Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Definition of Feeder

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

    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
    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.
    I live for today, I'm just a day behind.

    Comment


      #3
      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

      Comment


        #4
        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

        Comment


          #5
          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.
          I live for today, I'm just a day behind.

          Comment


            #6
            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

            Comment


              #7
              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

              Comment


                #8
                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

                Comment


                  #9
                  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

                  Comment


                    #10
                    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

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by al hildenbrand View Post
                      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.
                      Yes but it doesn't effect those conductors because they are not feeding an individual piece of equipment-- maybe I should say utilization equipment

                      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.[/QUOTE]
                      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


                        #12
                        I agree that the definition needs to be cleared up a bit.

                        For example, I have a cable from my breaker panel to a fused SSU that supplies power to my furnace. There is a cable going from the SSU to the furnace.

                        Is the cable running from the breaker panel to the SSU a feeder or a branch circuit conductor? What if I change from a fused SSU to a non-fused switch located at the same place?
                        Cheers and Stay Safe,

                        Marky the Sparky

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Dennis Alwon View Post
                          Here is a proposal I am thinking of making



                          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.
                          I've tossed the idea around in my mind for a little bit and keep arriving at the same conclusion...


                          Perhaps the change should be based on whether the 'feeder' conductors can support a greater load than the single piece of utilization equipment they supply, i.e. 'feeder', versus barely enough to support the connected single load, i.e. 'branch'.

                          Better hurry if you want to get this refined to an accept in principle level.
                          I will have achieved my life's goal if I die with a smile on my face.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Dennis Alwon View Post
                            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
                            Actually, no, there is no exception as written. Your proposed language is added as part of the actual Definition of the Term "Feeder".

                            And you never mention "load center" in your language.

                            More importantly, if there are TWO or MORE OCPDs between the Service Center OCPD and the individual utilization equipment, how do you determine which is the beginning of the Branch Circuit as you are "excepting?"
                            Another Al in Minnesota

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by K8MHZ View Post
                              I agree that the definition needs to be cleared up a bit.

                              For example, I have a cable from my breaker panel to a fused SSU that supplies power to my furnace. There is a cable going from the SSU to the furnace.

                              Is the cable running from the breaker panel to the SSU a feeder or a branch circuit conductor? What if I change from a fused SSU to a non-fused switch located at the same place?
                              Great examples.

                              By the 2017 NEC Definitions in Article 100, the fused switch (SSU) is on the end of a Feeder. A non-fused SSU is IN the Branch Circuit.

                              Marky, for the purposes of running the cable or raceway method to your furnace, does calling the wiring method a Feeder change anything?
                              Another Al in Minnesota

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X