5' rule

[electricmanscott]

I think Iwire is correct in his interpetatin of the code. I also think that it should be rewritten to eliminate the "wiggle Room" currently allowed. I would think that a disconnect prior to the entrance of conductors into the building would be a safer way to do the install. I think it should be required.

Unfortunately, while the electrician will decide the "wiggle Room" issue on the side of safety, the builder will use it to cheapen the installation, "as long as we can get it to pass the inspector".

If you could eliminate the grey area. it would help to keep the builders honest.

What do builders have to do with anyting? Do you let them dictate how or when you follw the code?

If a disconnect is "safer" show us the proof to back it up.

 

[Bulldog1401]

What do builders have to do with anyting? Do you let them dictate how or when you follw the code?

They decide who's bid to accept for the job. If you bid it using all the required equipment, then your bid will come out higher than the hacks who interpet the code any way they can to save money.

If a disconnect is "safer" show us the proof to back it up.

I should have said a disconnect with an OCPD. That should make it simple enough for you.

 

[e57]

This is one of those local AHJ and tradition items that allow whatever the local AHJ has traditionally accepted - "Nearest point of entrance" means lots of things to lots of people. To some it means completely outside the building - to others where ever it most suits them, to still others there are exceptions to all rules.

This topic has been debated before - I have pictures of many service conductors entering and traveling through 40-50' long portions of buildings that have been around for some time now, and are yet to burst into flames. Granted they are often well protected in RMC, as opposed to PVC or SE cable, but to some even the thought of being IN the building, never-mind behind a finish makes them fearful.

Solely having a disconnecting means does not make anything "safer" - and having an OCP device is dependant on that OCP device actually doing what it is supposed to do. IMO many breakers used as main disconnects may not actually open in time for damage to be limited in certain fault conditions. They depend on far to much to be in good working condition, and have trip curves designed not to be of a nuisance to the user. If we are talking about breakers with moving parts of varied design, often exposed to varied electrical and environmental conditions. If tested many would fail IMO. Fuses on the other hand are much more reliable as OCP over time - no moving parts to fail other than those for the disconnecting means. (Unlike breakers they are replaced with new, as opposed to being reset and then having different trip characteristics after the first short or over-current.) However neither protect against all faults that would cause an electrical fire danger. That item has yet to be invented. I assume it will be AF, GF, earth leakage, high/low voltage sensing, and very intutive with OCP - it will know the difference between your AC compressor kicking on, and an oven on fire - because it has been watching everyone in your buildings every move.... It'll shut off the whole building when it sees you drop a hair dryer in the sink. It will be named something real neat - like HAL...

 

[electricmanscott]

They decide who's bid to accept for the job. If you bid it using all the required equipment, then your bid will come out higher than the hacks who interpet the code any way they can to save money.

That applies to each and every code rule. Nothing you can do about it.

I should have said a disconnect with an OCPD. That should make it simple enough for you.

I know what you meant simple or not.

Now why don't you show me the proof that makes this a "safer" install.

I'll help you out a little bit. Point me to the statistics that show that a building service that has an ocp device on the outside will is safer than one that has unprotected service conductors coming into the building for a few or even up to 15 feet.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

That applies to each and every code rule. Nothing you can do about it.




I know what you meant simple or not.

Now why don't you show me the proof that makes this a "safer" install.

I'll help you out a little bit. Point me to the statistics that show that a building service that has an ocp device on the outside will is safer than one that has unprotected service conductors coming into the building for a few or even up to 15 feet.

Common. OCPD protected wires aren't inherently safer than unprotected wires?

Give it up Bulldog1401. . This is a hopeless arguement.

 

[electricmanscott]

Common. OCPD protected wires aren't inherently safer than unprotected wires?

Give it up Bulldog1401. . This is a hopeless arguement.

Of course they are "safer" but does it make a safer installation?

My point is geared toward those that want to see OCP and a disconnect ahead of any service conductors before the enter a building mandated.

The fact is there are millions of installations in use that do not have OCP on these conductors and there is not an issue.

Sometimes something comes up and the knee jerk reaction is to require something. When the whole picture is looked at and some thought is put into it, many times there is really no reason to stray from what is and has worked all along.


For my final argument let me just say, the NEC agrees with me.

 

[e57]

I guess no one is old enough anymore for, or remembers 2001: A Space Odyssey quotes?

I've just picked up a fault in the AE35 unit. It's going to go 100% failure in 72 hours. - HAL

 

[iwire]

OCPD protected wires aren't inherently safer than unprotected wires?

Yes they are, but the real question should be is the rule as it is written today leading to problems?

Millions of installations say it is not leading to problems.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...

For my final argument let me just say, the NEC agrees with me.

Not all of us agree with that:grin:

 

[roger3829]

Around here we are allowed up to around 10' before we have to use an outside disconnect. It's kind of a case by case, inspector/contractor decision. I had services where I have been able to go further than 10', and services where less than 10' required an outside disconnect.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

Of course they are "safer" but does it make a safer installation?

My point is geared toward those that want to see OCP and a disconnect ahead of any service conductors before the enter a building mandated.

The fact is there are millions of installations in use that do not have OCP on these conductors and there is not an issue.

Sometimes something comes up and the knee jerk reaction is to require something. When the whole picture is looked at and some thought is put into it, many times there is really no reason to stray from what is and has worked all along.


For my final argument let me just say, the NEC agrees with me.

You might say the same thing about branch circuit protection. I've been in my house for several years and have yet to have a single breaker trip. Seems like a waste...

I guess requiring branch OCPD was a knee jerk reaction at one time but we're used to it now. Someone convinced us we "need" them....HA!