Misuse of Equipment

[weressl]

I'm telling you that this stuff even comes with instructions stating to mount it inside the panel.

I challenge you this:
Find any specific instruction in the panelboard cabinet literature, the phase coupler literature, or the NEC that prohibits the mounting of the phase coupler in the panelboard cabinet. You will find none. Find anything in any of that literature that states that a panelboard is the only thing permitted to be mounted in a panelboard cabinet. You will find nothing of the sort. You're just another grumpy old guy trying to remain relevant.

The more you talk the stupider will you look, so just carry on Bubba....

 

[iwire]

The more you talk the stupider will you look, so just carry on Bubba....

Good job, if you can't prove your point with facts go with the insults, always an effective tactic. :grin:

 

[weressl]

Don't come in at this point and think you'll save the day. :grin:

The unit is not listed equipment, the diagram is nothing more then a suggestion.

The unit IS the manufacturers instruction. Not following it will grant you liability REGARDLESS if it listed or not.

If it is not listed you shouldn't install it to begin with so the whole argument is mote.

PS: there is a difference between then and than. Use it

 

[weressl]

Good job, if you can't prove your point with facts go with the insults, always an effective tactic. :grin:

Just look back who started with the insult about 'old' and 'relevance'.

 

[joe tedesco]

AGAIN NO!

I received a reply from UL and Schneider Electric today asking if this was allowed and here's their reply:

QUESTION: Here's the reference that makes the installation a violation!
312.8 Enclosures for Switches or Overcurrent Devices. Do you agree?

ANSWER: Joe: Yes, plus 110.3(B) since the panelboards are not designed for extra equipment that have not been listed as an accessry for inclusion in the panel.

For more information about UL, its Marks, and its services for
EMC, quality registrations and product certifications for global
markets, please access our web sites at http://www.ul.com and
http://www.ulc.ca or contact your local sales representative. --

---------------------------------------------------------

QUESTION: Do you allow this type of product in your cabinets with panelboards? I believe NEC Section 312.8 and 110.3(B) are being violated.

ANSWER: Joe after looking at the picture, the answer is no we do not!

Thanks for contacting us here at Schneider Electric. Your business is important to us.

Regards,
Schneider Electric
888-778-2733

 

[joe tedesco]

Follow The Instructions

Follow The Instructions

2. Install the coupler into a suitable workbox or equivalent enclosure using the two mounting holes.

110.2 Approval.

The conductors and equipment required or permitted by this Code shall be acceptable only if approved.

FPN: See 90.7, Examination of Equipment for Safety, and 110.3, Examination, Identification, Installation, and Use of Equipment. See definitions of Approved, Identified, Labeled, and Listed.

NOT APPROVED! Joe Tedesco
​

 

[mdshunk]

Just look back who started with the insult about 'old' and 'relevance'.

I didn't know old was an insult.

 

[mdshunk]

The more you talk the stupider will you look, so just carry on Bubba....

All you have to do is find the text that prohibits this installation. So far, you havn't shown any text that prohibits this. The way I see it, my suit and tie trump your golf shirt, therefore I win.

 

[frizbeedog]

Take a Chill Pill

Take a Chill Pill

All you have to do is find the text that prohibits this installation. So far, you havn't shown any text that prohibits this. The way I see it, my suit and tie trump your golf shirt, therefore I win.

We're not going to have to separate you two, are we?

Calm down folks. Has ego reared it's ugly head and said we have to win the debate through insults?

From what I've read. Netheir position is winnable. Maby that's why everyone's so upset.

Marc, the code cannot be the only media which determines the suitability for the installation of a product. You cannot simply say that since the code does not prohibit it, that all other information about a product's intended use is to be ignored. If that's indeed your position.

I write this wearing my tuxedo.

 

[mdshunk]

Marc, the code cannot be the only media which determines the suitability for the installation of a product. You cannot simply say that since the code does not prohibit it, that all other information about a product's intended use is to be ignored. If that's indeed your position.

I havn't said that at all. There's absolutely nothing from anyone (save for a couple emails) that prohibits this install. The most you can say is that they didn't use the mounting holes. So far, nobody has cut and pasted any specific text from any piece of documentation that specifically prohibits this. Lacking that, it's permitted.

 

[frizbeedog]

I havn't said that at all. There's absolutely nothing from anyone (save for a couple emails) that prohibits this install. The most you can say is that they didn't use the mounting holes. So far, nobody has cut and pasted any specific text from any piece of documentation that specifically prohibits this. Lacking that, it's permitted.

...so nothing in this PDF led you to believe that the manufacturer intended for it to be mounted in a separate box? Let's ask them. They might have somting to say about it. They deserve a stint in the dock.

 

[BackInTheHabit]

What about it?

What instruction that is part of the listing or labeling being violated?

I typed the wrong section in that post.

I meant to say: What about 110.3(A)(1-8)

Doesn't the installation violate this section in one or more areas? I realize the item installed isn't listed or labeled. As far as that goes I agree. As far as I'm concerned it violates most of 110.3(A)(1-8).

But I'm sure you will disagree.

 

[mdshunk]

...so nothing in this PDF led you to believe that the manufacturer intended for it to be mounted in a separate box? Let's ask them. They might have somting to say about it. They deserve a stint in the dock.

They probably did intend to have it in a seperate box, but due to poor word choice on their part, they didn't prohibit mounting it in the panelboard cabinet. The panelboard cabinet is certainly an equivalent enclosure.

 

[frizbeedog]

They probably did intend to have it in a seperate box, but due to poor word choice on their part, they didn't prohibit mounting it in the panelboard cabinet. The panelboard cabinet is certainly an equivalent enclosure.

I agree with that. Thank you sir.

 

[joe tedesco]

I received permission from the company to post the first message as follows:

I received permission from the company to post the first message as follows:

I received permission from the company to post the first message as follows:

"Joe -

The product is not installed to the National Electrical standards. It should be mounted in a Junction box out side of the Main breaker panel with the connections made in that box and then wired into the Main panel.

I have attached the installation manual for your records.

Will it work. the answer is yes. PCS builds these items with a plastic enclosure because we know what the installers do in the field.

Who installed this item for you?

Regards,​

Scott Klodowski
Director of Sales & Marketing
Powerline Control Systems, Inc.


This e-mail and any attachment are intended for the above named recipient(s) only and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete the message. Failure to maintain the confidentiality of this e-mail and any attachment may subject you to penalties under applicable law."

 

[BackInTheHabit]

What he said!

What he said!

:grin:

 

[mdshunk]

The product is not installed to the National Electrical standards. It should be mounted in a Junction box out side of the Main breaker panel with the connections made in that box and then wired into the Main panel.

I would thank him for his opinion, and tell him that the NEC does not prohibit what is pictured. The NEC could potentially prohibit this, via 110.3(B), if the manufacturer got their act together.

 

[iwire]

Notice the manufacturer cited no NEC section.

It is not an NEC violation.

 

[BackInTheHabit]

Notice the manufacturer cited no NEC section.

It is not an NEC violation.

So, using that logic:

If a police officer pulls you over and gives you a ticket for speeding, but does not cite a law regarding speeding, does that mean you were not speeding? Does it mean there is no law against speeding? Does it mean you are not required to obey all traffic laws?

 

[roger]

I would thank him for his opinion, and tell him that the NEC does not prohibit what is pictured. The NEC could potentially prohibit this, via 110.3(B), if the manufacturer got their act together.

And I wholeheartedly agree, his opinion is just that and nothing more.

I could still have an enclosure made and install the SQ D panel in it and in doing so take SQ D out of the picture for this conversation.

SQ D is more than happy to put their items in others enclosures so why do they object to this?

Heck, just use C-H :grin:

Roger