Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Definition of Feeder

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

    #31
    Originally posted by Dennis Alwon View Post
    The examples on test materials say exactly what I think it says
    perhaps they are mistaken, or are actually asking for something other than what you think they are. perhaps you could post them here so we can see how they are worded.
    Bob

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by Dennis Alwon View Post
      If the wire between the panel and the disconnect is a feeder then that wire must be sized to the overcurrent protective device....NO? The branch circuit is sized per the motor
      Look at Article 215.3 Overcurrent Protection, which sends you to Part I of Article 240 and specifically to 240.3 which lands one in Table 240.3.

      So, NO, the wire is not required to be sized to the OCPD in 430.62 because 430.62 sends you to 430.24 to size the wire of a Feeder.
      Another Al in Minnesota

      Comment


        #33
        I see that now that the overcurrent protective device must be sized as 430.62 but the feeder conductors are not sized that way and obviously, can be smaller than the overcurrent protective device.

        I wish I can find that thread.

        Okay so it is still awkward in that the overcurrent protective device for the feeder would be sized higher than the overcurrent protective device of the branch circuit when they are really the same in terms of what's happening current wise.
        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

        Comment


          #34
          In some case the above scenario could cost a significant amount of money for the "feeder" breaker
          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

          Comment


            #35
            The branch circuit overcurrent protective device is usually size at 175% and on most units today the max overcurrent protective device is lower than that. Is this making sense. I think this was the jist of the old thread.. my memory stinks
            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

            Comment


              #36
              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.

              Otherwise you have service conductors and branch circuit conductors, and everything else is a feeder or a feeder tap.
              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
              If I missed something in the posts since here I apologize, quite a few and I didn't read them that carefully. As it is now a feeder is pretty much everything that isn't a branch circuit or service equipment related. Secondary of a separately derived system - feeder, unless maybe it only feeds a single load. On site source that isn't supplying a single utilization equipment - feeder.

              Services supply feeders, feeders supply branch circuits. About the only time a service supplies a branch circuit is when the service is supplying a single load. Feeders can supply additional feeders or feeder taps though.
              I live for today, I'm just a day behind.

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by kwired View Post
                If I missed something in the posts since here I apologize, quite a few and I didn't read them that carefully. As it is now a feeder is pretty much everything that isn't a branch circuit or service equipment related. Secondary of a separately derived system - feeder, unless maybe it only feeds a single load. On site source that isn't supplying a single utilization equipment - feeder.

                Services supply feeders, feeders supply branch circuits. About the only time a service supplies a branch circuit is when the service is supplying a single load. Feeders can supply additional feeders or feeder taps though.

                Nobody is questioning what a feeder is as defined in the NEC. I just want the conductors between a power supply and an individual piece of equipment to be considered a branch circuit even when the disconnect has an overcurrent protective device. It makes no sence to define one part a feeder and another part of the circuit as a branch circuit.

                Technically the feeder would be required to have an overcurrent protective device larger than the branch circuit overcurrent protective device. Not a big deal as such since I don't believe anyone sizes the overcurrent protective device to the fused disconnect as a feeder when one unit or piece of equipment is involved but technically the code requires it and someone could enforce a larger overcurrent protective device. This can cost mucho dollars unnecesasarily.

                A/C units often are sized at much lower than the 175% that the units used to be sized at. Look at the max overcurrent protective device on a unit and see.. I have seen some where the max was not much different then the min size conductor-- 125%. Now make the ec size the overcurrent protective device for a unit at 250% min. for a feeder and then coukd be a lot more money unnecessarily
                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

                Comment


                  #38
                  Maybe this is too oblique, but you could try:

                  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. For the purposes of this definition, extra overcurrent devices which are installed but not required by this code shall not be considered.(CMP-2)
                  Reasoning: your complaint is that someone uses a fused disconnect where only an unfused disconnecting means is required (or perhaps even the disco was not required). The fact that the overcurrent device was put in when it wasn't required shouldn't change the rules for how the upstream conductors are installed. This language addresses that directly.

                  The downside to this approach is that it is overly broad and could perhaps create confusion or some loophole in some other type of case that doesn't readily come to mind.

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Originally posted by Dennis Alwon View Post
                    Nobody is questioning what a feeder is as defined in the NEC. I just want the conductors between a power supply and an individual piece of equipment to be considered a branch circuit even when the disconnect has an overcurrent protective device. It makes no sence to define one part a feeder and another part of the circuit as a branch circuit.

                    Technically the feeder would be required to have an overcurrent protective device larger than the branch circuit overcurrent protective device. Not a big deal as such since I don't believe anyone sizes the overcurrent protective device to the fused disconnect as a feeder when one unit or piece of equipment is involved but technically the code requires it and someone could enforce a larger overcurrent protective device. This can cost mucho dollars unnecesasarily.

                    A/C units often are sized at much lower than the 175% that the units used to be sized at. Look at the max overcurrent protective device on a unit and see.. I have seen some where the max was not much different then the min size conductor-- 125%. Now make the ec size the overcurrent protective device for a unit at 250% min. for a feeder and then coukd be a lot more money unnecessarily
                    I'm not aware of any requirement that a feeder needs to have higher overcurrent setting then a branch circuit it supplies.

                    I have many times run a motor circuit with breaker at a load center and same size breaker as disconnect near the motor. Technically that makes the first part of the circuit a feeder and the second part a branch circuit, but doesn't ordinarily change anything else you do for the installation, because of that it sort of doesn't matter (at least to me) if your proposal would be accepted or not as I don't really see it changing what gets installed, just what we call it.
                    I live for today, I'm just a day behind.

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by kwired View Post
                      I'm not aware of any requirement that a feeder needs to have higher overcurrent setting then a branch circuit it supplies.
                      430.62 ..............
                      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

                      Comment


                        #41
                        Originally posted by Dennis Alwon View Post
                        430.62 ..............
                        I don't see that requiring it be larger for every case, many instances yes, but not all. A 15 amp feeder could easily supply several motors that only draw an amp or two and they could all have 15 amp circuit breakers as the branch circuit devices.
                        I live for today, I'm just a day behind.

                        Comment


                          #42
                          Originally posted by kwired View Post
                          I don't see that requiring it be larger for every case, many instances yes, but not all. A 15 amp feeder could easily supply several motors that only draw an amp or two and they could all have 15 amp circuit breakers as the branch circuit devices.
                          That wouldn't be a feeder would it
                          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

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Originally posted by Dennis Alwon View Post
                            That wouldn't be a feeder would it
                            If each motor had an additional branch circuit device (as I tried to describe) it has to be a feeder by definition.
                            I live for today, I'm just a day behind.

                            Comment


                              #44
                              Originally posted by kwired View Post
                              If each motor had an additional branch circuit device (as I tried to describe) it has to be a feeder by definition.
                              Yes but then the feeder is serving more than one piece of equipment. My statement was about the case of one feeder to one motor. You are changing the premise of the statement
                              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

                              Comment


                                #45
                                Here is new wording

                                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. Circuit conductors to the disconnect of an individual piece of equipment's field installed disconnect with an overcurrent protective device shall be considered a branch circuit.
                                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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X