mstrlucky74
Senior Member
- Location
- NJ
Guys is it possible with an Ilsco or Polaris type tap block to go from 6 sets to 8 sets as shown? Thanks.
Increasing Sets & Tap
- Thread starter mstrlucky74
- Start date
- Status
ron
Senior Member
- Location
- New York, 40.7514,-73.9925
https://commerce.ilsco.com/e2wShopp...k=2100001183:3100012208:3100012512:3100012872
They have them up to 14 ports, so it seems possible to have 6 incoming and 8 outgoing in the same tap connector
Edited, actually, maybe not " For multiple inputs, the inputs must be staggered with outputs to allow for ampacities to be additive per NEC Table 310.16 and 310.17"
mstrlucky74
Senior Member
- Location
- NJ
How would the 14 port work if I have 28 conductor coming in(actually what about the grounds??) that would make it 5x6 sets...30 conductors getting tapped to the 8 sets.
Alternating incoming and outgoing would only permit 6 in, 7 out at best.
- Location
- Placerville, CA, USA
- Occupation
- Retired PV System Designer
But 6-8 or 8-6 may be allowed at a reduced ampacity, lower than nominal.
ron
Senior Member
- Location
- New York, 40.7514,-73.9925
It's one connector per phase (and one for neutral and one for ground)
As mentioned in my original response, this instruction on the website is the problem "For multiple inputs, the inputs must be staggered with outputs to allow for ampacities to be additive per NEC Table 310.16 and 310.17"
wwhitney
Senior Member
- Location
- Berkeley, CA
- Occupation
- Retired
How about using (2) 7 port connectors for each phase?
Cheers, Wayne
Cheers, Wayne
- Location
- Massachusetts
No, they must all land on the same termination or we are into violations.
winnie
Senior Member
- Location
- Springfield, MA, USA
- Occupation
- Electric motor research
I'd suggest contacting ilsco, to ask what their engineers think of the situation.
Going between 8 and 6 conductors you can _almost_ alternate, going AbAbAbAAbAbAbA. Their engineers might be able to 'bless' this arrangement as acceptable.
What size conductors are you joining?
Presumably the amp ratings given on the spec are for the terminal blocks, not for the conductors. The #4 terminal block has a 95A rating, but can accept 14awg wire. So perhaps if you joining (say) 350kcmil conductors, but you use a 750 size terminal block, maybe the connection would be acceptable.
-Jon
Going between 8 and 6 conductors you can _almost_ alternate, going AbAbAbAAbAbAbA. Their engineers might be able to 'bless' this arrangement as acceptable.
What size conductors are you joining?
Presumably the amp ratings given on the spec are for the terminal blocks, not for the conductors. The #4 terminal block has a 95A rating, but can accept 14awg wire. So perhaps if you joining (say) 350kcmil conductors, but you use a 750 size terminal block, maybe the connection would be acceptable.
-Jon
wwhitney
Senior Member
- Location
- Berkeley, CA
- Occupation
- Retired
So, (2011) 310.10(H)(2)(5) says that parallel conductors must "Be terminated in the same manner." I'm just trying to figure out what that means. Certainly if they all are terminated on the same connector that fits the bill. But does the language require them to be terminated on the same connector?
Physics-wise, any properly symmetric arrangement will work, and so the question is whether that would be considered to be terminated in the same manner. The simplest case would be converting from 2 parallel sets to 4 parallel sets, with each conductor of the parallel set of 2 connected to 2 conductors of the parallel set of 4.
Cheers, Wayne
- Location
- Massachusetts
It's a matter of overcurrent protection, if all the conductors do not terminate together you are no longer in pararallel. I am not explaining this well but it is the deal.
Yes, but we are talking about converting 6 sets to 8 sets in the middle of the run, not at the end. They are eventually terminated together, so I think we still have parallel runs.
So with two 7 port Polaris connectors per phase, we would be converting (2) run of 3 sets to (2) runs of 4 sets. Not sure I explained that right. We would basically have (2) parallel runs, with each run consisting of (3) sets of wire connected to (4) sets of wire.
It would be unconventional for sure, but for the sake of argument, I'm not sure I see the violation if everything is terminated so all the parallel sets that are just the same?
- Status