It is a type of handle tie, but it is not what makes them common trip or multipole breakers.If you ask me, the bar connecting the two poles of most two-pole breakers is a handle tie. It's kind of ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
We are mixing things up. The OP wanted to know if a two pole breaker is allowed on a MWBC. It is, without a doubt.
You and I and Bob are arguing about using switches.
Does your ahj not realize the nec is a permissive text and actually works the opposite way he thinks it does? If it doesn't say you can't then you can.Thanks Dave. I see that but reading item 1 which references multi wire branch circuits, it doesn't say a 2 pole can be utilized in a multi wire branch circuit. I'm going to speak with our AHJ. If the book doesn't specifically state it, he doesn't allow it.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Well you and Bob are crazy so I just skipped over your comments. Actually in the handbook it does say that you may use a 2-pole switch. The code language on the other hand does not mention it.Yes because Bob brought that up and I thought there was something I was missing in the NEC. I was asking how he came to that interpretation. I don't see it
I would certainly think that a dp switch would be okay I just don't see the wording. That is why I was asking if there was an exception somewhere. Oh well.Well you and Bob are crazy so I just skipped over your comments. Actually in the handbook it does say that you may use a 2-pole switch. The code language on the other hand does not mention it.
I agree but that was not my point. I would imagine most inspectors would allow it rather than force a panel change but I bet there are some inspectors who wouldn't. Might be a worthwhile proposal.I see using a switch as a practical solution to meet code on old fuse panels.
And I don't see any wording requiring the overcurrent device to open all poles.
I am not saying that the code says one must use a breaker nor does it say one cannot not use a switch. The problem is the way it is worded. "Near, beside, or close to" are not the same as "at".The source is at the OCPD locating a switch beside the panel is at the source
If they meant specifically the OCPD had to open all poles that is what it would say as it does in say aticle 240.
This whole idea that it must be a breaker really blows my mind. Never have I heard anyone express that opinion before this thread.
I cannot wrap my head around it in the least.
That may be your opinion, but IMO no. This may have been the intent, but the words as written do not specifically state such.The source is at the OCPD locating a switch beside the panel is at the source
http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=103750&p=910075#post910075I think they needed to leave an option for MWBCs that are supplied from old fuse panels.
Yes, my words in 2008 saying the same thing I am saying now.
There is nothing in the wording preventing up the use of a switch.
The CMP feels differently.We will have to disagree. The source isn't the switch no matter how you look at it. The source of the circuit is at the overcurrent protective device.
2-32 Log #598 NEC-P02 Final Action: Reject
Submitter: Herbert S. Pharo, Cape May, NJ
Recommendation: Revise text as follows:
Each multiwire branch circuit shall be provided with a means that will
simultaneously disconnect all ungrounded conductors nearest At the point
where the branch circuit originates.
Substantiation: The problem is that the point where the branch circuit originates is at the overcurrent protective device. Nearest as used in 230.70(A) (1).
The new word will make it clear that the disconnect need not be overcurrent protective device.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The term “nearest” is vague and unenforceable. The present language is clear and enforceable by the authority having jurisdiction.
Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12
No, that would not be at the source that would be a 100' away.In your scenario I can have a switch 100 feet from the panel and it would be compliant since no distance is given.
I am not going to change my mind, the CMP sees it like I do (or I see it like they did) OTH what you are suggesting is not supported by the words in the section.Using Charlie's Rule I honestly cannot see it any other way -- obviously you do so we will have to agree to disagree.
Where are you working in NC and is this a state job? Your experience is not the norm.Appreciate all the professional opinions. The AHJ allowed the use of a DP breaker. To comment on the statement if the NEC doesn't say you can't then you can didn't work here in NC.