six hand-throws rule

Status
Not open for further replies.
hmspe said:
In Sight From (Within Sight From, Within Sight). Where this Code specifies that one equipment shall be "in sight from,'' "within sight from,'' or "within sight,'' and so forth, of another equipment, the specified equipment is to be visible and not more than 15 m (50 ft) distant from the other.
Click to expand...
Thanks. That was what I was thinking about.

hmspe said:
225.32 doesn't use or imply any of the terms listed.
Click to expand...
You are right, 225.32 does not use the phrase “in sight of.”

hmspe said:
50' away doesn't seem to qualify as "nearest".
Click to expand...
The rule is “readily accessible and nearest the point of entrance.” The rule allows us to put the disconnect outside the building, but it does not say the disconnect must be attached to the building. So how far outside is acceptable? That is a matter for the AHJ to decide.
 
I guess my original point was the op stated house and 225 does not state anywhere in it Dwelling units. So does 225 even apply to dwelling units? Or structures other then dwelling units?
 
The fact that 225 does not say "dwelling units," and that it does not give any other limitations to its applicability, tells me that it applies to all outside structures. I think it would be a common residential application of 225 to have a main panel in the house and a sub-panel in a detached garage.
 
Terrynistler said:
I guess my original point was the op stated house and 225 does not state anywhere in it Dwelling units. So does 225 even apply to dwelling units? Or structures other then dwelling units?
Click to expand...

"225.1 Scope

"This article covers requirements for outside branch circuits and feeders run on or between buildings, structures, or poles on the premises; and electric equipment and wiring for the supply of utilization equipment that is located on or attached to the outside of buildings, structures, or poles."

If a residence has multiple building, structures, or poles I believe Article 225 would have to apply. If the writers wanted residential exempted they would/should have listed a specific exemption. Saying that a Code article doesn't apply to residences because it doesn't specifically list residences is a very slippery slope.

Martin
 
I agree I still don't know why what the OP did is (not to code). If taken one way then five separate (structures) 40 feet away would all need separate disconnects if the sub panel was as he described. I do not read this in the art.

Just my opinion and I mentioned that I would not do it that way but do see it quite alot and apparently they all passed. So I was looking for the argument that it would not pass.

example 3 detached garages/shops and a house (which I have seen) fed off of the main on a pole, closest 15' furthest 95' feet. So by what is being explained they would all need disco's ahead of the sub panels attached to the structure itself?

Just trying to wrap my head around the scenario's that this could cover.
 
Terrynistler said:
If taken one way then five separate (structures) 40 feet away would all need separate disconnects if the sub panel was as he described. I do not read this in the art.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what the Article requires.

Each and every separate structure served with electricity is required to have a disconnecting means at the structure.
 
You still aren't convincing me that the disconnect needs to be on the building served. If you have a main panel in a commercial building and the sub panels are MLO, you would allow that right?

I also believe that a home is "under single management" as the only people that will be working on it are the HO or people hired by him.

Now of course you are talking to some one in the west where I can't even figure out why you would have the main on a pole located 50' from the house.
 
cowboyjwc said:
You still aren't convincing me that the disconnect needs to be on the building served.
Click to expand...

I agree.....it does not need to be 'on' or in the building.

But it does have to be nearest the point of entrance of the conductors.

There is no way that disconect at another building is nearest the point of entrance of the conductors feeding a second building.


225.32 Location.
The disconnecting means shall be installed either inside or outside of the building or structure served or where the conductors pass through the building or structure. The disconnecting means shall be at a readily accessible location nearest the point of entrance of the conductors. For the purposes of this section, the requirements in 230.6 shall be permitted to be utilized.
Click to expand...


As far as the exceptions I agree with the others...none of them can be used at a dwelling unit.
 
I also believe that a home is "under single management" as the only people that will be working on it are the HO or people hired by him.
Click to expand...

Yes, but do they have documented safe switching procedures and the installation is monitored by quilified individuals?

I don't know if there are many home owners that have documented safe switching procedures.:D

Chris
 
benaround said:
225.32

building or structure SERVED , this tells us the location.
Click to expand...

Not really.

It only tells us the disconect can be outside the structure served.

200' away is still outside the structure served.

IMO it is really the nearest the point of entrance of the conductors line that puts the nail in the coffin.
 
cowboyjwc said:
What if they don't enter the building? What if it's a surface mount panel?
Click to expand...


John I think that is exactly why they use the term outside the building or structure. IMO it means on the building exterior or you can go inside as near as possible to the feeders.

I really don't see this rule as much different from the main service on the first building.
 
cowboyjwc said:
What if they don't enter the building? What if it's a surface mount panel?
Click to expand...

What if a frog had wings?:wink:

Lets say you successfully argue that your feeders never enter the building and you don't need a disconnect.

Now you have a problem, you have to many branch circuits supplying the building.
 
I know that Charlie doesn't agree with me, but in my opinion "nearest the point of entrance" means exactly that....as close as is physically possible to the point where the conductors enter the building.
Don
 
1014150937_2.gif


You dont need a main breaker like the picture, but you still need a disconnect, even if you ran a 12-2 UF to a shed you would still need a disconnect at that building...
 
Last edited:
Bob:
In our area PG&E is so difficult to schedule that many people choose to install a meter pole on their property within the "free zone" for a utility drop. They install a "ranch panel" on the pole, a meter-breaker-panel, that also has a separate supply for a well ahead of the main breaker. They then feed the residence underground themselves, simply because it is cheaper than hiring PG&E to do the job and they can work around their own schedule.
 
Thanks everyone for a very interesting discussion. I'm not sure how it all falls out...Ultimately, I guess, it will be up to the AHJ, but at least I know now where the argument comes from.

Steve
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top