Absurdly Simple Question II: Transformers

radiopet · Jan 7, 2011

iwire said:
But be that as it may, can you explain why a transformer is more likely to requires servicing and less likely to be impracticable to shut off than a panelboard?

Never said it was more likely....said it was code and I support it and will see it is enforced..

When of course Virginia is enforcing it....ala 2014 ish...

don_resqcapt19 · Jan 7, 2011

radiopet said:
I disagree....the entire 450.14 is new and the lockable disconnect for remote is new. Other than the label issue are you saying that on all transformer primary OCPD's you made sure it was lockable?

There is nothing that says the "lockable" part must be part of the disconnect like other rules in the code say. There is always a way to lock a disconnect. I stand by my statement that this requires nothing more than a label and that is how I will teach it.

iwire · Jan 7, 2011

radiopet said:
Never said it was more likely....said it was code

OK so we are back to blind acceptance.

Sorry I am not that much of a sheep.

and I support it and will see it is enforced..

Of course I will follow the code, that is not optional, but I don't have to shut off my brain and just assume every new code rule makes sense.

jwelectric · Jan 8, 2011

Bob,

If you can not see any sense in taking a piece of electrical equipment that has never required a disconnect to isolate it from an energized circuit and now requiring this piece of equipment to be isolated from an energized circuit then there is no purpose in continuing this thread so why not lock it away.

It is very obvious to some that this was an issue that needed attention and also some that acted accordingly. I for one was glad to see this requirement but then again I can understand that there are some that unless someone can show them dead bodies can not see any danger. For those I feel pity.

George Stolz · Jan 8, 2011

Mike, I think that's his point. Show me the dead body, tell me the story that makes this new code useful.

iwire · Jan 8, 2011

jwelectric said:
Bob,

If you can not see any sense in taking a piece of electrical equipment that has never required a disconnect to isolate it from an energized circuit and now requiring this piece of equipment to be isolated from an energized circuit then there is no purpose in continuing this thread so why not lock it away.

It is very obvious to some that this was an issue that needed attention and also some that acted accordingly. I for one was glad to see this requirement but then again I can understand that there are some that unless someone can show them dead bodies can not see any danger. For those I feel pity.

Mike, by your reasoning and the substantiation provided all panels will need disconnecting means and none should contain more than one circuit as shutting a panel own may be 'impracticable' when we need to work on them.

Furthermore I have no doubt that we can find a much 'larger pile of bodies' in front of panels than transformers.

So all I am saying is apply some logic and don't just fall victim to the 'cause it's safer' argument. If that was the only thing to consider we would have to shutdown the production of electricity.

radiopet · Jan 8, 2011

This is very interesting. We have a major "head in the sand" type issue here. On one hand you have posters saying this is no change, others saying it is a pointless change and then there are those supporting the new change. The issue was the verbiage that refers to labeling which has the potential to save a life and even one life is worth saving. The other issue that seems to be ignored is the lockable remote disconnection means requirement which is only untl the 2011 NEC now required if using a remote location disconnection means....and I am wearing the blinders?

You want examples...here in Alexandria,VA there are preventive maintenance work and inspections required by lenders on service equipment, XFMR's and so on at a regular basis. They check torques and other area as well as cleaning out portions of the equipment on an annual basis. This will always put people in contact with potentially live parts that started out turned off until someone turns it on....yeah I am sure they are alll super electricians like everyone here but I am a realist....if we can give one extra level of safety.....how in gods name can you say that's being blind to a known issue that could happen.

Since it is clear personal views arnt allowed to exist....close the thread versus not even takng time to understand electrical safety concerns. Also lip service does not change the code...actions change code so I will look for a new proposal from those who disagree here...get involved with change or make change. This is a safety change and even if it is ignored...it is a change to bring it inline with other acceptable practices.

George Stolz · Jan 8, 2011

You're saying that lenders require building owners to shut off their services once a year for inspection and cleaning? Where?

iwire · Jan 8, 2011

radiopet said:
This is very interesting. We have a major "head in the sand" type issue here.

Look in the mirror for that head in the sand. :roll::grin:

On one hand you have posters saying this is no change, others saying it is a pointless change and then there are those supporting the new change.

Yes, that is a forum and we don't delete the posts that push a code position we do not agree with. You may be confusing this forum with another.

Since it is clear personal views arnt allowed to exist...

Really? have any opposing views in this thread been edited in anyway or been deleted?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, you, Mike, George, myself every member.

.close the thread versus not even takng time to understand electrical safety concerns.

No need to close the thread but just because some do not agree with your view does not mean they 'do not understand'.

I know you call yourself a Guru, that does not make your opinion more valuable than anyone other member here.

Also lip service does not change the code...actions change code so I will look for a new proposal from those who disagree here...get involved with change or make change.

This is a code forum, should we not talk about code issues unless agree with the code?

This is a safety change and even if it is ignored...

No one in this thread, not even Don, has said they are going to ignore the code.

Don has different interpretation of it than you do but that is not the same as ignoring the code.

it is a change to bring it inline with other acceptable practices.

Again that is not a reason for a code change, 'one size' does not fit all and one code rule for all equipment does not fit either.

radiopet · Jan 8, 2011

Oh boy...lies and personal attacks again...typical Iwire moderator response. Divert the fact you have no clue.

George Stolz · Jan 8, 2011

Lies and personal attacks? Where in that post is either?

Then you cap off your response with a personal attack? Oh vey.

radiopet · Jan 8, 2011

Ps...I call myself Paul.....you choose to call me Guru....which begs to wonder why you have little man syndrome?

iwire · Jan 8, 2011

radiopet said:
Oh boy...lies and personal attacks again...typical Iwire moderator response. Divert the fact you have no clue.

If you are going to call me liar can you find the time to quote the lie?

iwire · Jan 8, 2011

radiopet said:
Ps...I call myself Paul.....you choose to call me Guru....which begs to wonder why you have little man syndrome?

I am not going to link to your site no matter how much you may try to bait me.

radiopet · Jan 8, 2011

Head in the sand is personal?

Its a reality dude....any time I post here it gets personal by some of you. Since when have you ever posted a CODE related response on my site that was removed...heck you don't come post code...only attack me on my site. You want to debate code..bring it over but attack...leave that here on mikes forum.

My post was my view...and the codes view happens to agree but alas it does not gel with your view so you express your preceived power...heck ban me as you know you want to bob....george will be right with you but facts are fact....if you have opinions or interpretations of code then express it...and keep it as only that.

radiopet · Jan 8, 2011

iwire said:
I am not going to link to your site no matter how much you may try to bait me.

you are better off not on my site.....you are just looking for fights and I am not interested in it. You form opinions of people based on your own skewed logic so its better off you don't. Now all that are afraid of you can come together and agree. I don't mind fella....I'm not a hater so feel free to continue to hate because of a term you don't like....I am ok with that...honestly...let it go fella...let it go.

jumper · Jan 8, 2011

radiopet said:
Oh boy...lies and personal attacks again...typical Iwire moderator response. Divert the fact you have no clue.

Actually I think you don't. The whole substantiatian for the change was for convenience to a customer veiled as as a safety measure for electricians .

Requiring a disconnecting means for a transformer is intended
to enhance safety for the qualified individual that is required to work on the
transformer. This is especially true in installations utilizing the requirements of
240.21(B)(3) whereby there may be several transformers in different locations
all tapped from one feeder and it may be impractical to de-energize the entire
feeder system to work on one of the transformers.

Qualified individuals do not find it impractical to de-energize, and as MH said: there were no documented cases of qualified individuals being injured.

iwire · Jan 8, 2011

radiopet said:
Head in the sand is personal?

I think he was talking about this. :grin:

radiopet said:
Divert the fact you have no clue.

Which was aimed at me.

My post was my view...and the codes view happens to agree but alas it does not gel with your view so you express your preceived power...heck ban me as you know you want to bob....

I have no power at all, and I have not used the edit or delete buttons in this thread.

don_resqcapt19 · Jan 8, 2011

radiopet said:
Oh boy...lies and personal attacks again...typical Iwire moderator response. Divert the fact you have no clue.

Paul,
That is totally uncalled for and way out of line.

don_resqcapt19 · Jan 8, 2011

radiopet said:
...any time I post here it gets personal by some of you.

That seems to be your fault...you seem to be unable to accept that others have differing opinions on what a code section means. And since you have such a problem with this site, maybe you should just stick to yours. This is a well run site and differing opinions are welcome. The only final binding opinion on what a code section means would be a court ruling should someone choose to take it that far.

My post was my view...and the codes view happens to agree

That is your opinion, but it is still just an opinion and no more valid than any other opinion posted on this or any other forum.

... but alas it does not gel with your view so you express your preceived power...heck ban me as you know you want to bob....george will be right with you but facts are fact....if you have opinions or interpretations of code then express it...and keep it as only that.

I think that you need to take your own advice here.

Absurdly Simple Question II: Transformers

Senior Member

Moderator

Moderator

Senior Member

Moderator

Moderator

Senior Member

Moderator

Moderator

Senior Member

Moderator

Senior Member

Moderator

Moderator

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator