Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 52

Thread: Definition of Feeder

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    32,170

    Definition of Feeder

    Here is a proposal I am thinking of making

    Feeder.
    All circuit conductors between the service equipment, the source of a separately derived system, or other power supply source and the final branch-circuit overcurrent device. Where these conductors are feeding an individual piece of equipment such as hot tubs, motors, etc.then the conductors shall be considered branch circuits.(CMP-2)


    Here is my substantiation. I am not a good writer and would love some input on my proposal and maybe some help in re-wording my substantiation.


    There are different rules for feeders and branch circuits but in some cases the conductors from a panel that feed a hot tub, air condition etc and have a fused disconnect are really branch circuits all the way to the equipment but by definition, these conductors are called feeders to the fused disconnect and branch circuits to the equipment. Whereas, if the same setup had an unfusd disconnect then the entire run would be a branch circuit. I feel it is unnecessary to treat the conductors from the panel to a disconnect differently just because one unit has a fused disconnect and the other does not.


    They say I shot a man named Gray and took his wife to Italy
    She inherited a million bucks and when she died it came to me
    I can't help it if I'm lucky



  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NE Nebraska
    Posts
    32,907
    I like the general idea, I don't know how to submit it, but I think that for the hot tub or HVAC application it should be supplying either factory installed overcurrent devices in the equipment or an individual over current device used primarily as a local disconnecting means.

    If you supplied a small loadcenter next to an AC unit and supplied the AC unit as well as the receptacle that is required to be near the unit from that loadcenter - I think it should still be considered a feeder. But if you only supplied multiple breakers factory installed or as part of listed accessories for that HVAC equipment (like an air handler with add on heat strips often have) I think that should be considered a branch circuit.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    32,170
    Quote Originally Posted by kwired View Post
    I like the general idea, I don't know how to submit it, but I think that for the hot tub or HVAC application it should be supplying either factory installed overcurrent devices in the equipment or an individual over current device used primarily as a local disconnecting means.

    If you supplied a small loadcenter next to an AC unit and supplied the AC unit as well as the receptacle that is required to be near the unit from that loadcenter - I think it should still be considered a feeder. But if you only supplied multiple breakers factory installed or as part of listed accessories for that HVAC equipment (like an air handler with add on heat strips often have) I think that should be considered a branch circuit.
    If a receptacle is added then I doubt they (cmp) would go for it. The overcurrent protective device inside the unit is a supplemental overcurrent protective device and, as such, would not change anything. The problem is when you have the 2 breakers in a disconnect feeding the unit. In that case, I would consider that as applicable in what I wrote because it still only feeds one unit.
    They say I shot a man named Gray and took his wife to Italy
    She inherited a million bucks and when she died it came to me
    I can't help it if I'm lucky



  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    6,472
    Quote Originally Posted by Dennis Alwon View Post
    Here is a proposal I am thinking of making
    Feeder.
    All circuit conductors between the service equipment, the source of a separately derived system, or other power supply source and the final branch-circuit overcurrent device. Where these conductors are feeding an individual piece of equipment such as hot tubs, motors, etc.then the conductors shall be considered branch circuits.(CMP-2)
    Because of the Article 100 Definition of Service Equipment, I see your proposal causing a difficulty when there is a subpanel between "hot tubs, motors, etc." and the Service Equipment . . . a conflict arises as to what the conductors between the "Service Equipment" ("connected to the load end of the Service Conductors") and the subpanel are called.

    We would normally think of the Service Equipment to subpanel conductors as a Feeder, but your proposed change, because of "All circuit conductors" in the Feeder definition, makes them a "Branch Circuit."
    Another Al in Minnesota

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NE Nebraska
    Posts
    32,907
    I think existing feeder definition is fine, if anything to get what Dennis wants to accomplish done a modification may be needed to the branch circuit definition.

    Otherwise you have service conductors and branch circuit conductors, and everything else is a feeder or a feeder tap.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    32,170
    Quote Originally Posted by al hildenbrand View Post
    Because of the Article 100 Definition of Service Equipment, I see your proposal causing a difficulty when there is a subpanel between "hot tubs, motors, etc." and the Service Equipment . . . a conflict arises as to what the conductors between the "Service Equipment" ("connected to the load end of the Service Conductors") and the subpanel are called.

    We would normally think of the Service Equipment to subpanel conductors as a Feeder, but your proposed change, because of "All circuit conductors" in the Feeder definition, makes them a "Branch Circuit."
    I don't get it... Any feeder is from either a service or the sub panel as it stands now. Why does my words change that... The definition does not affect the wires between the service and a subpanel-- those are still feeders-- it only changes when it feeds an individual piece of equipment
    They say I shot a man named Gray and took his wife to Italy
    She inherited a million bucks and when she died it came to me
    I can't help it if I'm lucky



  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    6,472
    Quote Originally Posted by kwired View Post
    I think existing feeder definition is fine, if anything to get what Dennis wants to accomplish done a modification may be needed to the branch circuit definition.
    Interesting point.
    Branch Circuit. The circuit conductors between the final overcurrent device protecting the circuit and the outlet(s).
    Ignoring the other three Article 100 Definitions involving "Branch Circuit . . .", adding something here about the next OCPD, if not being in Service Equipment, being the Branch Circuit.
    Another Al in Minnesota

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Northern illinois
    Posts
    15,499
    I don't see the purpose of your change.

    Feeder. All circuit conductors between the service equipment,
    the source of a separately derived system, or other
    power supply source and the final branch-circuit overcurrent
    device.
    The final branch circuit rated OCPD is still where the branch circuit starts.
    Bob

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    6,472
    Quote Originally Posted by Dennis Alwon View Post
    I don't get it... Any feeder is from either a service or the sub panel as it stands now. Why does my words change that... The definition does not affect the wires between the service and a subpanel-- those are still feeders-- it only changes when it feeds an individual piece of equipment
    Your proposed wording says "Where these conductors" and that refers to the original opening words "All circuit conductors" which, when there is a subpanel, includes the Service Equipment to subpanel feeder.

    You are not directly addressing the individual utilization equipment with a local disconnect that has OCPD included. Your words in the proposed change don't directly say the final OCPD is not the OCPD in the local disconnect. And, more importantly, if the ignored actual final local disconnect OCPD is coming from a OCPD NOT in the Service Equipment, that this subpanel located OCPD is to be the "final OCPD" at the beginning of the Branch Circuit.
    Another Al in Minnesota

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    32,170
    Quote Originally Posted by petersonra View Post
    I don't see the purpose of your change.



    The final branch circuit rated OCPD is still where the branch circuit starts.
    Yes but the proposal has an exception when there is an overcurrent protective device in between the load center and a piece of equipment only then I want that normally called feeder to be called a branch circuit. Thus the entire run between a panel and a single piece of equipment is a branch circuit whether there is a disconnect with overcurrent protective device in it or not
    They say I shot a man named Gray and took his wife to Italy
    She inherited a million bucks and when she died it came to me
    I can't help it if I'm lucky



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •