Misuse of Equipment

Misuse of Equipment

  • Total voters
    7
Status
Not open for further replies.
joe tedesco said:
Question: Is this product properly installed, and is it even listed?

NO!

Only some agree and those who don't can have their opinions, but I will stand firm, the issues are real and should not be misunderstood or given other scenarios or facts.

I am talking about the picture here, and the way in which the rules were originally developed and how they are to be interpreted.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry there couldn't be more of a consensus.:confused:

I don't believe the item is properly installed.

Can't find proof that the item is Listed. But still looking.
 
BackInTheHabit... a couple things you must know about Joe.
  • He's very passionate about the code
  • He'll do anything within reason for you
  • He's very passionate about the code
  • He is good intentioned
  • After he has his mind made up, it will not change

With that in mind, read the code for yourself, and draw your own conclusions. If these grey areas aren't clear to you, don't sweat it. They're probably not clear to other people either. It's more of a mental exercise than a life or death matter. Sleep well.

The most I can say about this is a phrase I might borrow from a recent presentation of Joe's. "That's not good!" It might be legal, but it's still not good.
 
Last edited:
Another thing you should know about Joe besides what Marc pointed out is, most times he'll only provide links or pictures that may or may not be relevant to the issue at hand, it is very seldom that he will provide any substantiation from his own words.

Roger
 
mdshunk said:
BackInTheHabit... a couple things you must know about Joe.
  • He's very passionate about the code
  • He'll do anything within reason for you
  • He's very passionate about the code
  • He is good intentioned
  • After he has his mind made up, it will not change

With that in mind, read the code for yourself, and draw your own conclusions. If these grey areas aren't clear to you, don't sweat it. They're probably not clear to other people either. It's more of a mental exercise than a life or death matter. Sleep well.

The most I can say about this is a phrase I might borrow from a recent presentation of Joe's. "That's not good!" It might be legal, but it's still not good.
Click to expand...

Based on his profile he does seem to be very knowledgable of the Code. He seems to have many years following the Code and even longer so than I've been alive.

What I can draw from the Code is that it IS a violation. I would like to have solid evidence to prove my side. I may find that evidence to the contrary however.

Would love to meet him someday, I'm sure it's been a pleasure for you to meet and know him. Would love to know if he is headed down this way.
 
roger said:
Another thing you should know about Joe besides what Marc pointed out is, most times he'll only provide links or pictures that may or may not be relevant to the issue at hand, it is very seldom that he will provide any substantiation from his own words.

Roger
Click to expand...

Interesting. Why may that be?
 
BackInTheHabit said:
That would be an: "If I tell you, I'd have to kill you!" response.
Click to expand...

No, it's more of a "I don't know if he actually has an argument" response. :wink:

Roger
 
mdshunk said:
BackInTheHabit... a couple things you must know about Joe.
  • He's very passionate about the code
  • He'll do anything within reason for you
  • He's very passionate about the code
  • He is good intentioned
  • After he has his mind made up, it will not change
With that in mind, read the code for yourself, and draw your own conclusions. If these grey areas aren't clear to you, don't sweat it. They're probably not clear to other people either. It's more of a mental exercise than a life or death matter. Sleep well.

The most I can say about this is a phrase I might borrow from a recent presentation of Joe's. "That's not good!" It might be legal, but it's still not good.
Click to expand...

Marc:

I live and breath the NEC, and I teach it four days every week around the country, and I have been doing so for many years.

I am not always right, and agree that sometimes I am wrong, but with the time I have spent from the 1965 NEC on, and with the involvement as a NFPA NEC and IAEI Staff Liaison, and with close ties too all of the committees I have learned a lot.

The original reason for that splice and fill rule was associated with feeders that were run from the basement to the top floors of apartment houses where the feeder was in a 3 inch RMC and passed straight through a pull box that was part of the cabinet that enclosed the panelboard. The supply was "Tapped" to the feeder 500 MCM's and terminated in the main lugs of the panelboard, this went on for each riser for all of the 101, 201 and 301, etc., apartments.

The main switch was below in the electric room that supplied each feeder and the use as a raceway was the original reasons for the rule, not for what it is being interpreted today.

I am sorry that some of my mentor's are dead, but if Bill Hogan, former Chief Electrical Inspector for Chicago and Chairman of CMP 9 was still alive he would set us all straight. I hope I have made myself a little clearer.

"That's not good!" :grin:
 
joe tedesco said:
I am sorry that some of my mentor's are dead, but if Bill Hogan, former Chief Electrical Inspector for Chicago and Chairman of CMP 9 was still alive he would set us all straight. I hope I have made myself a little clearer.
Click to expand...
I am sorry about that too, Joe. I would have loved some perspective from some of those fellows. Regrettably, they've left nothing in their legacy that prevents what you've shown in the image in your original post. I feel almost sure that's the sort of thing they hoped to have prevented, but nothing specifically prevents that... yet!

I know you don't take this personally, since we exchange private emails on a regular basis. I simply want to emphasize the point that if this really needs to be prevented, someone such as yourself, with certain clout and familiarity with the NEC style, really ought to draft a more specific proposal to prevent such installations.

I would like to consider myself to have above average intelligence, so I'm open to more code citations. At this point, however, it still seems clear this this is legal (according to the letter of the code text) even if it was always intended to be prevented. Me, personally, I have no problems with future code language that would prohibit such installations.
 
joe tedesco said:
Question: Is this product properly installed, and is it even listed?

NO!
Click to expand...

How about this?

Is this product, as installed violating the current NEC or is it unsafe?

Only some agree and those who don't can have their opinions, but I will stand firm,
Click to expand...

Nice Joe. a not so subtle suggestion that those that do not agree with you are not qualified? :roll:

How typical
icon13.gif


the issues are real and should not be misunderstood or given other scenarios or facts.
Click to expand...

As usual you have not provided any 'scenarios or facts' all you did was post a picture and say 'thats not how the old NEC makers wanted it'.


I am talking about the picture here, and the way in which the rules were originally developed and how they are to be interpreted.
Click to expand...

You have not talked about much, you posted a picture stated your opinion without any NEC references to back them up.

An electrical cabinet is designed to hold electrical equipment, there is no safety issue here.
 
Last edited:
312.8 Enclosures for Switches or Overcurrent Devices.

312.8 Enclosures for Switches or Overcurrent Devices.

Here's the reference that makes the installation a violation!

"312.8 Enclosures for Switches or Overcurrent Devices.

Enclosures for switches or overcurrent devices shall not be used as junction boxes, auxiliary gutters, or raceways for conductors feeding through or tapping off to other switches or overcurrent devices, unless adequate space for this purpose is provided. The conductors shall not fill the wiring space at any cross section to more than 40 percent of the cross-sectional area of the space, and the conductors, splices, and taps shall not fill the wiring space at any cross section to more than 75 percent of the cross-sectional area of that space.

COMMENTARY:

Most enclosures are intended to accommodate only those conductors connected to terminals for switches or overcurrent devices within the enclosures themselves. Where adequate space is provided for additional conductors, such as control circuits, the total conductor fill in the enclosure may not exceed 40 percent of the cross section of the wiring space in the enclosure and no more than 75 percent if splices or taps are necessary.

Application Example

If an enclosure has a wiring space of 4 in. wide by 3 in. deep, the cross-sectional area is 12 in.2 Thus, the total conductor fill (see Chapter 9, Table 5 for dimensions of conductors) at any cross section cannot exceed 4.8 in.2 (40 percent of 12 in.2), and the maximum space for conductors and splices or taps at any cross section cannot exceed 9 in.2 (75 percent of 12 in.2).

In general, the best way to avoid overcrowding enclosures is to properly plan and lay out work before installation and use properly sized auxiliary gutters (366.22, 366.56, and 366.58) or junction boxes (314.16 and 314.28). See 430.10 and the associated commentary for wiring space in enclosures for motor controllers and disconnecting means. See also 110.59 for tunnel installations over 600 volts."
 
mdshunk said:
This whole business of Square D not wanting anything mounted in their panels is bunk. The new automatic transfer panel gets 3rd party equipment mounted inside it. Powerlogic panels get weird stuff mounted inside them.
Click to expand...

You 100% correct and they get 3rd party listing and labeling
 
This whole issue comes down to the AHJ and you just can't fight it. The jurisdiction I spent most of my 35 years in followed ART. 90.7, 110.2, 110.3 (B) and all the FPN's attached. Non-listed equipment install inside any piece of electric equipment was just not allowed and still is not today unless listed by a 3rd party after install. SQ D states non -listed equipment violates thier listing and thefore violates thier warrenty. Take your chances, Your milage may vary.
 
Cavie said:
SQ D states non -listed equipment violates thier listing and thefore violates thier warrenty.
Click to expand...

You know we don't take anyones word on anything here.

Can you find any documentation for that.

Did you read this posted earlier?

SmithBuilt said:
Magnusson-Moss Warranty
Act prevents manufacturers from making warranties
contingent upon the use of their replacement parts, as
long as the third-party part is safe.

http://www.eaton.com/EatonCom/Markets/Electrical/Products/CircuitProtection/ResidentialCircuitBreakers/ClassifiedReplacementCircuitBreakers/index.htm
See the brochure on the right side.
Click to expand...
 
Cavie, I could have our local sheet metal fabricator build me a box and I could put a Sq D panelboard in it.

As a matter of fact, Sq D has recently quoted me a project that involves putting their panelboards in old Federal Pacific enclosures.

I'll post pictures tomorrow, they're at the office

Roger
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top