Double pole switch

Status
Not open for further replies.
... this rule is more there for untrained people then any other reason.:blink: ...
It's entirely foreseeable that an untrained homeowner might replace a 240-volt air-conditioner receptacle; should we not implement simple rules to protect him from electrocution? The NEC exists to protect the life & property of everybody -- trained & untrained alike.

Tell me you've never encountered a MWBC fed from two independent breakers?
 
It's entirely foreseeable that an untrained homeowner might replace a 240-volt air-conditioner receptacle; should we not implement simple rules to protect him from electrocution? The NEC exists to protect the life & property of everybody -- trained & untrained alike.

Tell me you've never encountered a MWBC fed from two independent breakers?

Reread 90.1

90.1 Purpose.
(A) Practical Safeguarding. The purpose of this Code is
the practical safeguarding of persons and property from
hazards arising from the use of electricity. This Code is not
intended as a design specification or an instruction manual
for untrained persons.
 
Last edited:
It's entirely foreseeable that an untrained homeowner might replace a 240-volt air-conditioner receptacle; should we not implement simple rules to protect him from electrocution? The NEC exists to protect the life & property of everybody -- trained & untrained alike.

Tell me you've never encountered a MWBC fed from two independent breakers?
What Jumper said on the trained/untrained.

MWBC from independent breakers - as mentioned it was allowed - and I installed them that way all the time before the rule change.

Didn't even have breakers adjacent to one another sometimes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top