6 disconnect rule violation?

[jwelectric]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Your reference to 210.7 of a multiple circuit only stated that if I take two different circuits to a device on a single yoke that this breaker must have a common trip. A handle tie would not be allowed.
210.7 does not give permission to use handle ties on multiple circuits in any way nor does in insinuate that it would be allowed.

210.4 tells us how a multiwire circuit can be installed and when a common trip breaker is required to be used on a multiwire circuit. Just as in 210.7 when a multiple circuit lands on a device that is on a single yoke it must have a common trip.
This is so that all power is turned off this single yoke when the breaker is turned off either manually or in trip position.

240.20(B)(1) addresses breakers used in a multiwire circuit. Here we are told that on a multiwire circuit that we can use a handle tie but we are not required to use a handle tie on multiwire circuits.

Originally posted by hurk27
I showed you two places where the code allows handle ties for non- multiwire circuits
A circuit that only supplys line to line current is not by the definition in the NEC a multiwire branch circuit, It does not have a neutral.
240.20(B)(2) and (3)

This is a very good attempt to try to slide the use of handle ties in on the panel addressed in this thread but I don?t think that 240.20(B)(2) nor (3) would apply as (B)(2) is addressing DC circuits and (B)(3) is addressing 4-wire, 3-phase systems or 5-wire, 2-phase systems.

In your previous post December 23, 2005 06:36 PM you make this statement

Originally posted by hurk27
210.4(A) does not say multiple Branch Circuits are permitted to be considered as multiwire circuits does it? No it doesn't it say's that a multiwire branch circuit can be considered as a multiple branch circuit!
Why? well multiple branch circuits can have ungrounded conductors on the same phase because each will have it's own neutral run to it.(and would no longer fit the NEC's definition of a multiwire circuit)
Ever wonder why the neutral side of a duplex receptacle has the same break off tab that the hot side has? well now you know.

Well I will admit that I am not the brightest bulb on the string but I am smart enough to figure out that this just will not fly either.
Explain to me how you will break off the tabs of a receptacle and feed it with two different circuits, each with its own neutral each on the same phase and comply with 210.7. Didn?t it tell us that in this situation that there had to be a common trip?

Now lets look at 225.33 the article in discussion.
225.33 addresses the maximum number of disconnects that can be used at a remote building.
Subsection (A) covers the general requirements of the maximum number and limits it to six.
Subsection (B) addresses the use of single pole units as part of the required six disconnect maximum rule. It states that a ?multiwire circuit? that consist of two or three single pole breakers can be used as a single multipole disconnect as long as it is equipped with a handle tie.
Nowhere does this subsection address the use of single pole units and give permission to use a handle tie for multiple circuits. It is very clear that when using handle ties on single pole units that they must be part of a multiwire circuit.

Everything else that is mentioned about handle ties or single pole breakers in the code book can be forgotten simply because 225.33(B) addresses the use of single pole breakers as they pertain to the use as the six disconnect rule outlined in 225.33(A).

Today is Christmas Eve and a very busy cooking day for me. Hope you have a great day today and if I don?t get back a very Merry Christmas tomorrow.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Mike, there's a profound difference between overcurrent protection, and disconnecting means.

Article 210's .4 and .7 are looking to ensure that if a person plugs a table lamp into a receptacle and shuts a receptacle off, then that entire receptacle would be dead.

Otherwise, with a device powered by two breakers, there's a good chance one side or the other would be hot, presenting an electrocution hazard to someone changing out a receptacle.

Therefore, the two circuits have to be disconnected together.

240.20(B) is calling for overcurrent protection to open conductors.

Overcurrent protection versus disconnecting means.

Ask yourself: Why would an overcurrent device be required to open circuits that are not experiencing overcurrent? There's no reason.

Why would a disconnect be required to open all hot conductors on a single yoke, whether they're under load or not? Because there is a shock hazard.

A 210.4 design is not the same as a 210.7 design - Wayne is correct, a 210.7 design does not share a neutral. Imagine two GFI's on two seperate circuits in two separate boxes, that load side out to one duplex receptacle. I have done this in the past.

Common trip is not required. Common disconnect is.

 

[iwire]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by georgestolz:
Ask yourself: Why would an overcurrent device be required to open circuits that are not experiencing overcurrent? There's no reason.

Great question George I agree with your thought entirely.

 

[roger]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Does anyone know of a manufacturer that makes a four pole common trip branch circuit breaker?

Roger

 

[jwelectric]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

What in this world are you talking about George?
Have you read any of the post made by Wayne and myself?
Where are you getting two devices from in separate boxes?

Take a look at 210.7 and you will see that what we were talking about is two separate circuits landing on the SAME device that is on ONE yoke. His statement was that the tabs could be broke off both the phase and neutral with two neutrals and two hots from the same phase in the panel landing on this single device. Wrong answer.
210.7 states that both ungrounded conductors are required to open simultaneously. This means that the overcurrent device will be required to be connected internally so that under a fault condition they both will open. This would be impossible to accomplish with a handle tie.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by roger:
Does anyone know of a manufacturer that makes a four pole common trip branch circuit breaker?

Roger

I don't know of one.

 

[iwire]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by jwelectric:
Wrong answer 210.7 states that both ungrounded conductors are required to open simultaneously. This means that the overcurrent device will be required to be connected internally so that under a fault condition they both will open. This would be impossible to accomplish with a handle tie.

Mike it is you that has provided the wrong answer.

You are assuming that it must open both circuits under fault conditions.

It does not say that at all.

Only that we provide a means to simultaneity disconnect the two circuits.

If I was suppling two 2-wire circuits to one device from an existing fuse panel a two pole switch at the panel would satisfy the requirement.

Take your stubborn hat off and open your mind to new ways of thinking.

 

[roger]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Mike, I don't know of one either, but this device

is made with break away tabs which means it can be fed from (2) individual circuits which would be required to have the handles tied together, but not as a common trip.

This would satisfy the wording of 210.7;

(B) Multiple Branch Circuits Where two or more branch circuits supply devices or equipment on the same yoke, a means to simultaneously disconnect the ungrounded conductors supplying those devices shall be provided at the point at which the branch circuits originate.

There would be no reason for both circuits to "trip" if only one were experiencing a problem.

Roger

 

[jbwhite]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

I am going to start testing the top and bottom of a rec before I assume it is off.

 

[iwire]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Mike kidding aside please consider thinking of this freshly.

a means to simultaneously disconnect the ungrounded conductors

The CMPs probably do not haphazardly choose the wording of any section. If the CMPs intend a common trip breaker I think they would have said so.

Why "a means"?

Why not "circuit breaker" as 240.20 states?

The answer IMO is obvious, they are intentionally leaving it as a design decision to be made by the engineer or installer.

 

[iwire]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by jbwhite:
I am going to start testing the top and bottom of a rec before I assume it is off.

Excellent idea.

I usually check neutral to ground just to make sure that is not hot either.

Electricity hurts.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Don?t have but a few minutes before I got to hit the kitchen again so I will address the last couple of post by asking a simple question and await an answer.

If I wire a dishwasher and a disposal on one duplex receptacle by installing a three conductor (two hot and one neutral) and breaking off the tab, can I use two single pole breakers to protect these devices?

If the answer is no please post the section of code that would not permit this installation.

 

[roger]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Mike,

Originally posted by jwelectric:

If I wire a dishwasher and a disposal on one duplex receptacle by installing a three conductor (two hot and one neutral) and breaking off the tab, can I use two single pole breakers to protect these devices?

absolutely you can with a handle tie between the two breakers.

Roger

 

[jbwhite]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by jwelectric:
If I wire a dishwasher and a disposal on one duplex receptacle by installing a three conductor (two hot and one neutral) and breaking off the tab, can I use two single pole breakers to protect

I say yes, if they are on seperate phases, and there is a handle tie.

 

[iwire]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by roger:
Mike,

Originally posted by jwelectric:

If I wire a dishwasher and a disposal on one duplex receptacle by installing a three conductor (two hot and one neutral) and breaking off the tab, can I use two single pole breakers to protect these devices?

absolutely you can with a handle tie between the two breakers.

Roger

I agree with what Roger said.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

All three of you are wrong.
I will be back in a few minutes to show you where

 

[hurk27]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Mike here is a device that uses both line to line and line to neutral current.
This is the type of device that 210.4(B) exception 2 is talking about.

It is this exception the express's the need for both phases to be opened by the OCPD.

Exception No. 2: Where all ungrounded conductors of the multiwire branch circuit are opened simultaneously by the branch-circuit overcurrent device.

This is not stated in none of the other sections.

 

[jbwhite]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

hurk, this does not apply to jwelectric example. his loads were line to neutral.

 

[iwire]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

Originally posted by jwelectric:
All three of you are wrong.
I will be back in a few minutes to show you where

I am waiting......

 

[hurk27]

Re: 6 disconnect rule violation?

JB
I was showing him that the words

a means to simultaneously disconnect

Does not mean the same as

opened simultaneously by the branch-circuit overcurrent device

They are totally different requirements
They are not the same