- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Am I reading the new wording correctly. Motor overload protection is not required unless the motor is used in a continuous duty application?
Don
Don
430.32(A) 2005 NEC
- Thread starter don_resqcapt19
- Start date
- Status
jwelectric
Senior Member
- Location
- North Carolina
Re: 430.32(A) 2005 NEC
see 430.33 then ask again, this might clear it up a little, this is confusing to say the least
[ March 12, 2005, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: jwelectric ]
see 430.33 then ask again, this might clear it up a little, this is confusing to say the least
[ March 12, 2005, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: jwelectric ]
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Re: 430.32(A) 2005 NEC
The substantiation for the change specifically said that motors rated for continuous duty and used in non-continuous applications do not require overload protection. There was no panel statement and no comment in the ROC.
The substantiation for the change specifically said that motors rated for continuous duty and used in non-continuous applications do not require overload protection. There was no panel statement and no comment in the ROC.
bphgravity
Senior Member
- Location
- Florida
Re: 430.32(A) 2005 NEC
I don't really see a change from the 2002 to tell you the truth.
Instead of calling the motor a continuous duty motor, they now call the application of the motor as continuous duty.
I don't really see a change from the 2002 to tell you the truth.
Instead of calling the motor a continuous duty motor, they now call the application of the motor as continuous duty.
jwelectric
Senior Member
- Location
- North Carolina
Re: 430.32(A) 2005 NEC
There is a change from ?02 to ?05 codes in 430.32 (D). This change is in the wording and how it is arranged. It still says the same thing just makes it a little clearer. Or at least I think this was the intent of those poor old souls working on the panel.
There is a change from ?02 to ?05 codes in 430.32 (D). This change is in the wording and how it is arranged. It still says the same thing just makes it a little clearer. Or at least I think this was the intent of those poor old souls working on the panel.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Re: 430.32(A) 2005 NEC
It now says that when the motor is not used in a continuous duty application, that overload protection is not needed. In the 2002 code a motor that was rated for continuous duty applications required overload protection even when it was not used in that type of application.
It now says that when the motor is not used in a continuous duty application, that overload protection is not needed. In the 2002 code a motor that was rated for continuous duty applications required overload protection even when it was not used in that type of application.
Don
- Status