In alt.engineering.electrical Andrew Gabriel wrote:
| In article ,
| "RBM" writes:
|
| "dpb" wrote in message ...
| RBM wrote:
| "dpb" wrote in message ...
| RBM wrote:
| ...
| Bud, has there been any determination that these counterfeit, breakers
| are not made to the same specs as any other QO?
| No non-counterfeit recalls are there?
|
| --I read that there weren't any incidents with the counterfeit breakers,
| so I'm wondering if they are not in fact, the same
|
| Then how did they get a recall for failure to trip? If there were no
| instances of failing to trip?
|
| I can see making them retract them as counterfeits but that's not the
| baliwick of CPSC; that would be a legal thingie as near as I can tell.
|
| And, of course, they could well be "made to the same spec's" but that's
| not _quite_ the same thing as performing to the same spec.
|
| OK, that's not what I heard. All I heard was that there were counterfeits
| that were being recalled, once identified, but nothing about failing to trip
|
| There have been warnings in the UK about counterfeits being found
| in other parts of Europe (but not as yet in the UK, AFAIK). A picture
| in a trade magazine shows one of them opened up. There are no overcurrent
| parts inside, and the toggle is just a plain switch.

How many people ever test the overcurrent aspect, anyway? I'm guessing one
of these must have failed somewhere somehow to have gotten noticed.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |