Work? Do you not mean fit? Maybe, maybe not. However what you really need to ask yourself is will Square D cover any damages caused by a Cutler hammer breaker? The answer to that question is HELL NO! Nor will any other company cover any damages caused by mismatched products installed by you or a qualified electrician. Good luck getting your insurance company to cover the loss.
damages caused
The answer is which Cutler Hammer breaker. C-H makes quite a few lines of breakers. They have their own 3/4" stuff (CH), the old Bryant/Westinghouse
1" stuff (BR), a classified replacement for Challenger/Crouse-Hinds/GE/T&B/Murray/ITE/Siemens/Sq D Homeline 1" breakers (CL), and a classified replacement for Square D QO 3/4" (CHQ). So yes they do, but be careful in which breaker you have, and the CHQ's are harder to find than plain ol Square D.
Breakers must be listed for use with the disconnect/panelboard as per The National Electrical Code. The stabs on a QO breaker is different than the Cutler-Hammer,anyway. If you check out the label in a panel, you can read where it says it must be listed for use in that panel.
Will a 50A Cutler Hammer GFCI work in a Square D QO breaker box? Thanks
Absolutely correct. If you get the right breaker produced by CH it will fit, meet the UL standards and there will never be a problem. CH is not the only company that makes replacement breakers for other manufactures.
This is the old "Challenger/Square D" fight that has been going on for many years. C/H makes a breaker that is designed for and has been tested by U/L in the Square D panelboards. They are "classified" 110.3(A)(7) as being "suitable"
110-3(A)(1) but Square D refuses to "label" 110.3(B) their panel as accepting them. These days I don't know of any 1inspectors who will fail that installation but there are compelling arguments in NEC language either way. I agree that simply "fitting" in the hole is not an assurance that something is OK ... but when something is designed for that application, by a reputable manufacturer, U/L tests it and says it is OK, I tend to believe them. Square D is simply trying to protect their market with a label..|>Breakers must be listed for use with the disconnect/panelboard as per |>The National Electrical Code | | This is the old "Challenger/Square D" fight that has been going on for many | years. C/H makes a breaker that is designed for and has been tested by U/L in | the Square D panelboards. They are "classified" 110.3(A)(7) as being "suitable" | 110-3(A)(1) but Square D refuses to "label" 110.3(B) their panel as accepting | them. | These days I don't know of any 1inspectors who will fail that installation but | there are compelling arguments in NEC language either way. I agree that simply | "fitting" in the hole is not an assurance that something is OK ... but when | something is designed for that application, by a reputable manufacturer, U/L | tests it and says it is OK, I tend to believe them. | Square D is simply trying to protect their market with a label..
Of course it will never happen, but what I'd like to see is for some authority group like NFPA and NEMA together design a whole new standard for pluggable panel boards, and mandate that standard in a few years after the design is released (e.g. for all new installations and all upgrades that involve replacing a panel). It would be a single standard that would be fully cross compatible between manufacturers, who would be held to high standards for quality in their manufacture.
Greg, come to Mecklenburg and Union Counties in NC, and they will gig you for it! Rest assured! Later...Blue Crown
True Phil, but the "lobbyists" for the manufacturers would NEVER let that happen! Just like "quick-wire" devices (receptacles and switches) are still allowed, and I have been on many a service call to repair where they have gotten loose and backed out of the holes. Oh well," Mine is not to reason why, mine is but to do or die!" Later...Blue Crown
The Code Making Panels are dominated by manufacturwer reps from the companies who make products regulated by the articles that CMP oversees so it is not surprising that things work out the way they do. If you ask the reps they will say that without manufacturer representation nothing new would ever be accepted into the code and we would still be using knob and tube. That can be demonstrated by looking at jurisdictions that are dominated by unions who refuse to accept labor saving wiring methods. There are still places that won't let you use Type NM (aka Romex) and that is almost a century old. (patented in 1922)
On 16 May 2004 18:17:36 GMT Greg wrote: |>True Phil, but the "lobbyists" for the manufacturers would NEVER let |>that happen! | | The Code Making Panels are dominated by manufacturwer reps from the companies | who make products regulated by the articles that CMP oversees so it is not | surprising that things work out the way they do. If you ask the reps they will | say that without manufacturer representation nothing new would ever be accepted | into the code and we would still be using knob and tube.
Well, I won't believe those reps.
| That can be demonstrated by looking at jurisdictions that are dominated by | unions who refuse to accept labor saving wiring methods. There are still places | that won't let you use Type NM (aka Romex) and that is almost a century old. | (patented in 1922)
Is that the case with Austin TX? I see "MC" mentioned in their local codes all over the place. I need to at some point learn what all these wire types are.
MC is a spiral wrapped metal cable similar to type AC, and the empty armor raceway FMC, generally all lumped into the catch all "BX". Type AC has the bonding strip and the armor is suitable for grounding. MC doesn't have the bonding strip, it has an insulated conductor for grounding and there is also a wrap of plastic between the conductors and the armor. The armor in MC and FMC is not suitable for grounding.
Start a new thread!
The Code Making Panels are dominated by manufacturwer reps from the companies who make products regulated by the articles that CMP oversees so it is not surprising that things work out the way they do. If you ask the reps they will say that without manufacturer representation nothing new would ever be accepted into the code and we would still be using knob and tube. That can be demonstrated by looking at jurisdictions that are dominated by unions who refuse to accept labor saving wiring methods. There are still places that won't let you use Type NM (aka Romex) and that is almost a century old. (patented in 1922)
PolyTech Forum website 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.