You're right, I asked for one
I was thinking something like wiring a smaller 20a breaker into a (much) larger one, then producing a load (fault) that would obviously trip a 20a breaker, and using the DENO in it. It'd take a little construction, it'd be empirical. It'd be setup and performed by an electrician that has very extensive experience with conditions that supersede anything ever mentioned on here.
A few points. Sounds like a reasonable test, you can use varying lengths of #12awg romex to change the fault current peak, like 2 feet out to 100 or so. Just be careful in breaker selection. Make sure you're using a 10 kiloamp rated breaker, and make sure the panel board rating is compatible with that. Industrial systems may not have the same bolted fault limit that a consumer home would. Utilities control the fault current max to homes, but set industry for best efficiency.
If you have a clamp-over current probe, you can scope and save the fault current to determine the peak.
But I don't see the point in doing it since everyone has come to the conclusion that they are safe.
Actually, the conclusion is that the reactive drop does not allow lethal voltages to be presented to the chassis as a consequence of core saturation. That is only one concern.
What cannot be concluded is the fact that they are safe in the application for 20 ampere breakers under various fault conditions. That is what you as a manufacturer should demonstrate prior to selling product. Positive test results would be a great selling tool. Negative test results help you immediately.
I assume someone else on here finds the progression of this thread amusing. "I trust code, and not the people selling individual pieces that have to meet code for importing and selling, but I do trust made devices that are certified with code stickers/silk screen" ...... "wait it's ok"
While slanting the progression of the thread with a skewed view may amuse you, the facts are different.
1. A reactive device was proposed to be inserted into a safety bonding circuit to eliminate ground loop problems.
Breaking into the safety ground and inserting a reactive component is extremely dangerous if the "fix" is incapable of clearing the breaker, dangerous if the chassis
potential is allowed to exceed lethal levels, and is dangerous if the integrity of the connection cannot be guaranteed for the life of the equipment.
2. A link to the device was given, and the data from the manufacturer did not indicate control of lethal voltages, only that it was a reactive device.
Further discussion ensued on how circuit breakers work, what criteria is needed for controlling chassis potentials, and how long the nominal reactances cited by the
manufacturer would take to clear typical 15 and 20 ampere breakers.
3. Further discussion on application ensued and test data generated by participants was presented.
A believed to be design feature of the device, extreme core saturation, limits the reactive voltage drop of the device to 4 volts when driven at 4 times the rated current.
4. Now it is being stated that the device is safe because the drop is 4 volts max at currents tremendously small with respect to fault currents.
The manufacturer does not present data in support of the device surviving fault conditions, nor how to connect it in safely.
Trust code? It is not a case of trust. It is a case of use but verify. I follow code as I wire a 10e+9 dollar machine and at home during reno, but I always examine the code and the application. Code updates every 3 years, and some of those changes are a result of people like me notifying the NFPA about errors we find.
Trust people selling individual pieces? Only if the pieces are certified for use in the application. The vendor's datasheet is severely lacking in fault current tolerance data (which is the defining parametric for this safety device), reactance vs ac current, ampacity curves for current vs time, and detailed direction on how the connections to the device should be made which remain safe for the life of the product.
Trust things certified with a sticker/silkscreen? That is the entire purpose of NRTL's. Verification that the product has been made consistently using a process and materials of known quality such that the product will provide the expected results. I expect that of medicine, food, airbags, and all my electrical equipment.
And there has been no "wait, it's ok."
Several hurdles have been cleared, but the race is only half over.
Trying to characterize safety concerns in a non engineered application of a safety circuit as ""much ado about nothing"" does nothing to support your reputation.
Solid engineering on the other hand, does. I hope you do the tests if you are going to use the product. I'm more than ready to assist if requested.