Service lateral quick question

[olc]

The service main circuit breaker protects the service lateral (as well as the load side connections).
True of false?
(If a larger main circuit breaker is installed, the service lateral needs to be bigger?)

 

[RB1]

The service overcurent device provides overload protection for the service conductors.

 

[Strathead]

The service overcurent device provides overload protection for the service conductors.

Not from my terminology it doesn't.

Service conductors are the conductors from the service point to the service disconnect. The service disconnect offers protection on the load side of it, not the line side.

 

[Strathead]

The service main circuit breaker protects the service lateral (as well as the load side connections).
True of false?
(If a larger main circuit breaker is installed, the service lateral needs to be bigger?)

Not necessarily. The NEC only dictates the size of overhead service Entrance conductors which are not the service conductors, but a section of the service conductors. See the NEC definitions.

So, if you have an overhead service and the service entrance conductors aren't large enough to comply with the NEC, then that portion of the service conductors have to be changed. Any underground service conductors or overhead service conductors beyond the service entrance conductors are sized by different rules and may or may not need to be changed.

For example, here in Florida many of the underground service conductors are sized, installed and owned by the premise. The Electrical Engineers size them per NEC 310 tables. That results in a utility transformer that has a max output of say, 2,800 amps and service entrance conductors rated at 4,000 amps. In California, where I used to live, the same conductors are installed by the Utility company. I have seen 2 sets of 750 aluminum, feeding a 2000 amp service. If that isn't enough, they just come in and pull another set, since five conduits are installed.

 

[kwired]

The service overcurent device provides overload protection for the service conductors.

Not from my terminology it doesn't.

Service conductors are the conductors from the service point to the service disconnect. The service disconnect offers protection on the load side of it, not the line side.

Overload protection for the service conductors is provided, a device that protects from overload can be anywhere in a circuit as long as all current being monitored passes through that point. Not the same but similar - single phase motor overload protection is often just in one conductor of the circuit and can be most any point in the circuit because motor current is the same everywhere in the circuit.

What is not provided by service overcurrent device is short circuit and ground fault protection for the supply side.

.

 

[Strathead]

Overload protection for the service conductors is provided, a device that protects from overload can be anywhere in a circuit as long as all current being monitored passes through that point. Not the same but similar - single phase motor overload protection is often just in one conductor of the circuit and can be most any point in the circuit because motor current is the same everywhere in the circuit.

What is not provided by service overcurrent device is short circuit and ground fault protection for the supply side.

.

I stand corrected, as I didn't pick up the nuance you did.:slaphead: In defense though, I think the person using the word overload, wasn't expressing that nuance, and even more, I don't think the OP was asking the question with that level of nuance.

 

[david]

The service overcurent device provides overload protection for the service conductors.

I stand corrected, as I didn't pick up the nuance you did.:slaphead: In defense though, I think the person using the word overload, wasn't expressing that nuance, and even more, I don't think the OP was asking the question with that level of nuance.

Since he used both terms overcurrent and overload I thought in reading through this thread the distinction was deliberate.
Who knows could be wrong, but I do not have any reason to believe he wasn't deliberate

 

[Strathead]

Since he used both terms overcurrent and overload I thought in reading through this thread the distinction was deliberate.
Who knows could be wrong, but I do not have any reason to believe he wasn't deliberate

Phew, I had to look back and see... It wasn't the OP who used the term overload, he said protection.