Greentagger
Senior Member
- Location
- Texas
- Occupation
- Master Electrician, Electrical Inspector
Appears the intent is for grounded conductors and ungrounded to originate from same panel per language in 300.3(B) and 300.3(B)(4).??
I bet most electricians have never seen a column width panelboard I know I haven't except for pictures, but I think the language of 300.3(B)(4) gives weight to the argument that there is no reason to extend the neutrals in the situation described in OP.Appears the intent is for grounded conductors and ungrounded to originate from same panel per language in 300.3(B) and 300.3(B)(4).??
What I see as an issue is that at some point some one may tie a new 120v branch circuit to that panle. They will see single pole breakers and and use it. Them what run the grounded conductor over to other panel or just tie it to the ground bar. If it was all two pole 240v loads like is done for HVAC equipment and no netural bar in panle with a lable then I would be ok with it.I can say in response to the feeder neutral being used for the purpose of the branch circuits is not compliant in this case.
200.6
I may self have never seen one and only recently learned about them. The one item with them is there is a through to the netural section. it is also an listed assembly.I bet most electricians have never seen a column width panelboard I know I haven't except for pictures, but I think the language of 300.3(B)(4) gives weight to the argument that there is no reason to extend the neutrals in the situation described in OP.
Why would that be a problem? There is a neutral feeder conductor in the new panel connected to it's neutral bus.What I see as an issue is that at some point some one may tie a new 120v branch circuit to that panle.
Everything? That’s what it says?What does that have to do with it? There is no inductive heating in this installation, the feeders and branch circuits negate any net currents.
Where do you see any inductive heating being caused if the feeder current negates the branch circuit current?Everything? That’s what it says?
AFAIK the rule was primarily written to prevent inductive heating, but maybe not worded well enough to indicate that. Some the conditions in the following subsections however do indicate this is the main reason for the rule.Everything? That’s what it says?
But if you don't run any of them...I can say in response to the feeder neutral being used for the purpose of the branch circuits is not compliant in this case.
200.6
Go back and read post #2 and tell me where or how that is not allowed. In this case the branch circuit neutrals are not being used in the nipple.All the language in 300.20? Word for word.
Where do you see any inductive heating being caused if the feeder current negates the branch circuit current?
IMO , the wording "where used" covers it. If the grounded conductor is not necessary (not being used) in a raceway it is not needed. If there were no other means of negating currents then I would say it is necessary.Electrically you don't need the neutrals run with the ungrounded conductors into the sub-panel because there is no inductive heating. However I don't see how not running them complies with 300.20(A).
I've always interpreted where used to mean if the circuit actually has a neutral, like a 120 volt circuit. For a 208 or 240 volt 2-wire circuit it is not used.IMO , the wording "where used" covers it. If the grounded conductor is not necessary (not being used) in a raceway it is not needed. If there were no other means of negating currents then I would say it is necessary.
Then that would mean switch loops would include them.I've always interpreted where used to mean if the circuit actually has a neutral, like a 120 volt circuit. For a 208 or 240 volt 2-wire circuit it is not used.
Then once again, how could we do as stated in post #2.But the grounded conductors are required in this circuit. It is a single phase 120V circuit? IMO . “All phase conductors “ could be interpreted as a 3 phase or single phase 240V circuit, without a neutral?