A couple folks in the DIN Rail thread mentioned "the Square D/Cutler-Hammer debacle" with respect to panel interchangability. I'm not familiar with that--could someone fill me in on the details of what happened?
posted 05-05-2006 03:05 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm sure you can find plenty of propaganda on the SqD and C-H web sites but the short story is Cuttler Hammer came out with a line of breakers that U/L "classified" as being acceptable in a Square D panel. Square D labels their product that ONLY certain SqD breakers are suitable in the panel. Now the quandry starts, does the inspector honor the "classification" or the "label"? SqD says the label supercedes all and that is the only thing they can support. C-H says that is BullSpit, their breakers were evaluated in a SqD and passed. I have seen a SqD rep (Jim Pauley) and C-H rep (Harvey Johnson) in an IAEI meeting red faced and spitting. ... And they are old friends.
Gentlemen, start your opinions!
Re: The Square D/Cutler-Hammer Debacle#65538 05/05/0606:28 PM05/05/0606:28 PM
Back a while, Square D (QO) was the panel that ONLY took Sq D QO's. (Period) Then one day, a supply house that was NOT an authorized SqD dist., had a "goes into" breaker, hence made by Cutler Hammer. Had 'papers' that it was a "LEGAL" item.
OK, I said I'm sorry, but I put SqD QO's into a QO panel.
Roll the clock back.....Cutler Hammer used to have a panel with 'beige' handle breakers, only those fit! FPE had the infamous "Stab-Loc", nothing fit but that. GE (1/2") was a nightmare, Murry, Crouse Hindes, Westinghouse, Challenger, Bryant, T&B & whatever else 'fit'; some were even modified (butchered) to 'fit'
Challenger became Cutler Hammer, lord knows what happened to Murry & Bryant & Crouse Hines. The 'old' CH must be gone by the wayside; and SqD came out with 'Homeline' which appears to take a few "Others"
Re: The Square D/Cutler-Hammer Debacle#65539 05/05/0606:56 PM05/05/0606:56 PM
gfretwell, Scott (electure) posted this on the other related thread.... Seems times they are a changing...
Many of the companies that got purchased by other ones have lists of what breakers they allow in the companies they purchased. As to who bought who, I think, and don't take it for gospel.
Westinghouse>Bryant(breakers only)>Crouse Hindes>Challenger=Cuttler Hammer (in name only) owned by Eaton....
Murray (in name only, and for the most part, a garbage line of residential focused stuff) owned by Seimens, (the Commercial industrial side.) they are the same cans, and CB's with different labeling....
SqD now owned by Schneider, since early 90's.... Who also own Telemecanique.
FPE now only available in Canada under different name apparently. As I have noticed from post from our neibors to the north. A company called American (?) makes breakers as replacement parts only in the US.
Zinzco, and Bull Dog, gone...
Mark Heller "Well - I oughta....." -Jackie Gleason
Re: The Square D/Cutler-Hammer Debacle#65540 05/05/0610:01 PM05/05/0610:01 PM
Folks often confuse "fact" with marketing. That neither our world, or our language, are perfect means that there will always be room for confusion, uncertainty, and - most importantly- an opportunity for Wormtougues to operate!
Everyone claims that their product is somehow better, or different, that the other guys- even if the competitors both got their product from the exact same source, at the exact same time. These claims persist, even when the sham is exposed, or countless studies proove otherwise.
We also forget that our system is based upon a model that claims that the "market" will eventually sort out the gold from the dross. While this model is in direct conflict with other models -such as those based upon engineering or logic- it has prooven to be remarkably efficient, and correct; indeed, it has out-performed a number of other models.
Likewise, some folks try to have it both ways- they want to "sell" you something, promise you everything,.... then try to retain control of what they just sold! Again, there are any number of things that are acting to counter this. ANSI, and other trade standards, are one. ISO 2000 certification is another. There are government specs, or "Mil-spec" materials.
Many manufacturers see competition as a bad thing; they do all they can to preclude others from competing. This is, in my mind, akin to Nazi Germany asking the Olimpic committee to limit competition to blond haired, Aryan types- so they wouldn't have to race against Jessie Owens! (Which did NOT happen- Germany was silly enough to assume their guy would win!) We see this with cordless drills; there are only two manufacturers of NiCd batteries, yet every tool maker wants the case just different enough to make you use their own product.
Over the past decade, there have been a number of laws enacted that greatly limit the conditions a manufacturer can place on its' warranties. Yet, the nature of things is such that challenging a spurious rejection of a warranty claim is probibitively expensive (in both time and money). The solution? Again, the market will out-perform any lawyer in resolving things. In my own case, when a certain prominent firm tried making excuses, rather than honor their warranty, I voted with my feet. I delight in showing folks how my cheap import has out-lasted, and out-performed, the self-proclaimed "Rolls-Royce" of that market!