Split Buss Panels

[c_picard]

Are they inherently dangerous?

I cannot see the logic in answering in the affirmative. Look forward to hearing this.

 

[augie47]

Someone apparently convinced the Code Making Panels that they are.
I guess one can assume to the untrained they could pose some confusion in turning off power and definitely some to the unqualified working on them.

(Probably akin to the "danger" in sharing a neutral on SP breakers.. but, "Hey! We're here to help")

 

[kwired]

Kind of my thoughts as well - a rule mostly put in to help protect the untrained. If they were still common practice I may not use them, but see nothing inherently unsafe either. There probably was some abuse of the six disconnect rule that came along with them - again mostly by the untrained.

 

[c_picard]

And it is 408.36 exception 1 that makes them non-compliant , correct?

(if it was installed today)

Exception 3 states existing panels are OK?

So, it's dangerous, but not THAT dangerous?

 

[augie47]

And it is 408.36 exception 1 that makes them non-compliant , correct?

(if it was installed today)

Exception 3 states existing panels are OK?

So, it's dangerous, but not THAT dangerous?

 

[jumper]

So, it's dangerous, but not THAT dangerous?

Kinda applies to a lot of electrical work.

 

[cowboyjwc]

Or like falling off a ladder. The falling parts not that bad, the landing part on the other hand.......:roll:

 

[sandiegomarine]

Disconnect located for outside compressor but no breaker in the panel

Disconnect located for outside compressor but no breaker in the panel

Or like falling off a ladder. The falling parts not that bad, the landing part on the other hand.......:roll:

I saw a challenger panel yesterday with no breaker for the outside compressor and only a disconnect on the outside wall made by square D. Is this something anyone else has seen and is it ok to not have a breaker in the panel for the a/c unit

 

[kwired]

I saw a challenger panel yesterday with no breaker for the outside compressor and only a disconnect on the outside wall made by square D. Is this something anyone else has seen and is it ok to not have a breaker in the panel for the a/c unit

Kind of off topic some but in general it is not acceptable.

How did they make connection to supply the feed to outside compressor?

I'm assuming they put the conductors in same lug as the service (or feeder) conductors supplying the panel land in. That is generally going to be a listing violation as the lugs are likely only rated for one conductor. Should they have not violated that - the building can have up to six main disconnecting means (feeder or service supplied), but they must be grouped in same location - sounds like that is not the case for you. The other violation that comes up is likely the fact that this feed to the compressor disconnect will not have proper overcurrent protection applied to it.

Those are three main areas of concern that are probably violated without knowing any more then we know, there could be more.

 

[mbrooke]

Are they inherently dangerous?

I cannot see the logic in answering in the affirmative. Look forward to hearing this.

Well, when handled right they are safe. They were outlawed more along the lines of misuse. People would cheat the 6 throw rule by adding tandems and quads to the main section.



The reasoning behind the 6 throw rule is that it saved money on the panel. A 60 or 100amp sub main was cheaper than a full 125, 150 or 200amp main.



FWIW the 6 throw rule is stilled allowed, just not in the same panel.

 

[kwired]

FWIW the 6 throw rule is stilled allowed, just not in the same panel.

Panel must be listed for it. Most "load center" panels are not. Get into commercial/industrial panels - especially the I-line panel and they often are listed for it.

The load centers often say something like - suitable for use as service equipment when main breaker installed.