Sirhc
- Thread starter sirhc
- Start date
- Status
- Location
- Logan, Utah
There is no specified distance that a controller must be from a motor, unless the controller is also being used as the motor disconnecting means.
The disconnecting means for a motor must be within sight from the motor. (Less that 50 feet)
Chris
The disconnecting means for a motor must be within sight from the motor. (Less that 50 feet)
Chris
- Location
- Lockport, IL
- Occupation
- Semi-Retired Electrical Engineer
I suppose that once you get over a couple hundred miles or so away, voltage drop might start becoming an issue. 
:grin: But the NEC does not have a limit for the distance between a motor and its controller.
Both the motor and the controller need to have a disconnecting means, and it has to be within sight (i.e., 50 feet maximum) of the device that it disconnects. But they don't have to be close to each other.
:grin: But the NEC does not have a limit for the distance between a motor and its controller. Both the motor and the controller need to have a disconnecting means, and it has to be within sight (i.e., 50 feet maximum) of the device that it disconnects. But they don't have to be close to each other.
charlie b said:I suppose that once you get over a couple hundred miles or so away, voltage drop might start becoming an issue.
Both the motor and the controller need to have a disconnecting means, and it has to be within sight (i.e., 50 feet maximum) of the device that it disconnects. But they don't have to be close to each other.
charlie ???
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician
augie47 said:
Something wrong with Charlie's statement?
- Location
- Lockport, IL
- Occupation
- Semi-Retired Electrical Engineer
Was my wording not clear? Let me try again.
(1) The controller needs a disconnecting means. It must be within sight of the controller. 430.102(A).
(2) The motor needs a disconnecting means. It must be within sight of the motor. 430.102(B).
(3) Item #1 need not be close to Item #2.
Did I get some part of that wrong? It's not impossible, as motors are not my best friends, and 430 is not my favorite bedtime story.
(1) The controller needs a disconnecting means. It must be within sight of the controller. 430.102(A).
(2) The motor needs a disconnecting means. It must be within sight of the motor. 430.102(B).
(3) Item #1 need not be close to Item #2.
Did I get some part of that wrong? It's not impossible, as motors are not my best friends, and 430 is not my favorite bedtime story.
Perhaps I should have begun with "The motor and the controller each need," instead of "both . . . need." It might have made my meaning clearer.charlie b said:
Last edited:
charlie b said:Was my wording not clear? Let me try again.
(1) The controller needs a disconnecting means. It must be within sight of the controller. 430.102(A).
(2) The motor needs a disconnecting means. It must be within sight of the motor. 430.102(B).
(3) Item #1 need not be close to Item #2.
Did I get some part of that wrong? It's not impossible, as motors are not my best friends, and 430 is not my favorite bedtime story.
Perhaps I should have begun with "The motor and the controller each need," instead of "both . . . need." It might have made my meaning clearer.
Not "wrong" per se, but, per 430.102(B) I believe as long as the disconnect means is individually lockable, it does not have to be "in sight of the motor"..
It is fairly commonplace in these parts to have a lockable disconnect at the controlller..which satisfies the motor disconnect rule.
- Location
- Lockport, IL
- Occupation
- Semi-Retired Electrical Engineer
True, there are two exceptions that allow a remote (locable) disconnect, but I don't encounter them often myself.augie47 said:
In that case, now returning the original question, that disconnect would have to be in sight (50 feet max) of the motor.augie47 said:
Last edited:
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Gus,augie47 said:
The execption that permits the remote lockable disconnect is very limited. In the past the exception applied to almost all installations, now for the most part it is limited to industrial installations with a written lockout procedure.
charlieb, now I am confusing myself. I think you have just taught an ole dog a new trick. I am accustomed to the lockable controller disconnect being used as the motor disconnect (even if it's out of sight of the motor).
This has been a practice in the areas to which I am familiar, however, they qualify under excpetion (b) to the 430.102(B) rule.
I'm unsure when the qualifying exceptions were 1st introduced (it appears to have been in '02), but I failed to note them and thought the "lockable" was without qualifications.
You have corrected my thinking and I apologize for questioning your answer without first verfiying my thoughts.
edit: Don, Thanks..I was typing my "apology" as you were enlightening me.
Old age and "standard practice" can be a bit of a trap
(a few E/Cs are going to be unhappy that I have learned something else new)
This has been a practice in the areas to which I am familiar, however, they qualify under excpetion (b) to the 430.102(B) rule.
I'm unsure when the qualifying exceptions were 1st introduced (it appears to have been in '02), but I failed to note them and thought the "lockable" was without qualifications.
You have corrected my thinking and I apologize for questioning your answer without first verfiying my thoughts.
edit: Don, Thanks..I was typing my "apology" as you were enlightening me.
Old age and "standard practice" can be a bit of a trap
(a few E/Cs are going to be unhappy that I have learned something else new)
Last edited:
- Status