C1D2 Circuit Protection Device

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kitchy

New member
Location
Minnesota
Does anybody have any suggestions for a C1D2 labeled circuit breaker or fuse block for 120VAC, 5A. I see Weidmuller has some labeled fuse blocks but would prefer a breaker. Typically we build IS or purged panels. However, I now have an applciation for a panel in a C1D2 area but it only needs a small PLC, ethernet switch, and circuit protection. I'm hoping I can get away with just using C1D2 compoennts in a NEMA 4 enclosure and calling it good. I can find a labeled PLC and switch no problem but having trouble with the circuit protection.
 
Phoenix has a new 24VDC breaker listed for Div. 2. Search for p/n EC-E

Phoenix also has a "special" they do that packages an Airpax, FM rated breaker. It is good for 120VAC.

See attached.
 
bobgorno,
You've really peeked my interest.

We normally use a Bussmann Class CC Fuse holder and fuse. They're available from "Automation Direct" for about $10.00. The fuse is only a couple of $'s.

I tried looking up the model of the Phoenix switch you had the PDF file for but couldn't find it.

Do you have the model number of web site link?
 
You won't find it on their wesite. You'll have to contact one of the sales engineers directly with the part number. The distributors won't know where to look either.

Or you could buy directly from AirPax. You'll have to fabricate some kind of bracket to support the component as the AirPax approval is only good on their solderable J hook version, not their terminal version.
 
He?s a good friend, but at the time it happened, I could have strangled him when he Proposed deleting what had been Section 501.6(b) (4) in the NEC through my whole career until the ?99 NEC.
RECOMMENDATION: Delete all of Section 501-6(b)(4).
SUBSTANTIATION: Why are 10 circuit breakers/fuses considered safe in a general purpose enclosure and 11 are not? If the panel has information that would explain this inconsistency and would lead them to reject this proposal, please consider adding the panel statement as a Fine Print Note to Section 501-6(b)(4).
Click to expand...
I could have strangled the CMP members that bought into it with such a wimpy substantiation; especially when it wasn?t inconsistent and, in fact, it was a great teaching tool to show the underlying philosophy of many Division 2 concepts. It should not have been changed been treated as ?no more than 42 circuit breakers in a panel? until it was actually documented one way or the other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top