Search:

Type: Posts; User: rbalex

Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4

Search: Search took 0.86 seconds.

  1. Replies
    3$$
    Views
    151

    Good question. What I'm about to say only applies...

    Good question. What I'm about to say only applies to motors. (As I mentioned, there are other subtle differences for other classes of equipment)

    The NEC does not require ordinary location (general...
  2. Replies
    3$$
    Views
    151

    Canada has some subtle differences with the US...

    Canada has some subtle differences with the US with respect to motors in Class I, Division 2.

    Neither the Canadian Electrical Code (CEC) nor the NEC specifically require motors to be listed for...
  3. Welcome to the forum. See Section 590.6;...

    Welcome to the forum.

    See Section 590.6; specifically 590.6(B)(2)(a)(3)(d). Read the whole Section though to get the proper context.
  4. Replies
    8$$
    Views
    296

    I was half expecting petersonra to ask the next...

    I was half expecting petersonra to ask the next question.

    Then it would no longer be underground, would it? (Possibly below grade, but that's different)

    OR

    Under what standard operating...
  5. Replies
    9$$
    Views
    263

    Welcome to the forum. Be aware that " help...

    Welcome to the forum.

    Be aware that " help with school questions" will normally require you to express your answers first.
  6. Replies
    29$$
    Views
    640

    I should have said, "... for use on 480V, 3-phase...

    I should have said, "... for use on 480V, 3-phase ungrounded or high impedance grounded systems ..."
  7. Replies
    29$$
    Views
    640

    Actually, I was just responding to the OP: ...

    Actually, I was just responding to the OP:

    Neither the old nor current insulated conductor standards mention a "line to ground" or a "line to neutral" voltage rating. This is unlike many NEMA 600V...
  8. Replies
    29$$
    Views
    640

    I don't know why I stumbled on this thread and...

    I don't know why I stumbled on this thread and I'm slightly surprised the NEMA WC 70 standard hasn't been referenced. The old ICEA S-95-658 standard was clearer when it was independent of NEMA but...
  9. Replies
    8$$
    Views
    296

    In some mining applications, but that's subject...

    In some mining applications, but that's subject to a different set of rules. It isn't covered directly by the NEC. There are some applicable MSHA and NFPA mining standards.

    As a GENERAL rule,...
  10. Replies
    8$$
    Views
    296

    I appreciate the relocation, but petersonra...

    I appreciate the relocation, but petersonra already asked the right question.
  11. Thread: Class Div 1

    by rbalex
    Replies
    9$$
    Views
    305

    You have correctly identified the enclosure as...

    You have correctly identified the enclosure as 800H-2HVX7. What you haven't identified is the operators. I suspect they are factory sealed or explosionproof themselves. Unless the raceway entries...
  12. Thread: Bill

    by rbalex
    Replies
    3$$
    Views
    199

    As I said, "How is it classified?" (And what was...

    As I said, "How is it classified?" (And what was the basis for the classification?)

    I already said Section 515.7 doesn't apply - but MI is fine.

    Focus on how the electrical classification was...
  13. Thread: Bill

    by rbalex
    Replies
    3$$
    Views
    199

    Possibly. Your description doesn't appear to be...

    Possibly. Your description doesn't appear to be subject to Article 515 where Section 515.7 would apply. Applying Section 515.7 is still a good idea; it just isn't a general requirement.

    The...
  14. Thread: ATEX

    by rbalex
    Replies
    1$$
    Views
    156

    The easy answer is ATEX is absolutely meaningless...

    The easy answer is ATEX is absolutely meaningless in US domestic applications.
  15. Thread: 110.2 Approval

    by rbalex
    Replies
    17$$
    Views
    373

    I can't seem to find the latest copy of the NFPA...

    I can't seem to find the latest copy of the NFPA Technical Committee list. For the 2014 NEC, the IAEI rep was from TN.:D

    I would prefer modifying the NEC 90.4 to the MA version. I would also...
  16. Thread: 110.2 Approval

    by rbalex
    Replies
    17$$
    Views
    373

    You can probably thank Fred Hartwell for that MA...

    You can probably thank Fred Hartwell for that MA 90.4 Amendment. It's been a while but I believe he made a similar Proposal to the NEC several cycles back. CMP1 was one of the strongest NIH at the...
  17. Thanks for the catch Don.

    Thanks for the catch Don.
  18. NOTEs: Section 506.9(A)(1) is for...

    NOTEs:[/INDENT]


    Section 506.9(A)(1) is for NRTLs
    Section 506.9(A)(2) is for a State, County or Municipal test lab (I don't know of any that have ever been hazardous location qualified)
    ...
  19. Not automatically Possibly. If you have it...

    Not automatically

    Possibly. If you have it available, see Section 506.9(A)(3).

    The biggest problem is not listing/labeling, but "marking". See Section 506.9(C). Section 506.9(C)(2)(2)...
  20. Replies
    3$$
    Views
    241

    Listen to the insurance company and don't worry.

    Listen to the insurance company and don't worry.
  21. Replies
    4$$
    Views
    351

    I haven't done work under the Canadian Electrical...

    I haven't done work under the Canadian Electrical Code (CEC) since the late 90's. My response is based on the NEC. There are a few subtle differences beyond relegating Division...
  22. Replies
    1$$
    Views
    231

    One of our members is a NEMA Field...

    One of our members is a NEMA Field Representative. He has noted recently that NEMA will be proposing changes to the NEC that will directly recognize the various NEMA 4 enclosures as dusttight.
  23. The direct answer is, "yes"; however, that's a...

    The direct answer is, "yes"; however, that's a mighty big IF. You'll have to establish the DC motor has no commutator nor other arcing features. It's possible, but not likely.

    IEEE Std 1349 won't...
  24. UL 1500 has no relevance. The UL 1500 Scope is :...

    UL 1500 has no relevance. The UL 1500 Scope is :


    Ignition-Protection Test for Marine Products

    UL 1500



    1 Scope
  25. Replies
    22$$
    Views
    699

    It has been Annex G or H since 2005. It was never...

    It has been Annex G or H since 2005. It was never the NEC unless specifically adopted.
Results 1 to 25 of 200
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4