Signs

[augie47]

I was part of a long discussion today concerning 600.6.
We were unable to reach a conclusion about the disconnecting means.
600.6(A) indicates that each sign must have a switch within sight. It states further that if the switch is out of sight of any one section of the sign the switch must be lockable.
600.6(A) states the requirements for signs operated by an electromechanical or electronic controller and that disconnect must likewise be lockable.

The problem arises due to lack of the word "or". If one has an electromechanical controller with a lokable switch does that remove the requirement to have a switch in sight of the sign ?

 

[iwire]

Glad this question was asked, I don't know the answer.

 

[RichB]

ok here's how I read it--

The disconnecting means (switch) must be in sight of the sign and lockable--

If it has an external electronic or electro-magnetic controller then the if the controller has a disconnecting means that removes power completely from said controller and sign and is lockable then you do not need a switch with in sight of the sign as de-energizing the controller serves that purpose.

 

[GoldDigger]

I voted for in sight of controller only not because the language was clear but because the intent was discernible. It did not hurt that that the Handbook explicitly supports this view and restates the two provisions as alternative situations in which (1) implies a situations in which there is no controller and therefore (1) must apply since (2) does not apply and the disconnect has to be somewhere.

Section 600.6(A)(1) covers sign installations where the branch circuit or feeder is run directly to the sign.

If you look only at the actual wording of the code, it does look like two clauses, only one of which is conditional, and so the first one must always apply.
I wonder if the records of the CMP make the intent any clearer?

BTW, not explicitly considered by the Handbook is the situation in which the disconnect is located at the sign but is also in sight of the controller from that location. It seems like that is completely OK too.

 

[augie47]

When I consider the "intent" I also think about Art 430. The wording is similar but the requirement for a disconnect at the motor is not negated by the presence of a disconnect at the controller.
Is the purpose of the Art 600 controller disconnect related to working on the controller or the sign ?
IMO, definitely needs some clarification.

 

[RichB]

hmmmm You two make some great points--but until there is further clarification of intent --- I think I will still have to stand by my original thoughts--that if the branch circuit or feeder is run to a controller first and that controller has the ability to completely remove power and is lockable you do not need the switch -- I feel the only time 430 might apply would be with a sign that has a motor in it-- like one of those spinny ones-- then I would look closer and have a talk with the contractor and my other subject matter experts--:jawdrop:Hey--That's you guys!!!!:bye:

 

[augie47]

I agree
(as a side note, my reference to 430 was simply to point out the similarity between 430.102 where (A) is the controller and (B) motor with each having its own requirements. I was simply comparing the format with that of 600.6)

 

[charlie b]

At the moment, the voting is three ?no? votes to my one ?yes? vote. Been there before; will be there again. :happyyes:

I think the wording, as written (which may or may not match the CMP?s intent), tells me that I need a way to turn off the lights/sign, and I need to be able to see the disconnecting means as I stand near at least part of the lights/sign. If the lights/sign is so large that I can see the disconnecting means from one part of the lights/sign but not from all parts, then the disconnecting means must be lockable. What paragraph (2) brings to the table is the allowance for the disconnecting means to be part of, or even internal to, a controller. But that does not take anything away from paragraph (1). So my interpretation of the words, again as written, is that if the disconnecting means is part of the controller, then the controller must be within sight of the lights/sign.

 

[augie47]

charlieb, although I started to poll, I failed to vote so now there is another vote aside yours .
I still think the intent and perhaps the wording call for a switch at the sign. The main "wording" problem I have is with (A)(2) "The following shall apply for signs...operated by.. controllers"
Perhaps the intent is to comply with both (1) and (2). The switch must be within sight of the sign and IF the controller is also in sight then (2) would apply.

There very well may be no definite answer and all we will have is our opinions.

 

[cowboyjwc]

Actually the switch must be in sight of the power supply. So say you have a neon sign and the transformers are in the crawl space then the switch must be in the crawl space. If you have an LED sign and the power supplies are inside of the letters then you need the switch on or in the letters. That's from 600.6(A)(2). The second sentence in 600.6(A)(1) is saying that you can have a "time clock" control the sign as long as it is capable of being locked in the open position and that the provision for locking it open must remain in place whether the lock is installed or not.

 

[augie47]

Actually the switch must be in sight of the power supply. So say you have a neon sign and the transformers are in the crawl space then the switch must be in the crawl space. If you have an LED sign and the power supplies are inside of the letters then you need the switch on or in the letters. That's from 600.6(A)(2). The second sentence in 600.6(A)(1) is saying that you can have a "time clock" control the sign as long as it is capable of being locked in the open position and that the provision for locking it open must remain in place whether the lock is installed or not.

I think your (A)(1) and (A)(2) may be reversed but I understand that answer. From the information I gained today from here and other sources it appears that the consensus of opinions is that, as you stated, (A)(2) references a controller and IF it is used as a disconnect it must open all circuits and it must be capable of being locked in the OFF position or have a disconnect mans in sight of it that can be.
(A)(1) allows the switch to be out of sight if lockable. Most folsk I talked with felt this applied to one section or more than one section.
Again the above is a CONSENSUS of opinions gleamed from many sources,
one may or may not agree and the wording, IMO, leaves room for debate.

 

[cowboyjwc]

No (A)(2) is within sight of the controller (power supplies, transformers) and (A)(1) is within sight of sign.