Understood UL can be component or assembly tested. Last job
I worked was successful certification of Solar Combiner boxes
(400a 1kvDC no GFI). All parts have to be specified, down to
torque ratings of fasteners and where those values came from
(Usually International Electrical Testing Association, NEMA, or IEEE
standards).
However, IMO if you use UL listed components in an experimental system,
and apply them properly within their ratings;
the probability of a massive "oh shi$$$" is dramatically reduced. You are
building to
the intent, not necessarily for certification,
but for you and your infrastructures protection.
On Friday, August 22, 2014, Yurtle Turtle via Tesla <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> UL or FM approval doesn't mean simply using all UL or FM parts and pieces.
> Once you build a control panel, it must be approved as a new device. I ran
> into this at my last job hundreds of times. Every control panel we bought
> was custom built, but it was cost prohibitive to pay six figures and wait
> months (years) to get approval. Also, a lot of equipment we bought was
> built overseas, and had neither certification, but did have a European,
> African, or Asian certification, which our contracts didn't recognize.
>
>
> While the NEC police are unlikely to ever come after you, in the event of
> personal injury or fire damage caused by your device, your insurance
> company is the one to worry about.
>
>
> Right after college, I literally had to run out of bed from a rental house
> (after rescuing my 500 cassettes of music), and had to explain to the fire
> investigator why we had a fire hydrant inside the house. I can't imagine
> having to explain why I have a 25 kVA, 14.4 kV pig in my garage. Even if
> the fire were caused by something totally unrelated, it would likely be
> reason enough to deny an insurance claim. Remember Katrina? That wasn't an
> act of God, the levies failed, so insurance companies were denying claims.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: David Sharpe <sparktron01@xxxxxxxxx <javascript:;>>
> To: "mddeming@xxxxxxx <javascript:;>" <mddeming@xxxxxxx <javascript:;>>;
> Tesla Coil Mailing List <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx <javascript:;>>
> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 3:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [TCML] NIST High Voltage Laboratory Testing / Safety Reference
>
>
> Matt Correcto mundo - Jim Lux and I had an interesting debate about thus
> point several years ago, Since you are building one off equipment and it
> is considered portable equipment; as long as your using a UL approved cord
> set and your upstream over current protective device is coordinated to
> protect the cord set (I.e. No intrinsic fire hazard) you'd be compliant.
> But remember one of the global phrases of the NEC under purpose:
>
> "Compliance herewith and proper maintenance results in an installation that
> is essentially free of hazard but not necessarily efficient, convenient, or
> adequate for good service or future expansion of electrical use."
>
> 2005 Illustrated National Electric Code, Purpose 90.1(B), Adequacy
>
> It is up to the "designer" to meet the complete spectrum of system use.
> There are literally thousands of industrial control circuits listed on GE,
> Group Schneider/Square D, and Eaton websites that are public domain, free
> for use, that show circuits proven to be safe and adequate over millions of
> hours.
>
> Designing to an industrial standard is not
> cheap, but even using "repurposed"
> components will be less likely to have
> failures then "Home Depot" or "Radio Shack" parts. And yes I use 600v
> contactors on 250v because I want the circuit to be
> robust and open when it is commanded to do so. In fact I've never (being
> bold now to date) had an industrially rated component fail
> catastrophically on any systems where I used them, even when the contacts
> were overloaded beyond OEM spec ratings. But it is your problem I f
> something does fail.
>
> On Thursday, August 21, 2014, mddeming--- via Tesla <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
> <javascript:;>>
> 0wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi Jim,
> >
> >
> > 1. Any mandatory code for hobbyists would be de facto unenforceable.
> >
> >
> > 2. Murphy was an optimist. ;^))
> >
> > Matt D.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jim Mora <wavetuner@xxxxxxxxx <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>
> > To: 'Tesla Coil Mailing List' <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx <javascript:;>
> <javascript:;>>
> > Sent: Thu, Aug 21, 2014 7:53 am
> > Subject: Re: [TCML] NIST High Voltage Laboratory Testing / Safety
> Reference
> >
> >
> > Hi Dave,
> >
> > Thank you. This is excellent and really common sense information. The
> > question now arises when this will become mandatory code for the HV
> > hobbyist
> > or is it already?
> >
> > My new Murphy law addition after breaking my leg with a transformer: "If
> an
> > accident is possible, it eventually will happen at the worst possible
> > moment".
> >
> > Jim Mora
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tesla [mailto:tesla-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx <javascript:;>
> <javascript:;>] On Behalf Of
> > David Sharpe
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 4:10 AM
> > To: Tesla Coil Mail List
> > Subject: [TCML] NIST High Voltage Laboratory Testing / Safety Reference
> >
> > Truly excellent reference for use when designing
> > medium or high voltage equipment or performing HV lab work,
> > from NIST. This document was referenced in a recent
> > EDN e-blog. The great thing about this document is it
> > is succinct, brief (9 pages), specific, and to the point.
> >
> > http://www.nist.gov/el/isd/mmc/upload/high_voltage_rules_revised.pdf
> >
> > <One recommendation is the requirement of having "2"
> > separate operations to turn on high voltage; this requires
> > at a minimum a Main Disconnect (Lockable Safety Switch)
> > and a start-stop push-button station with seal in contactor.
> > This requirement supports my contention you should never
> > "instant on" high voltage equipment. YMMV, but I've seen
> > catastrophic, spectacular failures doing this.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tesla mailing list
> > Tesla@xxxxxxxxxx <javascript:;> <javascript:;>
> > http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tesla mailing list
> > Tesla@xxxxxxxxxx <javascript:;> <javascript:;>
> > http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla
> >
>
>
> --
> Dave Sharpe, TCBOR/HEAS
> Chesterfield, VA USA
>
> Sharpe's Axiom of Murphy's Law
> "Physics trumps opinion!"
> _______________________________________________
> Tesla mailing list
> Tesla@xxxxxxxxxx <javascript:;>
> http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla
> _______________________________________________
> Tesla mailing list
> Tesla@xxxxxxxxxx <javascript:;>
> http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla
>
--
Dave Sharpe, TCBOR/HEAS
Chesterfield, VA USA
Sharpe's Axiom of Murphy's Law
"Physics trumps opinion!"
_______________________________________________
Tesla mailing list
Tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.pupman.com/mailman/listinfo/tesla