't do hack work), and _knew better_.
> 
> Then along comes the Big Box DIY stores, whose sole purpose is to sell products (safety and codes be damned). Suddenly everyone's an electrician, and Square D realized people were putting tandem breakers into panels not designed for them. Although they changed the design (to the rejection feature with the hook designed to go into a rail with a slot), that didn't change all the panels out there that were already installed.
> 
> ...


 


HackWork said:


> So it's only legal to use those in panels made before 1967.


 
This house was built in the 1950's.


----------



## mgraw (Jan 14, 2011)

Victory Pete said:


> This house was built in the 1950's.


 Did you replace an existing tandem or install a new one? It really doesn't matter because you installed a breaker that was not listed to be used in that panel.


----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

Maybe this will stop the madness, the homeowner is going to upgrade the service sometime in the future when he can afford it. His system is so much safer now that we fixed the huge mess he had going on. Just let it go now.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Hopefully it's not upgraded because a new house is being built on the spot where the old one burned down. :whistling2:


----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

mgraw said:


> Did you replace an existing tandem or install a new one? It really doesn't matter because you installed a breaker that was not listed to be used in that panel.


 
Your right, it really doesn't matter because it is my job, my license, my insurance and my decision.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

mgraw said:


> Did you replace an existing tandem or install a new one? It really doesn't matter because you installed a breaker that was not listed to be used in that panel.


Oh the humanity!!!!!!!!!! :laughing:


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

Oh snap. :laughing::laughing:

Look guy. I have been on these forums for years. Don't take it to heart so much. It helps to have a thick skin. Most all electricians are smart azzes.
The only ones I never back into a corner are engineers. Their livelihood is their reputation, and you have to give them an out. My 2 centavos, free of charge.:thumbsup:


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

I am licensed and insured, but I have still been pulled over on occasion.:laughing:


----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

480sparky said:


> Hopefully it's not upgraded because a new house is being built on the spot where the old one burned down. :whistling2:


 
Nice try, but the chance of it burning down now is greatly reduced because of the work we have performed. BTW I wonder if any of you have some of this in their van? I put it on all breakers when dealing with these old panels? http://www.mcmelectronics.com/product/20-4925


----------



## Wirenuting (Sep 12, 2010)

But Luke, it worked when I left.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)




----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

480sparky said:


>


 
Very cute, BTW, your signature question was one I had myself for years. Here is my theory: In the winter I like the room to be at least 70 degrees, I have found many times watching TV that I still feel cold. In the summer I like the room to be 70 degrees, I have found many times I still feel warm. That was the Paradox, 70 degrees should feel the same in both seasons (Ignoring the relative humidity). I have theorized that radiational cooling and heating is the factor here. even if the air is 70 degrees your body can lose or gain heat depending on the temperature outside your window, even the walls can transfer infrared radiation.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

Victory Pete said:


> Well apparently all QO panels will accept the $35 tandems, if they are locally available. So what is the point of these ones with the hook?


Unbelievable, take your fingers out of your ears!


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

hardworkingstiff said:


> Unbelievable, take your fingers out of your ears!


That's not his ear :whistling2:


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

Victory Pete said:


> Why do the $35 tandems fit in all QO panels? Answer that and then I will try to "understand" your point. I understand they don't want people to overload a panels buss, but what is the point if you can install the $35 tandem.


It used to be that tandem breakers were made to fit any space in a panel (all manufacturers). Then UL or some agency decided that it was a bad idea (probably had some fire issues that were linked to the use of these breakers, too many in a panel) and then forced the manufacturers design a panel and breaker that would only allow a tandem breaker to be installed where the manufacturer had designed the panel to accept the tandem breaker.

Since there were tandem breakers in use in existing panels, the manufacturers were allowed to make "replacement" breakers for the old installations. The replacement breakers are not supposed to be used in new panels even though they do fit.

Now, will you burn down the house because you used them? Probably not. What you have done though, is performed and non compliant installation, and if a fire should occur and a fire investigator can trace it back to the panel and possible those breakers, you most likely will be held liable for damages, and I bet the damages will exceed your liability insurance. You could be held personally liable for non compliant work.

You claim the breakers fit but tilt just a little. The reason they tilt is that they are not fitting correctly. 

We could not care less if you violate the listing. You asked what they were for and the members here tried to explain it to you. Did you listen? No, you just kept saying (incorrectly) they fit fine and it's not a problem. Well, they don't fit fine, it was explained to you why, and yet you still buck up and refuse to try to learn.

Why did you even post on this in the 1st place?


----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

hardworkingstiff said:


> It used to be that tandem breakers were made to fit any space in a panel (all manufacturers). Then UL or some agency decided that it was a bad idea (probably had some fire issues that were linked to the use of these breakers, too many in a panel) and then forced the manufacturers design a panel and breaker that would only allow a tandem breaker to be installed where the manufacturer had designed the panel to accept the tandem breaker.
> 
> Since there were tandem breakers in use in existing panels, the manufacturers were allowed to make "replacement" breakers for the old installations. The replacement breakers are not supposed to be used in new panels even though they do fit.
> 
> ...


 
One more time: My job, my license, my insurance, my decision. The breaker is secure both physically and electrically.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Victory Pete said:


> One more time: My job, my license, my insurance, my decision. The breaker is secure both physically and electrically.


You're the man now dog.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

Victory Pete said:


> One more time: My job, my license, my insurance, my decision.


Yes it is, and you should not forget that it is your liability and responsibility too.


> The breaker is secure both physically and electrically.


 I bet the manufacturer, the local AHJ, and UL would disagree with you.

Did you permit this and get it inspected?


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

Victory Pete said:


> One more time: My job, my license, my insurance, my decision. The breaker is secure both physically and electrically.


DUDE! You came here and posted a question. The members have tried to educate you to the correct answer to your question. You don't like the answer so you argue. 

The fact that you won't stop and listen tells me you are just too ignorant about these things.


----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

hardworkingstiff said:


> Yes it is, and you should not forget that it is your liability and responsibility too. I bet the manufacturer, the local AHJ, and UL would disagree with you.
> 
> Did you permit this and get it inspected?


The AHJ would not pass most everything in this house, that is why we are there to make improvements. No permit, this was an emergency repair situation, they had a lost neutral due to many decades of water damage in the meter socket and panel. Some people have to realize that every job has different circumstances. Ideal conditions don't always exist, especially in an old improperly wired house owned by someone with limited funds in a challenged economy.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Victory Pete said:


> The AHJ would not pass most everything in this house


he doesn't have to, it's existing.



> , that is why we are there to make improvements.


Your improvements need to be code compliant. You are liable for anything that you do.


----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

hardworkingstiff said:


> DUDE! You came here and posted a question. The members have tried to educate you to the correct answer to your question. You don't like the answer so you argue.
> 
> The fact that you won't stop and listen tells me you are just too ignorant about these things.


I do not need to be "educated" I have electrical license's in 3 states. I fully understand the reason for making tandems the way they do and the possibility of overloading buss bars. I have made a decision and I am the one who is responsible for it, having to answer to no one here.


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)




----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

HackWork said:


> he doesn't have to, it's existing.
> 
> 
> Your improvements need to be code compliant. You are liable for anything that you do.


I am and have been quite aware of my responsibility as an electrician. In this state we only have to adhere to the most recent code if there is a significant renovation occurring. I follow the code daily in my work with a dose of practical common sense.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)




----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

big2bird said:


> View attachment 27306


 
Who is doing the beating?


----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

480sparky said:


>


 
Really, are you serious?


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

Victory Pete said:


> Has anyone seen this new style yet? It has some funny metal hook on the end that clips onto the plastic bar. They don't sit level and you cannot use them facing each other, they hit.
> http://www.homedepot.com/p/Square-D...cuit-Breaker-QOT2020CP/100021761#.UeHTQnfD_X4





Victory Pete said:


> I do not need to be "educated" I have electrical license's in 3 states. I fully understand the reason for making tandems the way they do and the possibility of overloading buss bars. I have made a decision and I am the one who is responsible for it, having to answer to no one here.


And now we have gone full circle.


----------



## Victory Pete (Jun 29, 2012)

big2bird said:


> And now we have gone full circle.


 
You seem to be going full circle, like a dog chasing its tail, I am done wasting anymore of my time with this. I want to thank some of you for your help.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Victory Pete said:


> You seem to be going full circle, like a dog chasing its tail, I am done wasting anymore of my time with this. I want to thank some of you for your help.


Your Welcome!


----------

