If by 3? circuit you mean MWBC, 2011 doesn't prohibit such, but either have to use a 3-pole breaker or install a handle-tie on 1-pole breakers.Hey guys! Where is it in code (2011) that you can't share a neutral on three phase circuits any longer?
It requires a common trip on the circuits.
but either have to use a 3-pole breaker or install a handle-tie on 1-pole breakers.
Worst code change ever
Not for the wire manufactures!:lol:
Just like all of the panels, no more than 1/3 of the members can be from any single group such as manufacturers, users, labor, ect. It takes a 2/3's majority to report any proposal as accepted.You ever look at who sits on CMP 5?
You ever look at who sits on CMP 5?
Not for the wire manufactures!:lol:
Installing a common tie handle is cheaper than the wire. I am not sure if manufacturers have seen an increase in sales???
Close enough. Right? Man! At least give me credit for giving the article.210.4(B) is probably what you need to look at, but it doesn't forbid sharing a neutral. It requires a common trip on the circuits.
Nope.
Most customers do not want it that way, engineers especially, in order to turn off one circuit, all three have to be turned off, so instead of a small outage, a big one happens.
So what? The code is about safety, not convenience or power reliability. MWBC on single pole breakers without handle ties are bad news. Too easy to de-energize one leg and think the entire circuit is de-energized or break the neutral when two legs are still energized. I know an "electrician" should know better, but this is not the first instance where the code has been "dumbed-down" to try to protect the untrained....
No they are not. We have a century of safe operation of MWBC. The code was, and should be, about safe installation and operation of electrical installations. Somewhere somebody working on a circuit is going to do something stupid no matter what kind it is.MWBC on single pole breakers without handle ties are bad news.....