milwaukeesteve
Senior Member
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI
Re: 200 amp disconnect
Okay Bob,
Thank you for helping me see something differently.
In regards to the conductors, they are 'unprotected'. However, the limit on length inside the building is more for the protection of the building. From your example, if that had happened within the confines of a building, there would have been serious trouble.
Therefore, if there is some limit as to how far those conductors can travel inside a building, the better. 230.6 does state that there are ways to extend the 'outside' of a building. These listed methods are all capable of keeping the potential danger of a fault away from the building; in concrete, buried or in a vault. If there happened to be a fault somewhere in the run, hopefully it wouldn't damage anything else.
230.70A does state that the main should be located 'nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors'. The Wisconsin State Code just puts a quantifier on the 'nearest' to minimize the possible different interpretations and to state what the maximum that 'nearest' could possibly mean.
Again, Bob, thank you for helping me see this differently.
Okay Bob,
Thank you for helping me see something differently.
In regards to the conductors, they are 'unprotected'. However, the limit on length inside the building is more for the protection of the building. From your example, if that had happened within the confines of a building, there would have been serious trouble.
Therefore, if there is some limit as to how far those conductors can travel inside a building, the better. 230.6 does state that there are ways to extend the 'outside' of a building. These listed methods are all capable of keeping the potential danger of a fault away from the building; in concrete, buried or in a vault. If there happened to be a fault somewhere in the run, hopefully it wouldn't damage anything else.
230.70A does state that the main should be located 'nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors'. The Wisconsin State Code just puts a quantifier on the 'nearest' to minimize the possible different interpretations and to state what the maximum that 'nearest' could possibly mean.
Again, Bob, thank you for helping me see this differently.