David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 8/21/2009 6:14 AM Pete C. spake thus:

You really have a reading comprehension issue. Again, what you have
quotes is not a complete test specification as would be used by any
reputable testing laboratory as it does not contain clearly defined pass
/ fail criteria.

Your diversion into circuit breakers doesn't help your case at all since
a circuit breakers are allowed to "soft fail" and trip at lower than
their rated current.

I've watched this argument devolve here for a while now. Although I
don't know what exactly UL uses for their test criteria, I find it very
hard to believe that they would approve devices that only "fail safely"
but that do not function properly at that point of failure (i.e.,
breakers that trip at significantly lower current than rated, switches
that no longer switch, etc.).

I think the burden of proof in this case is on *you*.

The burden of proof is on the person falsely claiming to be posting a UL
test standard. No reputable testing laboratory would attempt to test to
an incomplete test specification such as what mr bud has posted.

Remember was chartered to do product testing for the insurance industry,
not consumers. Insurers do not care at all about the quality,
functionality or value of a product, only if the product presents a
safety hazard that could lead to an insurance claim.

Circuit breakers are designed to and allowed to trip at a lower point as
they wear from multiple trips or age. They are not allowed to trip at a
higher than specified level. A "weak" breaker is a common failure and
does not present any safety hazard so it is not of any concert to
insurance underwriters nor to their testing lab.