In my opinion no.
See 430.103 / 430.108 / 430.109
430.103 would not prohibit it,
I can not agree with you here, it 430.103 does require the disconnecting means to open the ungrounded conductors. The disconnecting means the OP describes closes a control circuit.
As I said it is badly written and should mean what you say it should, alas it does not say that.
Pushing a shunt trip button does not disconnect any ungrounded conductors. Rather, it gives a command to a breaker that is located (per the OP's description) in a different room. It is only when that breaker obeys the command that all ungrounded conductors are disconnected. So it is the breaker itself, and not the pushbutton, that constitutes the disconnecting means. That breaker has to be within sight.The operation of the shunt trip results in the opening of ALL ungrounded conductors of the motor or controller power circuit for which the device is the means of disconnect.
Pushing a shunt trip button does not disconnect any ungrounded conductors. Rather, it gives a command to a breaker that is located (per the OP's description) in a different room. It is only when that breaker obeys the command that all ungrounded conductors are disconnected. So it is the breaker itself, and not the pushbutton, that constitutes the disconnecting means. That breaker has to be within sight.
The pushbutton, once pushed and released, cannot prevent a person, in the other room, from re-closing the breaker. A person working on the motor would not see that happen.
430.102(B) would not allow what the OP has described. There are exceptions that might apply, but the OP did not mention an intent to apply them.
You are welcome to disagree, and I disagree right back at you. What I offered was a good reason for having the disconnect in sight. I agree that my good reason is not spelled out in the NEC, and I do not offer it as a part of my argument. The words are clear enough, without adding any interpretation of intent. The disconnecting means must be in sight. Period!Disagree with your reading. Where is the prevention from reclosing is written in the NEC? You're reading something that is not there, you're reading intent that is not spelled out, therefore it is an invalid part of the argument.
The book does not say that ?some part of the disconnecting means must be in sight.?The circuit breaker, including the shunt trip and its actuator are ONE complex device. Some parts are within sight and some are not.
It would not.If I have a circuit breaker with a 50' long cable operated handle where the actual circuit breaker is out of sight, but the handle is within sight would that not be acceptable?
And I maintain that it prohibits both.I maintain that the NEC does NOT prohibit either of the above.
The NEC is badly written in many parts. But I see nothing ambiguous in the statement that the disconnecting means must be in sight.(Again the NEC is badly written in this part.)
You are welcome to disagree, and I disagree right back at you. What I offered was a good reason for having the disconnect in sight. I agree that my good reason is not spelled out in the NEC, and I do not offer it as a part of my argument. The words are clear enough, without adding any interpretation of intent. The disconnecting means must be in sight. Period!
The book does not say that ?some part of the disconnecting means must be in sight.?
It would not.
And I maintain that it prohibits both.
The NEC is badly written in many parts. But I see nothing ambiguous in the statement that the disconnecting means must be in sight.
[EDITED QUOTE FOR TYPOS]So how much you want to bet that in a court of law you would lose?
[EDITED QUOTE FOR TYPOS]
[My money is on Charlie.
I?ll take that bet. Put me down for two pennies. You can buy me a bus ticket home.I have a 100:1 that he would loose....
The code does not say that ?part of the disconnecting means shall be within sight.? The requirement of 430.102(B), coupled with the definition of ?disconnecting means,? in article 100, does not leave room for treating part of the means differently from another part of the means.What I am saying . . . the actuator of the disconnecting means is part of the device. . .
The definition of ?in sight from,? in article 100, says exactly that. The one item must be visible from the other item. If a person turns his back, that does not change the fact that the one item is still visible (i.e., capable of being seen).. . . there is no implied or direct reference that the device should be observable on a continuous basis. (Which Charlie said it does.)
The code does not say that “part of the disconnecting means shall be within sight.” The requirement of 430.102(B), coupled with the definition of “disconnecting means,” in article 100, does not leave room for treating part of the means differently from another part of the means.
It says the disconnecting means must be within sight. That is all it needs to say. Try to explain to the judge that half of your installation was in compliance.Nor does it say that it needs to be fully or entirely within sight.
The disconnecting means IS within sight.It says the disconnecting means must be within sight. That is all it needs to say. Try to explain to the judge that half of your installation was in compliance.
No, a remote control for the disconnecting means would be within sight.The disconnecting means IS within sight.