100124-1554 EST
Smart $:
Note that I qualified my comment by theory and logic.
That the code allows wires to a motor to be somewhat unprotected under some conditions does not mean it is the right way to do something. This exception is obviously to tolerate inrush current problems and still allow use of moderately inexpensive breakers, and smaller wire than what should be used for the wire. It is obviously a compromise from the ideal philosophy.
It is entirely possible to build a breaker to tolerate any type of inrush characteristic you desire. I did this as a development project for Mechanical Products in the early 1960s. As an example I could tolerate any desired inrush current for maybe 16 MS, then threshold within 1% of some desire rating after that. And of course today you could use any desired complex algorithm for the trip function.
Hameedulla-Ekhlas:
I agree with your three points.
philly:
That seems like a good example.
However, I generally favor protecting the load at the load.
Now consider an aircraft application. In the 60s this was Mechanical Products biggest market. Here you have many breakers located in an easily accessible location, the cockpit. Of primary importance is protection of the wiring. But because of the nature of an aircraft one might also use the breaker for protection of the load equipment, and thus undersize the breaker relative to the wire size.
.
