- Location
- Wisconsin
- Occupation
- PE (Retired) - Power Systems
So, do you plan to include one of these devices on all the panels you install from now on?
General requirements 110.26
- Thread starter pulsar69
- Start date
pipe_bender
Member
- Location
- Boston
- Occupation
- Electrician
Haha no way, I am many many levels below the guy that specs panels! (I bend pipe not an EE) I had to sleep thru a 8 hour safety training in a multi million dollar facility that had them and we're outside contractors, but thats what the safety trainer bragged about.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
If I was still working, for sure they would be on any equipment where the incident energy would be 40 cal or higher.
- Location
- Wisconsin
- Occupation
- PE (Retired) - Power Systems
Especially if i had any say in it.
Didn't Panduit offer one of the first ones, almost 10years ago?
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
They did, but as far as I know the one from Grace is the only one listed for the purpose of verifying absence of voltage.
pulsar69
Member
- Location
- United States
NoDid the inspector buy what you’re selling?
I don't understand this mentality. So inspectors should be coddled even when they are wrong? Bow down because they have some authority?
I guess you missed the part that the inspector is correct, so with his hammer the issue is handled. If the inspector was blatantly wrong the OP would have something to use for ammo. If you had been here for a little longer you would know that I would not just bow to an inspectors wishes.
I didn't miss that part. I responded to what you said. You said, "the inspector has the bigger hammer (leaving the fact that he is correct out of the equation)".
My parentheses was not relevant, go back to the first few posts. If the inspector was wrong the OP could challenge and win but with the wording of the article section (regardless of whether it could be improved) is the hammer
Here are a couple illustrations that may help.
Here are a couple illustrations that may help.
Right, I'm not quibbling with that at all. I'm only commenting on your part. I believe the inspector is correct and the OP doesn't have a chance.
We're in agreement.
pulsar69
Member
- Location
- United States
My panel is consistent with illustration that's labeled 110.26(A)(2) and with the comment under the illustration
That's not what you said in your first post. You said 36 x 24 and then you added the 24" deep. The illustration calls for 30" width minimum.
pulsar69
Member
- Location
- United States
Hey Roger, where did you get those illustrations, they are not in the2023 handbook or regular code book, but the first illus..describes my situation exactly
Google search for the code section illustrations. The first is from Mike Holt.
pulsar69
Member
- Location
- United States
In my first post I said the depth was 24",and the panel was recessed in the stud space in the long demension.The width is the length of a line running parallel to the top of the panel..36".The illustration 2576822 fits my situation.
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
- Occupation
- EC
Regardless of illustrations 30 inch minimum width has been in the NEC wording for a very long time.
And the handbook is not an official NFPA interpretation of any content that may be published, it is just the opinions of those that wrote that content. The handbook even says this in it's front matter section of the publication. That said it is usually written by people with pretty fair knowledge of things in this industry. Mistakes do happen at times as well and get published before they are noticed. Even NEC itself has mistakes from time to time. They do have what they call errata information on NFPA website that lists all mistakes that were found and it mentions publication dates that it applies to as not every copy will have these mistakes since they corrected them in future publication dates. I don't know about the handbook but they very possibly have such data for that as well.