Sign Disconnect

[Guest]

I have an application where a commercial building has a sign controlled by a mechanical timer. This timer is mounted near the lighting panel. I am assuming that the requirement for a disconnect is met by the circuit breaker as long as the circuit breaker is lockable (by an add-on device). Is this correct?

Edited to remove email address...Dereck

[ September 08, 2004, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: dereckbc ]

 

[ryan_618]

Re: Sign Disconnect

If I'm not mistaken, this is covered in 600.12(?), and yes it complies.

 

[dillon3c]

Re: Sign Disconnect

Ryan, Hello to you sir, I'm reading 600.6(a)(1)and it says disconnecting means shall be within sight of the sign.Where the disconnecting means is "out of the line of sight from any "section" that may be energized,the disconnecting means shall be capable of being locked in the open position.

 

[iwire]

Re: Sign Disconnect

Originally posted by dillon3c:
I'm reading 600.6(a)(1)and it says disconnecting means shall be within sight of the sign.

Yes or you can go with 600.6(A)(2)

600.6(A)(2) Within Sight of the Controller. The following shall apply for signs or outline lighting systems operated by electronic or electromechanical controllers located external to the sign or outline lighting system:

(1)The disconnecting means shall be permitted to be located within sight of the controller or in the same enclosure with the controller.

(2)The disconnecting means shall disconnect the sign or outline lighting system and the controller from all ungrounded supply conductors.

(3)The disconnecting means shall be designed so that no pole can be operated independently and shall be capable of being locked in the open position.

 

[dillon3c]

Re: Sign Disconnect

Bob, 600.6(2)Isn't that just saying that the disconnecting means need to be within site of controller itself or same inclosure.Wondering how does that changes 600.6(1)location.

 

[highkvoltage]

Re: Sign Disconnect

Here they require the disconnect within site. Most sign companies supply a switch on the side of the sign to make installation easy for us.

 

[iwire]

Re: Sign Disconnect

Dillon If the sign does not have a controller (and what electric sign does not?) you must follow 600.6(A)(1).

If the the sign has a controller, you may use 600.6(A)(2)

A simple time clock is a controller.

600.6(A)(2)Within Sight of the Controller. The following shall apply for signs or outline lighting systems operated by electronic or electromechanical controllers located external to the sign or outline lighting system:

(1) The disconnecting means shall be permitted to be located within sight of the controller or in the same enclosure with the controller.

So IMO what this is telling us is section 1 applies to signs without controllers and section 2 applies to signs with controllers. We do not have to apply both.

This is not much different than the exception that allows lighting poles not to have disconnects on each pole.

Here is the graphic accompanying section 600.6 in the NEC Handbook.

 

[dillon3c]

Re: Sign Disconnect

iwire, I thank you sir for clearing this topic up for me.Your illustration #1 and #2 was what I considered to be the correct way via the NFPA70. Your illustration #3, I would not of picked up on as being code complyant.In 600.6(A),guess I was looking for the word "OR" between (1)& (2),which doesn't exist, and that threw me off.I know that some Electrical Inspectors don't recognize the NEC Handbook.But I can say now, a copy the 2005 Handbook will soon be on my list as a "must have item".

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: Sign Disconnect

While I agree with Bob's interpretation of the current code, I think that the code itself is wrong. The fact that the sign has a controller should have no effect on the requirement that the sign itself have a disconnect within sight.
Don

 

[iwire]

Re: Sign Disconnect

Originally posted by don_resqcapt19:
The fact that the sign has a controller should have no effect on the requirement that the sign itself have a disconnect within sight.
Don

Don I was thinking the same thing.

Do you (or anyone) have any background information as to why this distinction was made?