Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Misuse of Equipment

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by BackInTheHabit

    Can you provide a little more detail?

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by iwire
      What a surprise, I figured this was the first time Joe had brought this up. :grin:
      And so far, nobody other than Cavie agrees with him that there's any violation. I just think it's an ugly practice that should be avoided because so far nobody's shown me anything in the code or the manufacturer's instructions that specifically prohibits this installation. People have thrown out bits and piece from both, but nobody's specifically connected the dots, geometric proof style.

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by mdshunk
        And so far, nobody other than Cavie agrees with him that there's any violation. I just think it's an ugly practice that should be avoided because so far nobody's shown me anything in the code or the manufacturer's instructions that specifically prohibits this installation. People have thrown out bits and piece from both, but nobody's specifically connected the dots, geometric proof style.
        Actually, the manufacturer does say to use mounting holes, which clearly have not been used. The manufacturer's instructions also include a diagram that indicates use of wire nuts and appears to indicate use of a seperate enclosure. Unfortunately, if I understand correctly, it does not seem the code requires following the instructions for any non-listed, non-labeled device.

        Is there anything in the code that requires devices (listed, labeled or otherwise) to be "secured". As far as I can tell, the only thing holding this in place is gravity.

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by pbeasley
          The manufacturer's instructions also include a diagram that indicates use of wire nuts
          And the instructions say that if you can't get all the strands under them to tape them up.

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by pbeasley
            Is there anything in the code that requires devices (listed, labeled or otherwise) to be "secured". As far as I can tell, the only thing holding this in place is gravity.
            I don't know, but that's not really Joe's objection. I guess I've seen how this question has evolved over time, so never really addressed the issue of the device being secured. Joe doesn't like stuff in panelboard cabinets other than panelboards and breakers, and frankly neither do I. Fact is, without that ability, things such as load management monitors would never be able to exist. I think Joe needs to get out in the field some more and take a gander at all the stuff that needs to be mounted inside the panel every day. Heck, Cutler Hammer has a TVSS that mounts inside the panel, and you stick it in the gutter with double-stick tape.

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by iwire
              Can you provide a little more detail?
              Just thought it was or could be a useful article.

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by BackInTheHabit
                Just thought it was or could be a useful article.
                BackInTheHabit, this may be helpful to you. I'm not sure, though.

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by mdshunk
                  This question has been shopped around the last couple of weeks, and I still feel the same.
                  • I would not do it this way
                  • The manufacturer of the phase coupler probably never intended for you to do it this way.
                  • BUT!... there is no violation.


                  The NEC restriction is only that the gutter space not be filled 40%, so this squares with the NEC just fine.

                  The manufacturer's written instructions state, "The main breaker must be turned off during installation and the coupler must be installed in a suitable junction box or equivalent enclosure." The panelboard cabinet is certainly a "suitable junction box or equivalent enclosure". It also happens to have a panelboard mounted in it, which is of no real consequence.

                  I say again: dumb, but legal. If the manufacturer doesn't like this install (and I already know they don't), they wrote their instructions wrong.

                  ------------------

                  This whole business of Square D not wanting anything mounted in their panels is bunk. The new automatic transfer panel gets 3rd party equipment mounted inside it. Powerlogic panels get weird stuff mounted inside them.
                  This is more or less my opinion as well. I do feel it is a violation however, but as of yet cannot back it up with NEC articles. If I find them I will post them.

                  I think it would boil down to wether or not the AHJ "approved" of the install.

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Originally posted by mdshunk
                    BackInTheHabit, this may be helpful to you. I'm not sure, though.

                    Not useful at all, at least to me. Need a translator. Couldn't understand a word he said.

                    So is this what you thought of my linked post, not useful?

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by BackInTheHabit
                      I do feel it is a violation however, but as of yet cannot back it up with NEC articles.
                      Are you an inspector? :grin:

                      <JK>

                      Comment


                        #41
                        Originally posted by mdshunk
                        BackInTheHabit, this may be helpful to you. I'm not sure, though.
                        This Bob is jamming. :grin:

                        Comment


                          #42
                          Originally posted by iwire
                          Are you an inspector? :grin:

                          <JK>
                          Not an inspector. Not kidding.:grin:

                          That is something I myself would not do. I feel the proper installation is in a J-box outside of the panelboard.

                          The photo in the original post is just bad workmanship. (IMHO)

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Originally posted by BackInTheHabit
                            I do feel it is a violation however, but as of yet cannot back it up with NEC articles. If I find them I will post them.
                            :grin:

                            I know how you feel. I run into things all the time that seem like they ought to be a violation. It's amazing how permissive the code actually is when it comes right down to it. Please resist the urge, however, to call unusual installations a violation. Some folks automatically think unusual installation or installations done differently than the local norm must be violations. I think that is the case here. This has hack DIY written all over it, yet there's not really anything you can site that makes it non-compliant. There's plenty of OEM stuff that is intended from the get-go to be mounted in the panel. Submetering CT's are another example that just popped in my head.

                            Comment


                              #44
                              Originally posted by BackInTheHabit
                              That is something I myself would not do. I feel the proper installation is in a J-box outside of the panelboard.
                              It's not mounted in or on the panelboard. It's mounted inside the panelboard cabinet, which is functionally no different than any other junction box. You can mount a panelboard inside a Hoffman box, if you want to. Industrial control panel builders often do.

                              Comment


                                #45
                                Originally posted by mdshunk
                                :grin:

                                .. Please resist the urge, however, to call unusual installations a violation. ....
                                I have seen many installations that are a blatant violation. Others I have seen that not quite sure of but my gut says they are.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X