means of disconnect for a motor

[charlie b]

I have raised other points that you choose not to address. Usually in court you do not have that luxury.

As I said, in court you would not have the luxury of ignoring other relevant points I've raised and you failed to address.

I have gone back and looked, and I did not see any point you made that I have not already addressed. So I am going to invoke ?Charlie?s Rule?: The code says what it says. And what it says is that the disconnecting means must be in sight.

Now if you wish to say, as an example, that in a particular installation the ?disconnecting means? consists of four components (e.g., a shunt trip button, a breaker, the conductors between them, and the power source that actuates the shunt trip), I can accept that. But having declared this ?set of components? to be the ?disconnecting means,? we return to the words in the code: the disconnecting means must be in sight. Whatever constitutes the ?disconnecting means,? be it one component or a set of components, the disconnecting means must be in sight.

You might as well say that if three of the components (namely the button, the breaker, and the power source) are in another room, and the fourth component (namely the conductors) is run within sight of the motor, then you have satisfied the words in the code, because ?at least one portion of the disconnecting means is in sight.?

 

[pfalcon]

We have banned rotary through-the-door disconnects on the basis that when you lock out the disconnect with the door closed - then open the door - you are no longer locked out.

If the disconnect (shunt button) is the disconnecting means then it receives the lock. If you can go into the next room and override the button then the button is not a disconnecting means. It's just an off switch.

 

[weressl]

No, a remote control for the disconnecting means would be within sight.

Now, if the remote could prevent reenergization, that might be different.

Again, superfluous argument. Read the previous questions and asnwers relating to both points you're making.

Asked and asnwered.

 

[weressl]

I have gone back and looked, and I did not see any point you made that I have not already addressed. So I am going to invoke ?Charlie?s Rule?: The code says what it says. And what it says is that the disconnecting means must be in sight.

Now if you wish to say, as an example, that in a particular installation the ?disconnecting means? consists of four components (e.g., a shunt trip button, a breaker, the conductors between them, and the power source that actuates the shunt trip), I can accept that. But having declared this ?set of components? to be the ?disconnecting means,? we return to the words in the code: the disconnecting means must be in sight. Whatever constitutes the ?disconnecting means,? be it one component or a set of components, the disconnecting means must be in sight.

You might as well say that if three of the components (namely the button, the breaker, and the power source) are in another room, and the fourth component (namely the conductors) is run within sight of the motor, then you have satisfied the words in the code, because ?at least one portion of the disconnecting means is in sight.?

You did not answer the question concerning the remote handle.

A Court of Law with a panel of 12 non-technical jury members do not have the the same train of thought you and I.

If you haven't noticed I do agree with you what the Code should MEAN. I am arguing that it does not clearly say that and by not being specific the reasoning will be unarguable in court. The Code neither does spell out nor imply the intent of it's ruling. There is no reasoning WHY it should be within sight.

 

[charlie b]

You did not answer the question concerning the remote handle.

If you mean your post #9, I answered it in my post #11. Then you restated it again in your post 17, and I did not see the need to address it again. I will admit that I have never encountered a cable-operated breaker, and I do not really know what that would look like. But I strongly suspect that if I did see one, I would retain my opinion that the breaker itself being out of sight would violate the requirement, and that having the cable operator in sight would not be sufficient.

I also understand that you agree with what the code should say, and that are merely asserting that the present wording does not say what we think it should mean. But I do not agree. I think the present wording is clear enough. That is because I interpret the statement "the disconnecting means must be in sight" as requiring 100% of whatever constitutes "the diconnecting means" to be within sight.

 

[weressl]

If you mean your post #9, I answered it in my post #11. Then you restated it again in your post 17, and I did not see the need to address it again. I will admit that I have never encountered a cable-operated breaker, and I do not really know what that would look like. But I strongly suspect that if I did see one, I would retain my opinion that the breaker itself being out of sight would violate the requirement, and that having the cable operator in sight would not be sufficient.

Why not? What does the means of disconnect being in sight accomplishes? What is the logic?

 

[charlie b]

What does the means of disconnect being in sight accomplishes? What is the logic?

Peace of mind for the maintenance person, I suppose, being able to see the disconnect and have confidence that it is still open.

But of course, that does not matter, as you have already pointed out. What matters is the words, as written. I still see no words to the effect that only a portion of the disconnecting means must be in sight, and that other portions can be out of sight.

 

[weressl]

Peace of mind for the maintenance person, I suppose, being able to see the disconnect and have confidence that it is still open.

But of course, that does not matter, as you have already pointed out. What matters is the words, as written. I still see no words to the effect that only a portion of the disconnecting means must be in sight, and that other portions can be out of sight.

As I pointed out; the disconnect can be in sight, but the handle is invisible.

You see I grew up in a communist country and I am highly allergic to unreasonable and illogical rules. 'Just because it says so' is just not good enough for me nor should it for any red-blooded American. Meaningless rules are also demeaning to people’s intelligence and make them behave like unthinking automatons. People often behave better, perform better, produce better and cooperative when they see purpose and reason. Otherwise they see the Code as a burden.

I think we should fight for the Code to be reasonable and logical.