When a customer knows more then you do.

[weressl]

I intimately familiar with those definitions, you had said "Branch feeder" no such thing exists to the NEC.

Someday it might show that you are human if you actually admitted you made a mistake.

That was NOT the point, I freely admit that I used the term improperly. I do not claim to be an expert in the Code, but claim substantial technical knowledge and experience. You can build a system to the Code that will not work and the Code does not aid one iota in making it work.

The isssue was that you said the voltage drop should be 5%, whereas following the Code verbiage it clearly says it should be 3%.

My error was inconsequential for the substance of the issue, yours was substantiative. Are you willing to adimit that? Are you willing to admit that your error is due to lack of fundamental understanding how the system is built and supposed to work?
.

 

[iwire]

That was NOT the point, I freely admit that I used the term improperly.

Thank you

I do not claim to be an expert in the Code, but claim substantial technical knowledge and experience. You can build a system to the Code that will not work and the Code does not aid one iota in making it work.[

Without a doubt that can work out to be true but 25 years of observing a lot of installations tells me you really have to go out of your way to have that happen.

The isssue was that you said the voltage drop should be 5%, whereas following the Code verbiage it clearly says it should be 3%.

There is no code rule here, NONE, and the suggestion that is found in the NEC is 5% at the furthest point.

I also sincerely urge you to look at ANSI C84.1–1989 which clearly shows 90% of nominal at the motor and even 87.5% as OK but unfavorable

 

[iwire]

In case you missed it please Check out page 5 of this pdf http://www.pacificpower.net/File/File22465.pdf

 

[weressl]

Thank you

Without a doubt that can work out to be true but 25 years of observing a lot of installations tells me you really have to go out of your way to have that happen.

So following the Code will make any system operational at the first flick of the switch?

There is no code rule here, NONE, and the suggestion that is found in the NEC is 5% at the furthest point.

I also sincerely urge you to look at ANSI C84.1?1989 which clearly shows 90% of nominal at the motor and even 87.5% as OK but unfavorable

Several issues.

Nema design motors are allowed +/- 10% deviation from nominal supply. Any other voltages outside that limit are out of the design parameters. (The OP was talking about a motor.) Operate it at 87.5% and you have no recourse.

I have showed you by underlining in the Code paragraps that the cable in the OP's question meets the definition of the branch, therefore it is subject to the limit of 3% ACCORDING to the Code.

[FONT=Helvetica-Bold+2]

"3.2.3 Development of the voltage tolerance limits for ANSI C84.1-1989​

[/FONT][FONT=Times-Roman+2]

The voltage tolerance limits in ANSI C84.1-1989 are based on NEMA MG 1-1993, which established the voltage tolerance limits of the standard induction motor at ?10% of nameplate ratings of 230 V and 460 V. Since motors represent the major component of utilization equipment, they were given primary consideration in the establishment of the voltage standard."

​

[/FONT]

 

[iwire]

I have showed you by underlining in the Code paragraps that the cable in the OP's question meets the definition of the branch, therefore it is subject to the limit of 3% ACCORDING to the Code.

Laszlo, FPNs are not code, FPNs are just suggestions. Check out 90.5(C) to verify my assertion.

I have provide references, if you choose to ignore them thats fine, you design to higher standard and that is great, but we are not required to do so by the NEC or the motor manufacturers.

 

[iwire]

.

[FONT=Helvetica-Bold+2]

"3.2.3 Development of the voltage tolerance limits for ANSI C84.1-1989​

[/FONT][FONT=Times-Roman+2]

The voltage tolerance limits in ANSI C84.1-1989 are based on NEMA MG 1-1993, which established the voltage tolerance limits of the standard induction motor at ?10% of nameplate ratings of 230 V and 460 V. Since motors represent the major component of utilization equipment, they were given primary consideration in the establishment of the voltage standard."

​

[/FONT]

Not sure why you posted that, it says exactly what I have been saying 10% drop combined between utility and premise wiring system.

 

[electricalperson]

we worked for a customer that knows everyhing. dont worry about ti and do the best you can. if you know you didnt screw up then dont worry. customers are not always right

 

[weressl]

Not sure why you posted that, it says exactly what I have been saying 10% drop combined between utility and premise wiring system.

Because 87.5% is not 90%, last time I checked.

Anyway you were and are wrong and dishonest about it as well.

 

[iwire]

Because 87.5% is not 90%, last time I checked.

Anyway you were and are wrong and dishonest about it as well.

Interesting, I posted a document that shows the 87.5%.

At this point, considering you have called me a lier I am done with you on this thread.

 

[weressl]

Interesting, I posted a document that shows the 87.5%.

At this point, considering you have called me a lier I am done with you on this thread.

I called you being dishonest about an issue and not a lier, not even a liar.

The document I posted clearly shows that the motor limits are established by ANSI at +/-10%. 87.5% is -12.5%, not 10%. Motors were the initial issue of the OP.

I had also quoted the code illustrating that the motor circuit as defined by the Code meets the definition of a branch circuit, therefore subject to the 3% voltage limit.

You have ducked both of these issues, which is an intellectually dishonest position. Yet you called for me to admit my mistake which I freely did. Calling an item by an improper name does necessarily produce a sunstantial error, designing a circuit for 5% instead of 3% voltage drop is a substantial mistake.

 

[djcrzysounds@yahoo.com]

I really don't want to bring this topic back, but the time has come. The wonderful employees at this business are starting to become a little too involved with my work. As in they made a splice up yesterday cause they wanted a receptacle to work, they also had to land the wire in the panel too. With that being said does anyone have a liability waiver that I might take to my attorney as a base for one I will be using shortly?

 

[jnsane84]

Why can't we just all get along? djcrzysounds@yahoo.com, have you enlightened us as to the position these individuals hold with the company? Are they the actual customer, client, etc,.,??? Sounds as if you need to locate the person they answer to, if they fit none of the decision making criteria or ownership positions, and have them limited on their interaction with you and forbidden to install or alter anything within the area you are working. I apologize if I missed your answers, I was distracted and enthrawled with the discussion between 2 of the other gentlemen.

 

[djcrzysounds@yahoo.com]

Why can't we just all get along? djcrzysounds@yahoo.com, have you enlightened us as to the position these individuals hold with the company? Are they the actual customer, client, etc,.,??? Sounds as if you need to locate the person they answer to, if they fit none of the decision making criteria or ownership positions, and have them limited on their interaction with you and forbidden to install or alter anything within the area you are working. I apologize if I missed your answers, I was distracted and enthrawled with the discussion between 2 of the other gentlemen.

These individuals are 'tank fillers' for medical gases and they freelance as 'handymen'. I have spoken with my 'customer' who owns the business but the individuals do not generally listen to him and they have too much free time on their hands. I went from step A which was informing the customer that if they had further interaction with my installation(s), that he would need to sign a liability waiver(Step B). Now I need step B.

 

[electricalperson]

i hate it when customers act like they know it all. i work for a lot of those people and hate it. worst are electrical engineers.

 

[IrishRugger]

I recently had a customer ask if he could do his own trenching to save some money.

I said "Sure go ahead don't forget to do a One Call to locate all your underground utillities its required before you dig."

His response was " I dont want to tell you how to operate your business, but I know where every line on my property is."

I stongly urged him to call in for a utility locate and even gave him the number. It's not against the law for home owners to do their own digging in my state but the individual doing the actuall digging must make the locate request, so it was up to him. I gave him the depth that it needed to be

The day came when he rented the trencher and did his digging I showed up later in the day to put my URD in the after he had the trench open.

He did do a One Call but did not follow the instructions regarding other utilities such as private propane lines.

The local propane company was there repairing their line from the tank to the house. Luckily he shut his tank off before he started trenching.

Because of his fantastic memory he did't feel he needed to call them for a private locate.

After I got my URD in the ground and was ready to head out for the day I asked him how the diging went He said " I should of just paid you to handle it."

So he did save some money on trenching himself but ended up paying for a service call from the propane company to fix his error in judgement.

So what's the moral of the story?

Let the replies commence

 

[GUNNING]

Plausible deniablility.

Plausible deniablility.

Nothing you have him sign will work if things go bang. Send a memo to the owner stating your concerns and offering to correct anything brought to your attention. Its his facility. Don't buy trouble. You might mention your unease with the work. You might mention your willingness to fix anything anytime. It shows concern. It shows knowledge. It brings the issue to the fore front for discussion by the owner or responsible party. Otherwise it gives you plausible deniability for the actions of his employees.

For those that are still arguing over the 5% rule. I believe manufacturer instructions take precedent over NEC and I think that some pump motors are made for low voltage situations because some of them are buried in the ground a couple of hundred feet. I would have to read the instructions though. Around here its the Utility that gets involved when your Voltage isn't high enough at the furthest point. Let them deliver what you can use. They use the NSC and not my concern. In this instance I would be just a nut twister. I don't have to be responsible for herding all those electrons to the service.

 

[ohm]

I recently had a customer ask if he could do his own trenching to save some money.

I said "Sure go ahead don't forget to do a One Call to locate all your underground utillities its required before you dig."

His response was " I dont want to tell you how to operate your business, but I know where every line on my property is."

I stongly urged him to call in for a utility locate and even gave him the number. It's not against the law for home owners to do their own digging in my state but the individual doing the actuall digging must make the locate request, so it was up to him. I gave him the depth that it needed to be

The day came when he rented the trencher and did his digging I showed up later in the day to put my URD in the after he had the trench open.

He did do a One Call but did not follow the instructions regarding other utilities such as private propane lines.

The local propane company was there repairing their line from the tank to the house. Luckily he shut his tank off before he started trenching.

Because of his fantastic memory he did't feel he needed to call them for a private locate.

After I got my URD in the ground and was ready to head out for the day I asked him how the diging went He said " I should of just paid you to handle it."

So he did save some money on trenching himself but ended up paying for a service call from the propane company to fix his error in judgement.

So what's the moral of the story?

Let the replies commence

Sounds like you did exactly the right thing. Bet it was hard not to giggle in front of him!

 

[iaov]

A philosophy I try to adhere to when times of trouble occur.



"If I will not remember the incident in 20 years, it is not important enough to worry about today."

A good philosophy Pierre but I would add that even if I remember 20 years from now it probably still isn't worth worrying about today.:smile: