dual voltage from ocpd,referencing an old post.
- Thread starter rong111
- Start date
- Status
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: dual voltage from ocpd,referencing an old post.
Originally posted by peter d:
Roger, how dare you suggest that! You would fry an awful lot of equipment if that neutral ever opened!!
[ July 09, 2005, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: iwire ]
peter d
Senior Member
- Location
- New England
Re: dual voltage from ocpd,referencing an old post.
My mistak: I should have put this in:
I guess my sarcasm wasn't obvious. I do have a reputation as a Multiwire Crusader, after all. You can't believe I was serious, do you???
My mistak: I should have put this in:
I guess my sarcasm wasn't obvious. I do have a reputation as a Multiwire Crusader, after all. You can't believe I was serious, do you???
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: dual voltage from ocpd,referencing an old post.
I did and I was surprised given your past posts.Originally posted by peter d:
You can't believe I was serious, do you???
peter d
Senior Member
- Location
- New England
Re: dual voltage from ocpd,referencing an old post.
Well in that case, I guess the joke is on you. Thanks for the nifty diagram at any rate. Definitely code compliant, but common practice? I doubt it.
Well in that case, I guess the joke is on you.
Thanks for the nifty diagram at any rate. Definitely code compliant, but common practice? I doubt it.
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: dual voltage from ocpd,referencing an old post.
Originally posted by peter d:
Well in that case, I guess the joke is on you.
I guess it should have been more like this.
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: dual voltage from ocpd,referencing an old post.
I did not know we had that finger as an option.
I did not know we had that finger as an option.
hurk27
Senior Member
- Location
- Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
Re: dual voltage from ocpd,referencing an old post.
Peter
a quote from 225.30:
Peter
Yes we can :
a quote from 225.30:
While it not service its talking about but it is talking about the feed to a garage or other type of building.
Re: dual voltage from ocpd,referencing an old post.
lol. i thought this post was forgotten after the last time i posted. this has been pretty amusing. however, i am sorry it has been at milwaukeesteve's expense. i just decided to click on this today and it is 6 pages long. haha.
i think we can now understand several things much better!
1)if what i originally stated was not legal, neither would be a MAIN ocpd on 240/120 service!
2)steve may not understand what "common trip" means(sorry had to do it).
3)if you personally feel something is "not workmanlike" then don't do it! if the nec does not dissallow it and it is not otherwise unsafe, then don't tell other people NOT to do it!
finally, there is something called COST involved when we do a job! that is why this circuit and others like it are used. that is NOT to say that it is unsafe or against the nec. it is simply more cost effective within the realm of what is allowed!
nothing blew up. no one was hurt. nor will anyone ever be by this type of circuit! it is protected with a "common trip" ocpd!
now, if the unruley homeowner goes and pulls out the 1/2hp sump (which is more than powerfull enough). and installs a 5hp comercial unit. the ocpd will trip! and his basement will flood!
so.... hopefully he knows it is a 15 amp breaker(labled). or calls a professional to do the job.
this is no different than the overloading any other branch by a homeowner. and again, will be protected by the breaker!
now there shall be peace on earth!(ok, maybe thats asking a little too much...)
anyhow, the well and the sump are INSTALLED devices. even though the sump plugs into a recept.
it is unlikely (or stupid) for the homeowner to mess with them!
furthermore, i didn't even do this job! i was just asking about my doing this circuit in the future! and guess what? i will not be taking steves advice(no offense though steve).
this passed ahj. with SINGLE pole breakers! i did everyone a favor and told the sparky that did do the job to throw in a double. i confirmed that he indeed did so. all should be kosher now! unless you go ask steve i guess.
one other thing, the sum of the draw on the branch does not exceed 15 amps. however it does exceed 50% of that. which is ok since these units are not in continous duty(running 2 hours at a time or more). heck they run at the most 15 minutes at a time.
well i guess we can argue that in a nother thread if ya'll like. lol.
hey seriously though. i am not hating on steve. everyone can have their own opinion. it's a free country. if you dont like something don't do it. heck, go tell others not to do it. just don't tell them the law says they can't do it!
ron g.
lol. i thought this post was forgotten after the last time i posted. this has been pretty amusing. however, i am sorry it has been at milwaukeesteve's expense. i just decided to click on this today and it is 6 pages long. haha.
i think we can now understand several things much better!
1)if what i originally stated was not legal, neither would be a MAIN ocpd on 240/120 service!
2)steve may not understand what "common trip" means(sorry had to do it).
3)if you personally feel something is "not workmanlike" then don't do it! if the nec does not dissallow it and it is not otherwise unsafe, then don't tell other people NOT to do it!
finally, there is something called COST involved when we do a job! that is why this circuit and others like it are used. that is NOT to say that it is unsafe or against the nec. it is simply more cost effective within the realm of what is allowed!
nothing blew up. no one was hurt. nor will anyone ever be by this type of circuit! it is protected with a "common trip" ocpd!
now, if the unruley homeowner goes and pulls out the 1/2hp sump (which is more than powerfull enough). and installs a 5hp comercial unit. the ocpd will trip! and his basement will flood!
so.... hopefully he knows it is a 15 amp breaker(labled). or calls a professional to do the job.
this is no different than the overloading any other branch by a homeowner. and again, will be protected by the breaker!
now there shall be peace on earth!(ok, maybe thats asking a little too much...)
anyhow, the well and the sump are INSTALLED devices. even though the sump plugs into a recept.
it is unlikely (or stupid) for the homeowner to mess with them!
furthermore, i didn't even do this job! i was just asking about my doing this circuit in the future! and guess what? i will not be taking steves advice(no offense though steve).
this passed ahj. with SINGLE pole breakers! i did everyone a favor and told the sparky that did do the job to throw in a double. i confirmed that he indeed did so. all should be kosher now! unless you go ask steve i guess.
one other thing, the sum of the draw on the branch does not exceed 15 amps. however it does exceed 50% of that. which is ok since these units are not in continous duty(running 2 hours at a time or more). heck they run at the most 15 minutes at a time.
well i guess we can argue that in a nother thread if ya'll like. lol.
hey seriously though. i am not hating on steve. everyone can have their own opinion. it's a free country. if you dont like something don't do it. heck, go tell others not to do it. just don't tell them the law says they can't do it!
ron g.
milwaukeesteve
Senior Member
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI
Re: dual voltage from ocpd,referencing an old post.
OK, I am back. And I am so GLAD that these last few pages have been at my expense, Rong111.
240.20(B)(1) Except where LIMITED by 210.4, individual 1p breakers, with or without identified handle ties, shall be permitted as the protection of each ungrounded conductor of a multiwire branch circuits that serve ONLY single phase LINE TO NEUTRAL loads
240.20 (B)(3) for Line to Line loads in a 4WIRE 3PHASE SYSTEM.... individual single pole breakers WITH identified handles shall be permitted..
210.4(B)Multiwire Branch circuits and 210.7(B) multiple branch circuits that supply devices on the same yoke, a means to simultaneously disconnect the ungrounded conductors shall be provided...
210.4 (C) Line to neuutral loads only
exception (1)... that supplies only one piece of equipment (ie. dryer, range)
exception (2) Where all ungrounded conductors of a mwb circuit are opened simultaneously by the branch circuit overcurrent DEVICE.
In conclusion, I concede that a branch circuit that has 2 ungrounded conductors and a grounded conductor, but feeds a 240v load and a 120v load is legal.
However, there are limitations: exception (2) states that the OCP must be a device, not 2 seperate breakers that are handle tied together. 240.20(B)(1)and(3) also limit us to where and when we can use handleties with single pole breakers, and neither state that we can use 2 single pole breakers, handle tied, for 240 volt loads on a single phase system. 210.4(B) tells us when we need handle ties, for same yoke installations.
Again, I concede that I was originally wrong. Yet, I was not the only one. I would still be careful, because this installation has limitations.
I am still keeping workmanlike manner in my back pocket, because anyone that does this should have real reasons, COST to the contractor and poor PLANNING by contractor are not real reasons. Rong111, costs should not be a factor as you see it in this instance. If the customer doesn't want to pay for proper installation, then don't do it. If the contractor forgot something and is trying to save his/her costs, then it is NOT workmanlike manner.
OK, I am back. And I am so GLAD that these last few pages have been at my expense, Rong111.
240.20(B)(1) Except where LIMITED by 210.4, individual 1p breakers, with or without identified handle ties, shall be permitted as the protection of each ungrounded conductor of a multiwire branch circuits that serve ONLY single phase LINE TO NEUTRAL loads
240.20 (B)(3) for Line to Line loads in a 4WIRE 3PHASE SYSTEM.... individual single pole breakers WITH identified handles shall be permitted..
210.4(B)Multiwire Branch circuits and 210.7(B) multiple branch circuits that supply devices on the same yoke, a means to simultaneously disconnect the ungrounded conductors shall be provided...
210.4 (C) Line to neuutral loads only
exception (1)... that supplies only one piece of equipment (ie. dryer, range)
exception (2) Where all ungrounded conductors of a mwb circuit are opened simultaneously by the branch circuit overcurrent DEVICE.
In conclusion, I concede that a branch circuit that has 2 ungrounded conductors and a grounded conductor, but feeds a 240v load and a 120v load is legal.
However, there are limitations: exception (2) states that the OCP must be a device, not 2 seperate breakers that are handle tied together. 240.20(B)(1)and(3) also limit us to where and when we can use handleties with single pole breakers, and neither state that we can use 2 single pole breakers, handle tied, for 240 volt loads on a single phase system. 210.4(B) tells us when we need handle ties, for same yoke installations.
Again, I concede that I was originally wrong. Yet, I was not the only one. I would still be careful, because this installation has limitations.
I am still keeping workmanlike manner in my back pocket, because anyone that does this should have real reasons, COST to the contractor and poor PLANNING by contractor are not real reasons. Rong111, costs should not be a factor as you see it in this instance. If the customer doesn't want to pay for proper installation, then don't do it. If the contractor forgot something and is trying to save his/her costs, then it is NOT workmanlike manner.
Re: dual voltage from ocpd,referencing an old post.
it takes a real man to admit he is wrong about something. anyways, i didn't mean any offense to you steve. i saw some people made a total joke out of this. i didn't go there.
that is the whole thing though, it has to be a "COMMON TRIP" breaker employed in this mwbc. anyone that reads the specs on this type of breaker will understand why. it is much different than handle ties. if one pole trips the other pole is going to trip, no matter what! it is an internal device not a tie. so you do not end up single phasing the 240 or powering the 120 when someone may think it is off. nuff said.
also, i kind of agree with you steve. some installers like to go the extra mile on everything. these type of people will install both
a 120 branch and a 240 branch for this. that MAY be a cleaner job in THEIR opinion. however, it is NOT nescesary.
again, i am sorry a lot of this was at your expense steve. i for one have nothing against you. heck i don't even know you!
ron g.
it takes a real man to admit he is wrong about something. anyways, i didn't mean any offense to you steve. i saw some people made a total joke out of this. i didn't go there.
that is the whole thing though, it has to be a "COMMON TRIP" breaker employed in this mwbc. anyone that reads the specs on this type of breaker will understand why. it is much different than handle ties. if one pole trips the other pole is going to trip, no matter what! it is an internal device not a tie. so you do not end up single phasing the 240 or powering the 120 when someone may think it is off. nuff said.
also, i kind of agree with you steve. some installers like to go the extra mile on everything. these type of people will install both
a 120 branch and a 240 branch for this. that MAY be a cleaner job in THEIR opinion. however, it is NOT nescesary.
again, i am sorry a lot of this was at your expense steve. i for one have nothing against you. heck i don't even know you!
ron g.
- Status