side stepping arc fault breakers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: side stepping arc fault breakers

Marc

I agree with you there is no mystery. I was mistaken in my definition of an Individual BC. As soon as I figured that out there was no question. The "specified" never was a question for me as I always undestood it as simply refering to a circuit. If you hadn't kept after me though I may never have figured out my misake about the different circuits, because I truly believed I was right.

Thanks again.......Mike
 
Re: side stepping arc fault breakers

What will we do with a "Branch Circuit" over 50 amps (not an "Individual BC")

Careful now. ;)

Roger
 
Re: side stepping arc fault breakers

Is this what your are refering To??

210.3
Exception: Multioutlet branch circuits greater than 50 amperes shall be permitted to supply nonlighting outlet loads on industrial premises where conditions of maintenance and supervision ensure that only qualified persons service the equipment.


Charlie
 
Re: side stepping arc fault breakers

Charlie, I'm not talking about the "Exception".

Roger
 
Re: side stepping arc fault breakers

The exception would appear to indicate that the largest recognized branch circuit is 50A(for other than individual). If not then why would there be an exception allowing a branch circuit larger than 50A in under the conditions listed.

Or are you implying What do we do with a BC larger than 50A" and the answer would be "red tag"

???

Charlie
 
Re: side stepping arc fault breakers

A red tag? Are you sure?

Roger
 
Re: side stepping arc fault breakers

well Roger, if they are in a bedroom, they don't require a.f.c.i. protection that is for sure.
 
Re: side stepping arc fault breakers

apauling,

Thanks for the assist on the grammatical term.
adjectival qualifying description for a noun.
Click to expand...
My recollection was weak on any name for what's going on, but, it's clear to me that "specified" is referring to an object, but the object is not clear.

cram,

Substituting "mentioned" doesn't really remove the ambiguity, as the object of mentioned is also several possible things. Leaving the word as "specified", I could argue, compellingly, I think, that the "specified overcurrent device" is that device connected to the "conductors of higher ampacity", i.e., the sentence is self contained.

cpal,

While I agree that the CMP intent of the section was probably as laid out in the middle sentence. . .that is, limiting the non-individual branch circuit OCPs to 15, 20, 30, 40 & 50, what I think the CMP meant is not the language that is given the force of law. Rather, the NEC, as written, is what must be enforced. And until a formal interpretation is released, "as written" is all that is enforced.

I note that the language of 210.3 is unchanged in the 2005 NEC, so, 210.3 will continue to be its imperfect self.
 
Re: side stepping arc fault breakers

Al I guess what I'm saying is the specified ocd still shall be 15,20,30,40,50,, it is this wording that allows a #10 on a 15 amp citcuit breaker.You don't even need a reason for running a wire of higher ampacity. the minuet you put the ocd on the wire you give it a rating, that rating stiil needs to comply.Who specifies the breaker does not matter it still must comply with the mandatory rule. this has been a great discussion , but my brain is starting to hurt, have a good day guys!
 
Re: side stepping arc fault breakers

If we must limit Branch Circuits to those listed in 210.3, how are we allowed to use note 4 to table 220.19 if we are serving a cook top and two ovens that would compute to 13.2 kw.
(Note this would not by definition be an "Individual Branch Circuit)

If we can use a 60 amp BC which is outside those listed in 210.3 what stops us from using a 10 amp BC?

We can't be selective, it must be allowed across the board.

Roger

[ January 29, 2005, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: roger ]
 
Re: side stepping arc fault breakers

My dear Roger, Bless your heart
220.19 is for ranges and pertains to ranges only. To use this thinking would allow the electrician to pig tail 14 awg to 12 awg for kitchen receptacles. Knowing the code book and how to find a phrase will not work when applying the intent.

Is the electrician allowed to use a 1600 amp Instantaneous Trip Breaker for a laundry circuit, the washing machine has a motor? Table 430.52

See how using one section of the code would not be allowed in another.
 
Re: side stepping arc fault breakers

My dear jw, what are you talking about? It doesn't matter that it is pertaining to cooking equipment it is also specifically addressing a Branch Circuit.

Before you try to use the Motor argument, don't bother, this is already excluded in 210.1, no other article is mentioned

Knowing the code book and how to find a phrase will not work when applying the intent.
Click to expand...
I have searched and searched the code for years and I can't find your name as to being the definer of the intent, where might I find it? :D

Be sure to have your ducks in a row before you cross the street.

BTW, Bless your little heart too.

Roger
 
Re: side stepping arc fault breakers

Roger
My name is on the front cover of every code book here, in the truck, at the office and school. It is the first thing I do when I buy them, put my name on them.

Seeing how you read 210.1, did you read 220.1? When I read them is see that they are two different factions.

210.1 This article covers branch circuits except for branch circuits that supply only motor loads, which are covered in Article 430.
?Provisions of this article and Article 430 apply to branch circuits with combination loads.?

220.1 This article provides requirements for ?computing? branch-circuit, feeder, and service loads.

If you were referring to 210.19 (A) (3), again this is addressing Household Ranges and Cooking Appliances only.

If you choose to install a 10 amp over current device on a multioutlet circuit it is perfectly fine with me, I could care less. It is ?MY? opinion that this is not code compliant and I am only trying to point out why I feel this way. I mean no offense to you by doing this.

edited for spelling and to add

Roger
Using note four of 220.19 would be an Individual Branch Circuit because it states this can be counted as ONE range

[ January 29, 2005, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: jwelectric ]
 
Re: side stepping arc fault breakers

Originally posted by jwelectric:
Roger
My name is on the front cover of every code book here, in the truck, at the office and school. It is the first thing I do when I buy them, put my name on them.

That was not my question, do you also put authorized intent interpreter beside your name?

Seeing how you read 210.1, did you read 220.1? When I read them is see that they are two different factions.

They're scopes for different articles, why would you think they would be the same thing?

210.1 This article covers branch circuits except for branch circuits that supply only motor loads, which are covered in Article 430.
?Provisions of this article and Article 430 apply to branch circuits with combination loads.?

220.1 This article provides requirements for ?computing? branch-circuit, feeder, and service loads.

Notice; ?computing? branch-circuit, so if we compute a 240 v branch circuit of 13.2 KW you would have a branch circuit larger than 50 amp.

If you were referring to 210.19 (A) (3), again this is addressing Household Ranges and Cooking Appliances only.

And so once again, what do we do if we have 13.2 KW, the 50 amp limit seems to be out the window. It doesn't matter what it is addressing, it is a Branch Circuit that is outside the limits of 210.3.

If you choose to install a 10 amp over current device on a multioutlet circuit it is perfectly fine with me, I could care less. It is ?MY? opinion that this is not code compliant and I am only trying to point out why I feel this way. I mean no offense to you by doing this.

You don't sound as "Matter of Fact" as you did earlier.

edited for spelling
Click to expand...
Roger
 
Re: side stepping arc fault breakers

It is not me that is matter of fact, it is the National Electrical Code that is making these statements.

Bottom line is that a 10 amp overcurrent device on a multioutlet circuit is noncompliant. 210.3 says it all

In your 9:25 pm post you spoke of 220.19 note four - this is an Individual Branch Circuit read the note

From time to time people including myself think that we can outsmart those who are in charge of this code making process, but as usual, we are wrong.

I stand firm that a 10 amp multioutlet circuit is noncompliant
 
Re: side stepping arc fault breakers

Roger, we must and you can't.Unless it meets the exception to 210.3 or it is an idividual branch circuit.What is so hard to understand?
 
Re: side stepping arc fault breakers

Originally posted by jwelectric:
Bottom line is that a 10 amp overcurrent device on a multioutlet circuit is noncompliant. 210.3 says it all
Click to expand...
jw, bottom line is that there is no bottom line. :D

What we have here is all opinion.

Unless you have an official NFPA interpretation your opinion is as 'right' (or wrong) as anyones. :cool:
 
Re: side stepping arc fault breakers

Jw,
In your 9:25 pm post you spoke of 220.19 note four - this is an Individual Branch Circuit read the note
Click to expand...
please provide the wording that says this note is refering to an Individual Branch Circuit.

Maybe you should heed your own advice and read it

My copy of the 02 says inpart, "The branch-circuit load for a counter-mounted cooking unit and not more than two wall-mounted ovens all supplied from a single (note it made a point not to say Individual Branch Circuit) branch-circuit".

This being the case, you should look at your post of January 23, 2005 08:05 PM .
Originally posted by jwelectric:

Branch Circuit, Individual. A branch circuit that supplies only one utilization equipment.
Click to expand...
.

Like Bob says, as bad as you dislike it, there is no bottom line. :D


Roger

[ January 29, 2005, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: roger ]
 
Re: side stepping arc fault breakers

I see that BC's legacy is that everyone thinks that they can debate the meaning of "is." While we're at it, let's toss aside a century of practice, ignore the trend to need MORE power, rather than less, and re-invent the wheel. Heck, I've got a set of strippera and went to a hardware-store clinic, so I must be a lawyer, too!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top