# Interchangable breaker list



## Skblay

This thread is to compile a list of standard 120/240v panels and their ACCEPTED breakers. Please do not respond to this thread if you do not know what article 110.3(b) is. (Nobody wants to hear about you putting those Murray breakers from the dollar store into a customers homeline panel or modifying a bus to fit breakers.)

Eaton- Eaton, Cutler Hammer BR

Cutler hammer CH- CH only

Cutler hammer BR- Cutler hammer BR

Challenger- Challenger, Cutler hammer BR

Bryant- Bryant, Cutler hammer BR

Westinghouse- Westinghouse, Cutler hammer BR

Seimens- Seimens

Ite- Ite, Seimens

Crouse hinds- Crouse hinds, Seimens

Murray- Murray

Gould- Gould, Seimens

General Electric- GE

Square D Homeline- Homeline

Square D QO- QO

Federal pacific- federal pacific (replace panel)

I can never find a list online so let's make one.


----------



## rewire

CHQ -semiens, homeline , ITE,
Cutler hammer Eaton has breakers listed for about six different panels including homeline


----------



## Skblay

rewire said:


> CHQ -semiens, homeline , ITE,


 CHQ makes breakers for most panels but most panels do not list them as acceptable.


----------



## rewire

Skblay said:


> CHQ makes breakers for most panels but most panels do not list them as acceptable.


They are listed as replacement breakers so they are compliant.


----------



## don_resqcapt19

rewire said:


> They are listed as replacement breakers so they are compliant.


They are not "listed"...they are "classified" for use in specific panels.


----------



## Skblay

rewire said:


> They are listed as replacement breakers so they are compliant.


 False






Eaton makes CHQ here is a square d panel from today






CHQ is not listed as an acceptable breaker for square d because as you can see only square d breakers are not eaton


----------



## rewire

Cutler hammer classified breakers are listed by UL. Go to the Eaton site I am reading it as UL listed


----------



## Skblay

rewire said:


> Cutler hammer classified breakers are listed by UL.


 UL is not a manufacture specification. That just means that cutler hammer/eaton paid UL to test the breakers in other panels and they passed. That does not make it code compliant. 2 prong outlets are listed by UL would you install one today?


----------



## rewire

Skblay said:


> UL is not a manufacture specification. That just means that cutler hammer/eaton paid UL to test the breakers in other panels and they passed. That does not make it code compliant. 2 prong outlets are listed by UL would you install one today?


Yes I have installed them as replacement for damaged receptacles in non grounded curcuits


----------



## Skblay

rewire said:


> Yes I have installed them as replacement for damaged receptacles in non grounded curcuits


 shame on you


----------



## CopperSlave

Skblay said:


> shame on you


May I ask, what is wrong with that? It is perfectly compliant.


----------



## Skblay

CopperSlave said:


> May I ask, what is wrong with that? It is perfectly compliant.


 Do they make a tamper resistant 2 prong outlet? As 406.4(D)5 states all replacement outlets must be. I've never seen one so you must follow 406.4(D)2(b)


----------



## Pharon

It is compliant. See 406.12 Exception 4.


----------



## Skblay

Pharon said:


> It is compliant. See 406.12 Exception 4.


 I stand corrected. Still hack IMO but it is code compliant, just put the GFCI outlet in and let the home owner stop using their 2 to 3 prong converter.


----------



## chicken steve

~CS~


----------



## Skblay

Yes the panel companies cannot void the warranty because they are tested. It is still against code to put a breaker that the manufacture does not list as an acceptable breaker, and local AHJ's fail for this reason everyday.

"Article 110-3(b) of the NEC states that Listed or labeled equipment shall be used or installed in accordance with any instructions included in the listing or labeling. Just because a breaker fits in the panel does not mean that it is okay to install it in that panel. To my knowledge, only one manufacturer has had their breakers tested and listed to install in other manufacturers panels. However, even that breaker is not allowed in a panel that is specifically labeled against installing other brands of breakers. Some panels even limit the use of certain series of their own breakers in their panels."


----------



## Skblay

Mike: Seems you had a wide variety of comments. Most seemed to indicate that the practice of installing something that the panelboard manufacturers label clearly prohibits would be putting yourself way out on the limb.

Square D's position is simple. Our panelboards are clearly marked with what circuit breakers are permitted to be installed. Installation of anything contrary to that marking will void our warranty and we will certainly make that point loud and clear should something go wrong with the installation. This is not only based on our listing, but also takes into account the 40+ years of design and application expertise our engineers put into the circuit breaker/panelboard combination.

I have seen many comments that indicate that this is only a "scare tactic,” etc. However, keep in mind that the product standards have, for many, many years, required that the panelboard be marked with the circuit breakers that are permitted to be installed, and for good reason. When manufacturer “A” says that their breaker can be installed in manufacturer “B” catalog XX-XXXX panelboard, I wonder which version of that panel they were talking about. The version made in 1998, 1993, 1989, 1985, 1980, etc? Keep in mind that the catalog number might be the same, but the design changed many times. This is where the panelboard manufacturer spends a great deal of time, making sure that things are compatible. Manufacturer “A” would have no idea what the "history" of that product was through all those years.

The vast majority of electrical inspectors (and electrical contractors) will tell you that they go by what is marked on the panel. Do anything else, has too many variables.

Jim Pauley, P.E.
Square D Company


----------



## rewire

Skblay said:


> Yes the panel companies cannot void the warranty because they are tested. It is still against code to put a breaker that the manufacture does not list as an acceptable breaker, and local AHJ's fail for this reason everyday.
> 
> "Article 110-3(b) of the NEC states that Listed or labeled equipment shall be used or installed in accordance with any instructions included in the listing or labeling. Just because a breaker fits in the panel does not mean that it is okay to install it in that panel. To my knowledge, only one manufacturer has had their breakers tested and listed to install in other manufacturers panels. However, even that breaker is not allowed in a panel that is specifically labeled against installing other brands of breakers. Some panels even limit the use of certain series of their own breakers in their panels."


False.


----------



## Skblay

http://www.mikeholt.com/technical.p... They Violate NEC and the Warranty? (12/30/99) 

Not false here are testimonies from neca codes director and Square D's PE..

Have a read


----------



## rewire

Skblay said:


> http://www.mikeholt.com/technical.php?id=nec/unformatted/replacement&type=u&title=Replacement%20Breakers%20-%20Do%20They%20Violate%20NEC%20and%20the%20Warranty?%20(12/30/99)
> 
> Not false testimonies from neca codes director, various panel companies, code council and etc...
> 
> Have a read


Mike holt experts . Eaton seems to take a different view.


----------



## Skblay

Can we move on from this now... It states clear you must install and use clear with labels on manufactures products 110.3(B) 

The panel labels clearly state use only specific breakers and chq breakers are not listed therefor it is a code violation. 

It is written very clearly in the code book and on the labels.. Not to mention a letter confirming it from NECA codes director. I would say that out weighs what eaton CLAIMS

Because eaton says one thing, doesn't mean it's so.. Is it something new that a product claims something that isn't true?


----------



## Deep Cover

Halo cans list the trims that are compatible with their housings, however, these trims say they are listed to be used with Halo cans. What do you do?


----------



## Skblay

Deep Cover said:


> Halo cans list the trims that are compatible with their housings, however, these trims say they are listed to be used with Halo cans. What do you do?


Use Halo trims... That's our job as an electrician to do our installs code compliant. 

You use the cheap trims and anything happens from the trims or a freak accident in the general area, they are going to come after you for not complying with the code..


----------



## Skblay

That should be the difference between us and the weekend electrician or the handyman


----------



## Deep Cover

You say that it is against manufacturer instructions, however, they are in compliance with the trim's instructions and UL's listing. Do yourself a favor, ask your inspectors that question.


----------



## Skblay

Deep Cover said:


> You say that it is against manufacturer instructions, however, they are in compliance with the trim's instructions and UL's listing. Do yourself a favor, ask your inspectors that question.


We have monthly inspection meetings in our state and have heard both of these topics covered multiple times... It's not much of a discussion. To me that would be like the can light says 60w max bulb but the worker at Home Depot told me I can put a 100w bulb in and it will be fine... Would that be okay to do? 

Is it new that a product says it is okay for something or will do something and won't? I'm having a hard time believing that you guys cannot comprehend code and are licensed electricians.


----------



## Deep Cover

Skblay said:


> We have monthly inspection meetings in our state and have heard both of these topics covered multiple times... It's not much of a discussion. To me that would be like the can light says 60w max bulb but the worker at Home Depot told me I can put a 100w bulb in and it will be fine... Would that be okay to do?
> 
> Is it new that a product says it is okay for something or will do something and won't?



It's not just the manufacturer, it is listed by UL (and ETL) and you are using the trim in accordance with it's listing. There should be no debate.

If it wasn't listed to be used with Halo, I would agree with you.


----------



## MTW

Skblay said:


> Seimens- Seimens
> 
> Ite- Ite
> 
> Crouse hinds- Crouse hinds
> 
> 
> Gould- Gould


Gouid, Crouse Hinds and ITE were all folded into Siemens. Therefore I feel perfectly safe using a Siemens/Murray breaker in any of those old legacy panels.


----------



## rewire

Skblay said:


> We have monthly inspection meetings in our state and have heard both of these topics covered multiple times... It's not much of a discussion. To me that would be like the can light says 60w max bulb but the worker at Home Depot told me I can put a 100w bulb in and it will be fine... Would that be okay to do?
> 
> Is it new that a product says it is okay for something or will do something and won't?


Your not making an accurate comparison. Code just requires listing for the use. If the breaker has the proper listing then what is the issue? I can't see a company like Eaton bringing something to market based solely on their opinion.


----------



## Skblay

Deep Cover said:


> It's not just the manufacturer, it is listed by UL (and ETL) and you are using the trim in accordance with it's listing. There should be no debate. If it wasn't listed to be used with Halo, I would agree with you.


 just because it is UL listed does not mean that it complies with 110.3(B) you are putting the trim in the housing of a Halo can therefor you need to follow the Halo cans labels.. 

Do you think that a CHQ breaker should be installed in a square d breaker even after reading the code and manufactures label and reading the link I posted with testimonies from square d and neca director of code?

I am done talking about both situations.. You guys do what ever you want or think is okay and I will do what I want.


----------



## Skblay

MTW said:


> Gouid, Crouse Hinds and ITE were all folded into Siemens. Therefore I feel perfectly safe using a Siemens/Murray breaker in any of those old legacy panels.


 agreed I'm 99 percent sure you can but cannot use them in a seimens panel I'll add em. Thank you


----------



## Pharon

I think the confusion comes into play because there's a difference between UL Listed components and UL Listed assemblies. While an Eaton breaker may have a UL component listing, Square D panelboards have a UL assembly listing. And if that assembly listing does not include Eaton breakers, then the assembly is not UL Listed for that combination, and sounds to me like a violation of 110.3(B). Same thing with the Halo light fixture. It's the assembly listing that should drive whether or not it meets Code, not the component.


----------



## drspec

This thread is ******ed


----------



## rewire

I leave it to the AHJ'S to make the call


----------



## Skblay

drspec said:


> This thread is ******ed


 Your telling me, first thread I started too. All I was trying to do was create something useful and this is what happened lol


----------



## MTW

Skblay said:


> agreed I'm 99 percent sure you can but cannot use them in a seimens panel I'll add em. Thank you


:001_huh::blink:


----------



## drspec

Skblay said:


> Your telling me, first thread I started too. All I was trying to do was create something useful and this is what happened lol


youre the one that made it ******ed


----------



## Skblay

drspec said:


> youre the one that made it ******ed


 I think it would be more f'ed if I just added chq breakers to every manufacture.. I am trying to make an accurate list.


----------



## drspec

Skblay said:


> I think it would be more f'ed if I just added chq breakers to every manufacture.. I am trying to make an accurate list.


 I didn't say f'ed I said r e t a r d e d

the classified breakers are perfectly fine for the panels they are UL listed for. And if your inspectors don't accept them then they are ******ed too.

no reason to list those as they are not listed for every panel.......just the ones they were tested for

and just fyi......eaton isn't the only company that manufactures classified breakers, Siemens does as well


----------



## Skblay

drspec said:


> I didn't say f'ed I said r e t a r d e d the classified breakers are perfectly fine for the panels they are UL listed for. And if your inspectors don't accept them then they are ******ed too. no reason to list those as they are not listed for every panel.......just the ones they were tested for and just fyi......eaton isn't the only company that manufactures classified breakers, Siemens does as well


I'm amazed that you cant read a code book or what has been posted on this thread. It's pretty simple how it is worded I'm sorry that you cannot comprehend it but to call people re tarted over something that you cannot understand is ridiculous.


----------



## drspec

Skblay said:


> I'm amazed that you cant read a code book or what has been posted on this thread. It's pretty simple how it is worded I'm sorry that you cannot comprehend it but to call people re tarted over something that you cannot understand is ridiculous.


I think it's time for your feeding


----------



## Skblay

drspec said:


> I think it's time for your feeding


 I believe calling people names would be what a troll is not having a conversation about the topic that the thread is about.


----------



## chicken steve

Skblay said:


> Can we move on from this now... It states clear you must install and use clear with labels on manufactures products 110.3(B)
> 
> The panel labels clearly state use only specific breakers and chq breakers are not listed therefor it is a code violation.
> 
> It is written very clearly in the code book and on the labels.. Not to mention a letter confirming it from NECA codes director. I would say that out weighs what eaton CLAIMS
> 
> Because eaton says one thing, doesn't mean it's so.. Is it something new that a product claims something that isn't true?


The simple truth is, there are classified breakers that most panel manufacturers warranty do not cover

But unless that information is readily available on the label, or within the instructions , how does it rate a 110.3B red tag?

~CS~


----------



## Skblay

chicken steve said:


> The simple truth is, there are classified breakers that most panel manufacturers warranty do not cover But unless that information is readily available on the label, or within the instructions , how does it rate a 110.3B red tag? ~CS~


 label is typically inside the panel cover


----------



## ablyss

Skblay said:


> Your telling me, first thread I started too. All I was trying to do was create something useful and this is what happened lol


Hey, I'm still here....feel free to pick on the new guy. :bangin:


----------



## chicken steve

Skblay said:


> label is typically inside the panel cover


Ok, if it boils down to warranty , either in the label OR in the instructions as being the crux of the 110.3B , then it appears it has time limitations.....

Siemens Warranty




> Standard Warranty
> Standard Limited Warranty
> 
> Siemens Industry, Inc. ("Seller")
> Siemens Industry, Inc. warrants that on the date of shipment the goods are of the kind and quality described herein and are free of non-conformities in workmanship and material. *This warranty does not apply to goods delivered by Seller but manufactured by others.
> Buyer's exclusive remedy for a nonconformity in any item of the goods shall be the repair or the replacement (at Seller's option) of the item and any affected part of the goods. Seller’s obligation to repair or replace shall be in effect for a period of one (1) year from initial operation of the goods but not more than eighteen (18) months from Seller’s shipment of the goods*, provided Buyer has sent written notice within that period of time to Seller that the goods do not conform to the above warranty. Repaired and replacement parts shall be warranted for the remainder of the original period of notification set forth above, but in no event less than 12 months from repair or replacement. At its expense, Buyer shall remove and ship to Seller any such nonconforming items and shall reinstall the repaired or replaced parts. Buyer shall grant Seller access to the goods at all reasonable times in order for Seller to determine any nonconformity in the goods. Seller shall have the right of disposal of items replaced by it. If Seller is unable or unwilling to repair or replace, or if repair or replacement does not remedy the nonconformity, Seller and Buyer shall negotiate an equitable adjustment in the contract price, which may include a full refund of the contract price for the nonconforming goods.
> SIEMENS INDUSTRY, INC. HEREBY DISCLAIMS ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, EXCEPT THAT OF TITLE. SPECIFICALLY, IT DISCLAIMS THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, COURSE OF DEALING AND USAGE OF TRADE.
> Buyer and successors of Buyer are limited to the remedies specified in this article and shall have no others for a nonconformity in the goods. Buyer agrees that these remedies provide Buyer and its successors with a minimum adequate remedy and are their exclusive remedies, whether Buyer's or its successors’ remedies are based on contract, warranty, tort (including negligence), strict liability, indemnity, or any other legal theory, and whether arising out of warranties, representations, instructions, installations, or non-conformities from any cause.


----------



## Skblay

chicken steve said:


> Ok, if it boils down to warranty , either in the label OR in the instructions as being the crux of the 110.3B , then it appears it has time limitations..... Siemens Warranty


 Still not code compliant, it doesn't specify in 110.3b that it is for warranty it says you must install per label and if the label doesn't state chq breakers then it is against code...


----------



## chicken steve

Skblay said:


> Still not code compliant, it doesn't specify in 110.3b that it is for warranty it says you must install per label and if the label doesn't state chq breakers then it is against code...


How so Sk? Almost every panel sticker and/or label claims _'use only our breakers' _


[WASS]http://i847.photobucket.com/albums/ab35/spacemanlee--/Home%20Theater-Electrical/Label.jpg[/WASS]

Meanwhile there's an entire market of Classified Breakers out there

This is NOT counterfiet market electrical goods ,they are sanctioned by an NRTL , or they simply _would not exist_

The ONLY comeback from panel manufacturers is _'voids warranty' _

But most manufacturers have a _'limited warranty' _

Meaning their warranty _does not exist _after a certain period of time
>>>


> *What are the myths about
> Classified circuit breakers?*
> 
> *Myth #1*: Increased safety risk. There seems to be an implication
> that a Classified breaker is not as good [credible] as a Listed
> breaker. With historical perspective, a term was created to
> distinguish between what is manufactured since inception
> (Listed) and what is subsequently manufactured as a replacement
> (Classified). Because there is no difference in the performance in
> testing services nor in the accreditation standards used between
> the two, there is no safety risk.
> 
> *Myth #2:* Use of a Classified circuit breaker will void the load
> center warranty. *All load center manufacturers hold a warranty
> of a specified time frame, as do all circuit breaker manufacturers.*
> When a Classified breaker is used as an addition or replacement,
> the consumer has the right to engage either warranty. All load
> centers and Classified breakers are warranted to be free from
> failures, due to defects in material or workmanship under proper
> care and normal usage, in residential installation.


UL pdf


Your stance is akin to claiming that if i install aftermarket brake pads on my old chevy work truck, the _warranty_ is void & it won't pass inspection

~CS~


----------



## Skblay

We are not talking about vehicles we are talking about electrical panels. Read 110.3b then read the label. It's that simple.. 

Most panel manufactures only accept their own breakers, you are correct except for the ones that we have on the list, that was the intent of this thread.. 

Also read this link if you need other people to explain it. This is the last time I am posting about this topic. http://www.mikeholt.com/technical.p... They Violate NEC and the Warranty? (12/30/99) Especially the bottom 2 testimonials


----------



## chicken steve

> Read 110.3b then read the label. It's that simple..


I beg to differ....




Skblay said:


> http://www.mikeholt.com/technical.p... They Violate NEC and the Warranty? (12/30/99) Especially the bottom 2 testimonials





> From:* Stauffer*
> 
> Dear Mike: UL tests and rates circuit breakers by one manufacture (such as Murray) for use in other manufacturers' panelboards (such as Square D). I believe this is called "classification."
> 
> The bigger, more reputable manufacturers hate this practice and always have, but UL does it nevertheless. *Therefore, I believe the panelboard manufacturer's warning label is merely a scare tactic, and that anyone can install a properly classified breaker in another brand of panel.*





> From: *[email protected]*
> 
> Mike: Seems you had a wide variety of comments. Most seemed to indicate that the practice of installing something that the panelboard manufacturers label clearly prohibits would be putting yourself way out on the limb.
> 
> Square D's position is simple. Our panelboards are clearly marked with what circuit breakers are permitted to be installed. *Installation of anything contrary to that marking will void our warranty* and we will certainly make that point loud and clear should something go wrong with the installation.



What Mr pauley _conveniently_ left out of his post was the time contriants of his companies warranty

bottom line, _no warranty, no problem_ with *any* classified ocpd

~CS~


----------



## Skblay

Interpret how you want and I will do the same as said that was my last post about this topic


----------



## chicken steve

Skblay said:


> Interpret how you want and I will do the same as said that was my last post about this topic



110.3B does _not _insinuate interpretation as 110.3A might be read Sk, 

it directs us to the _listing & labeling _

according to most AHJ's , as well as the HB 110.3B, said Listing and Labeling hails from a *3rd party*

NOT the manufacturers , as is often , and erroneously, alluded to

thx :thumbsup:

~CS~


----------



## Skblay

I'm done with it


----------



## rewire

Skblay said:


> I'm done with it


hi Hax :thumbsup:


----------



## Skblay

rewire said:


> hi Hax :thumbsup:


 rewire I've read some of your posts you are the hack you seem to be on the wrong end of a lot of jokes, so for you to come by here and try to troll is just plain sad.


----------



## rewire

Skblay said:


> rewire I've read some of your posts you are the hack you seem to be on the wrong end of a lot of jokes, so for you to come by here and try to troll is just plain sad.


I thought you were done:whistling2:


----------



## Skblay

rewire said:


> I thought you were done:whistling2:


 with the topic not with you


----------



## rewire

Skblay said:


> with the topic not with you


good thing you quit beating that horse you were proven wrong.


----------



## Skblay

rewire said:


> good thing you quit beating that horse you were proven wrong.


 proven wrong? Okay troll


----------



## rewire

Skblay said:


> proven wrong? Okay troll


and by multiple posters


----------



## Skblay

rewire said:


> and by multiple posters


 I have no problem admitting that I was proven wrong when I am proven wrong but I was not proven wrong about CHQ breakers and until somebody shows me something where square d says we accept CHQ breakers in their panel I will continue not to be proven wrong

So either you have a crush on me and just don't want to stop talking to me or your the king of trolls. If you have something from the panel companies saying that CHQ breakers are accepted in their panels then I'll be the first to say I'm wrong but That has yet to be provided


----------



## rewire

Skblay said:


> I have no problem admitting that I was proven wrong I am proven wrong but I was proven wrong about CHQ breakers and until somebody shows me something where square d says we accept CHQ breakers in their panel I will continue to be proven wrong


fify


----------



## macmikeman

*So much expounding vs actually going straight to UL to find out .* 


Here is the UL 489 standard http://www.ul.com/global/documents/offerings/perspectives/regulators/electrical/newsletters/MoldedCaseCircuitBreakersMG.pdf

Page 17 and 18 are of interest in this discussion. I don't even blink using a classified breaker in a* single family dwelling*. I would *not* use them in a *highrise apartment building or in townhome projects *where typically larger transformers are the supply to the building. That is the main difference between listed and classified breakers, - classified are never allowed where the available fault current is in excess of 10k amps. Secondly , *there are seldom commercial buildings with a less than 10k amp fault current available , most have excess of that available, so leave the classified breakers in the truck when doing commercial replacements. *

And that was your *mactip of the day!*


----------



## A6USMC

We should not let one persons assessment of their liabilities or their interpretations of the written word/code come between us. Thats why we have Grand Juries and Lawyers, they are always more than happy to point out the slightest deviation or disregard for any manufacture installations requirements and or codes that govern a given installation. Its all good until it hits the fan right? I say play it safe. By the way,LAWYER-Did that connection get torqued? Did it require a torquing screwdriver? ELECTRICIAN-I cant remember,, LAWYER- Do you own a torquing screwdriver? ELECTRICIAN-Yes I do,,LAWYER- Can you produce the tool or a receipt?,, ELECTRICIAN-


----------



## chicken steve

macmikeman said:


> *So much expounding vs actually going straight to UL to find out .*
> 
> 
> Here is the UL 489 standard http://www.ul.com/global/documents/offerings/perspectives/regulators/electrical/newsletters/MoldedCaseCircuitBreakersMG.pdf
> 
> Page 17 and 18 are of interest in this discussion. I don't even blink using a classified breaker in a* single family dwelling*. I would *not* use them in a *highrise apartment building or in townhome projects *where typically larger transformers are the supply to the building. That is the main difference between listed and classified breakers, - classified are never allowed where the available fault current is in excess of 10k amps. Secondly , *there are seldom commercial buildings with a less than 10k amp fault current available , most have excess of that available, so leave the classified breakers in the truck when doing commercial replacements. *
> 
> And that was your *mactip of the day!*


240.60C3 & 240.83C address interrupting ratings of fuses and ocpd's respectively @ 10ka &5ka .

The aftermarket, be it reconditioned FEDpac stablock, or interchangeable classified are merely _subjected_ to aic requirements, not _excluded_ due to them

~CS~


----------



## LGLS

A6USMC said:


> We should not let one persons assessment of their liabilities or their interpretations of the written word/code come between us. Thats why we have Grand Juries and Lawyers, they are always more than happy to point out the slightest deviation or disregard for any manufacture installations requirements and or codes that govern a given installation. Its all good until it hits the fan right? I say play it safe. By the way,LAWYER-Did that connection get torqued? Did it require a torquing screwdriver? ELECTRICIAN-I cant remember,, LAWYER- Do you own a torquing screwdriver? ELECTRICIAN-Yes I do,,LAWYER- Can you produce the tool or a receipt?,, ELECTRICIAN-


 You have to learn about how torts work. Lawyer: Did that connection get torqued? Did it require a torquing screwdriver? Electrician: Yes. Lawyer: Do you own a torquing screwdriver? ELECTRICIAN: Yes I do. LAWYER: Can you produce... ELECTRICIANS LAWYER: "Objection!!!" Judge: Sustained. (See... the prosecution has to prove you DIDN'T, you do not have to prove you DID.)


----------



## chicken steve

One can come into_ any_ trade a tight end, and retire a wide receiver Island dude.......~CS~


----------



## dehv

People seem to be arguing technicalities, perhaps my fresh view may help others just starting out as well.

Here's my take on the most common breakers:

1. 1" breakers such as GE/Homeline/Siemens/Murray
2. Square D QO - to which the CH-Q will work.
3. Federal Pioneer/Federal Pacific - A hand grenade with the pin pulled would be an appropriate substitute.
4. Cutler hammer CH CH. The ones with the beige handle.


there are a bunch more random ones but those seem to be the most common in a residential building.

So to the rest of the more experienced users, does that about sum it up or please add/edit contributions???


----------



## chicken steve

> A hand grenade with the pin pulled would be an appropriate substitute.


:lol::notworthy::lol:

~CS~


----------



## wildleg

in the case of warranty that might be fine.

the issue is liability, which far exceeds warranty.

mitigating liability is something I have always tried to accomplish, because the alternative is a business and wealth killer.

your results may vary.


----------



## JRaef

tl:dr
It's not a clear cut thing, it's open to interpretation to a certain extent, but there are specific rules that many contractors and users don't fully understand, which leads to AHJs rejecting them when someone THINKS they should have been OK.

PANELS must be listed _*by the panel mfr*_ WITH breakers, who has ZERO incentive to list their panels for use with any other then their own breakers. WHY would C-H list their panels to use Siemens breakers, or vice versa?

BREAKERS must be listed for use in panels by mounting them in the panels* and testing them together*. If you are a breaker mfr and want to sell more BREAKERS, you can buy a competitor's panel and mount your breakers in them to be tested and "certified" for use in that SPECIFIC panel. So it is a lot easier to get breakers that are certified to use in competitive panels, which is why you see that. But understand that it is VERY specific as to the exact panels that they are certified for, you cannot willy-nilly apply them universally between seemingly compatible products or even panels within the same mfr's product lines. The certified breakers will have a SPECIFIC list of competitor's panels they can be used with.


----------



## Semi-Ret Electrician

Good discussion. Seems like Eaton is assuming liability for their "Classified" breakers in somebody else's panel, which is fine with me. Solves a lot of logistics problems.

If I have the OEM's breaker, I use it, otherwise in goes the classified.

Funny though, Eaton didn't go after using their "Classified" breaker as a substitute for "BR" their breakers.


----------



## drsparky

Zombie thread alert!!! I read comments from _Rewire_ and looked at the date.


----------



## cawireman

Skblay said:


> UL is not a manufacture specification. That just means that cutler hammer/eaton paid UL to test the breakers in other panels and they passed. That does not make it code compliant. 2 prong outlets are listed by UL would you install one today?


Yes, I would. If I serviced an outlet that had no ground that is exactly what should be installed. This is why they are still available.


----------



## Quickservice

...


----------



## Quickservice

...


----------



## Quickservice

Quickservice said:


> ...


@readydave8, I was going to ask Rewire if he was new Hackwork until I discovered how old this thread was.


----------



## mofos be cray

Quickservice said:


> @readydave8, I was going to ask Rewire if he was new Hackwork until I discovered how old this thread was.


We need a new hax, I liked the spiciness.


----------



## kbatku

Washington State recognizes that mixing breaker types is a code violation but has chosen not to care


----------



## Quickservice

kbatku said:


> Washington State recognizes that mixing breaker types is a code violation but has chosen not to care


Same here... the inspectors don't care. I find Bryant, and Eaton BR breakers sprinked everywhere.


----------



## Quickservice

mofos be cray said:


> We need a new hax, I liked the spiciness.


I guess he went a little too far when he started cussing out the Mods.


----------



## paulengr

It would be ridiculous for a panel manufacturer to certify someone else’s breakers unless they are selling a replacement/retrofit panel.

It’s on the breaker manufacturer to list which panels the breaker can be used in.

But it’s a bit of a trap. Effectively the panel and all accessories is part of the listing. That’s why we can swap breakers and not be breaking the modification rule.

With lugs UL allows crimper manufacturers to list multiple brands.


----------



## LGLS

Quickservice said:


> Same here... the inspectors don't care. I find Bryant, and Eaton BR breakers sprinked everywhere.


This is Murray-boro Country. Come to where the flavor is.


----------



## mikewillnot

Skblay said:


> This thread is to compile a list of standard 120/240v panels and their ACCEPTED breakers. Please do not respond to this thread if you do not know what article 110.3(b) is. (Nobody wants to hear about you putting those Murray breakers from the dollar store into a customers homeline panel or modifying a bus to fit breakers.)
> 
> I can never find a list online so let's make one.


Can you add to the list, or do I need to scroll through every digressive off-topic post? 
Can someone add T&B to the list? Can't find much info on them.


----------



## backstay

mikewillnot said:


> Can you add to the list, or do I need to scroll through every digressive off-topic post?
> Can someone add T&B to the list? Can't find much info on them.


Eaton- Eaton, Cutler Hammer BR

Cutler hammer CH- CH only 

Cutler hammer BR- Cutler hammer BR

Challenger- Challenger, Cutler hammer BR

Bryant- Bryant, Cutler hammer BR

Westinghouse- Westinghouse, Cutler hammer BR

Seimens- Seimens

Ite- Ite, Seimens

Crouse hinds- Crouse hinds, Seimens

Murray- Murray

Gould- Gould, Seimens

General Electric- GE

Square D Homeline- Homeline

Square D QO- QO

Federal pacific- federal pacific (replace panel)

*T&B- Eaton BR*


----------



## Quickservice

paulengr said:


> It would be ridiculous for a panel manufacturer to certify someone else’s breakers unless they are selling a replacement/retrofit panel.
> 
> It’s on the breaker manufacturer to list which panels the breaker can be used in.
> 
> But it’s a bit of a trap. Effectively the panel and all accessories is part of the listing. That’s why* we can swap breakers and not be breaking the modification rule.*
> 
> With lugs UL allows crimper manufacturers to list multiple brands.


Having to do that now is a must due to all the breaker shortages!


----------



## Norcal

Siemens QD breakers are UL classified for some QO panels

Eaton also has a UL classified breaker for some QO panel CHQ.

Eaton CL is classified for most manufacturers plug in 1" breakers.



https://www.eaton.com/content/dam/eaton/products/low-voltage-power-distribution-controls-systems/circuit-breakers/classified-circuit-breakers/ul-classified-replacement-circuit-breakers-sa00304001e.pdf



The BR is also listed for Challenger but other then BR panels they are not classified for other makes.

My personal opinion with Siemens QD, & Eaton CHQ, is why bother with anything other then SQ D QO.


----------



## nrp3

I believe Murray is no longer, so I'm guessing Siemens these days.


----------



## Norcal

nrp3 said:


> I believe Murray is no longer, so I'm guessing Siemens these days.


Correct.


----------



## JRaef

nrp3 said:


> I believe Murray is no longer, so I'm guessing Siemens these days.


Siemens has owned Murray for almost 3 decades now and the breakers were EXACTLY the same with different stickers on them. But the UL files on them were _always _the same anyway, because even back when Murray was a separate company, they brand-labeled their breakers from ITE, which is who Siemens bought (from Gould) to get into this business in North America. So the ITE / Gould / Siemens / Murray breakers have ALWAYS been the exact same breakers. Siemens just recently just stopped using the Murray marketing name. The Murray name only existed because when Siemens bought them, there were a lot of Murray distributors in the same towns as Siemens distributors, and as an SEC condition of the buyout, they had to keep them separate for a long time. That time finally expired.

Murray brand history (Reader's Digest version):
Founded in 1889, made fuse panels (among other things). As fuses began to be displaced by CBs, they started brand- labeling ITE breakers to put in the Murray fuse boxes, then eventually brand-labeling the ITE panels for them too.

1940s, Murray was bought by Arrow-Hart. Still sold the ITE breakers and panels but under the Arrow Hart / Murray name

1970s, Arrow Hart was bought by Crouse Hinds, who dropped the Murray and Arrow Hart names, marketing under Crouse Hinds, but still was the ITE breakers and panels as Crouse Hinds.

1990s Crouse Hinds bought by Cooper, who almost immediately sold off the old Murray products to Siemens in 1997, who by then already owned ITE anyway. Siemens resurrected the Murray name because of the fact that Cooper distributors were restricted from selling "competing" lines to Cooper, which included Siemens. So they all became "Murray" distributors.

2019, Siemens dropped the pretense of them being different product lines.


----------



## MotoGP1199

JRaef said:


> Siemens has owned Murray for almost 3 decades now and the breakers were EXACTLY the same with different stickers on them. But the UL files on them were _always _the same anyway, because even back when Murray was a separate company, they brand-labeled their breakers from ITE, which is who Siemens bought (from Gould) to get into this business in North America. So the ITE / Gould / Siemens / Murray breakers have ALWAYS been the exact same breakers. Siemens just recently just stopped using the Murray marketing name. The Murray name only existed because when Siemens bought them, there were a lot of Murray distributors in the same towns as Siemens distributors, and as an SEC condition of the buyout, they had to keep them separate for a long time. That time finally expired.
> 
> Murray brand history (Reader's Digest version):
> Founded in 1889, made fuse panels (among other things). As fuses began to be displaced by CBs, they started brand- labeling ITE breakers to put in the Murray fuse boxes, then eventually brand-labeling the ITE panels for them too.
> 
> 1940s, Murray was bought by Arrow-Hart. Still sold the ITE breakers and panels but under the Arrow Hart / Murray name
> 
> 1970s, Arrow Hart was bought by Crouse Hinds, who dropped the Murray and Arrow Hart names, marketing under Crouse Hinds, but still was the ITE breakers and panels as Crouse Hinds.
> 
> 1990s Crouse Hinds bought by Cooper, who almost immediately sold off the old Murray products to Siemens in 1997, who by then already owned ITE anyway. Siemens resurrected the Murray name because of the fact that Cooper distributors were restricted from selling "competing" lines to Cooper, which included Siemens. So they all became "Murray" distributors.
> 
> 2019, Siemens dropped the pretense of them being different product lines.


So what your saying is that I can put them in my Square D Homeline panel. Hahaha


----------



## Norcal

Murray did have their own line of breakers that Siemens discontinued after buying them, 42 years ago replaced a Murray panel that had a weird plug-in100A main, it was mounted vertically the stabs at the bottom, so a normal breaker would have "ON" when the handle is down, & "OFF" was up, so this breaker had a reverse action so the ON & OFF would be normal, might still have it around, the panel is still around & headed for scrap.


----------



## Forge Boyz

Norcal said:


> Murray did have their own line of breakers that Siemens discontinued after buying them, 42 years ago replaced a Murray panel that had a weird plug-in100A main, it was mounted vertically the stabs at the bottom, so a normal breaker would have "ON" when the handle is down, & "OFF" was up, so this breaker had a reverse action so the ON & OFF would be normal, might still have it around, the panel is still around & headed for scrap.


If you ever run across them DO NOT turn that main off unless you are decommissioning the panel Those breakers sometimes had trouble latching back on if they are turned off. 

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk


----------



## nrp3

What do those look like?


----------

