WHEN I NEED TO BREAK THE NEUTRAL OF AN AC DISCONNECT SWITCH?

[Sahib]

Which switches in US to be re-named as disconnect switches per IEC definition for them?

 

[kwired]

kwired mentioned in post # 32 various NEC definitions of a switch. A definition of isolating switch is there. A definition of load break switch is there. But a combined definition of a switch of isolating as well as load break as in IEC is not there. That appears to be a deficiency in NEC.

It is possible for one item to fit more then one definition or have it's usage fulfill more then one purpose.

 

[kwired]

Which switches in US to be re-named as disconnect switches per IEC definition for them?

None of them if IEC standards are not to be applied. If IEC standards are a design requirement then if you use IEC equipment you should be fine.

 

[ggunn]

None of them if IEC standards are not to be applied. If IEC standards are a design requirement then if you use IEC equipment you should be fine.

I have said it before and I will say it again. We will argue about just about anything in here!

To quote a past POTUS, "That depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

 

[Carultch]

I have said it before and I will say it again. We will argue about just about anything in here!

To quote a past POTUS, "That depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

What exactly did Bill Clinton mean, when he was debating the meaning of the word "is"?
Is it like a past vs present tense thing?
Or is it like a ser vs estar thing? (ser = identity/description, estar = feeling/location/condition)

 

[Sahib]

None of them if IEC standards are not to be applied. If IEC standards are a design requirement then if you use IEC equipment you should be fine.

It is not a matter of applicability of IEC standards. A 4 pole IEC switch is not likely to pass a surge through ungrounded conductor in its open position. Can the same be applicable to any NEC switch other than isolating switch?

 

[iwire]

It is not a matter of applicability of IEC standards. A 4 pole IEC switch is not likely to pass a surge through ungrounded conductor in its open position. Can the same be applicable to any NEC switch other than isolating switch?

It is a grounded conductor, if it's potential rises above earth so do all grounded items in the building keeping the potential from the grounded conductor to the equipment the same.

It is not unsafe and there is no need to open the grounded conductor to protect equipment or personal from a 'surge'.

Next time you are engineering a job in North America you can specify you want the grounded conductor opened. You will pay more for it but at least you will get the warm fuzzies knowing you went beyond what is required or needed.

.

 

[Sahib]

It is a grounded conductor, if it's potential rises above earth so do all grounded items in the building keeping the potential from the grounded conductor to the equipment the same.

What a wishful thinking. By the way, does the code mention any frequency limit for applicability of its rules?

 

[ggunn]

What exactly did Bill Clinton mean, when he was debating the meaning of the word "is"?
Is it like a past vs present tense thing?
Or is it like a ser vs estar thing? (ser = identity/description, estar = feeling/location/condition)

All I remember is that it had something to do with his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky and his denial thereof. I believe it hinged upon his intent to deny something specific whereas it was interpreted by others to refer to something more general.

Did I successfully circumlocute the forum rules with that response?

 

[Carultch]

All I remember is that it had something to do with his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky and his denial thereof. I believe it hinged upon his intent to deny something specific whereas it was interpreted by others to refer to something more general.

Did I successfully circumlocute the forum rules with that response?

I'm sure I "circumlocuted" the forum rules with that question in the first place.

 

[ggunn]

I'm sure I "circumlocuted" the forum rules with that question in the first place.

Circumvented, I believe you mean...

 

[Jraef]

All I remember is that it had something to do with his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky and his denial thereof. I believe it hinged upon his intent to deny something specific whereas it was interpreted by others to refer to something more general. ...

It came from his explaining to the grand jury about how he wasn't really lying when he said to his top aides that with respect to Monica Lewinsky, "there (is) nothing going on between us." He then said:

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

Translate: he was parsing the earlier statement to avoid looking like he lied, by saying he meant "at this exact moment" vs "at any time ever, now or in the past". it may be obvious to all concerned that his aides meant "at any time ever, now or in the past", because that's what they would have been concerned with. But because that conversation was on the record, Clinton had to be held accountable for it and how it contradicted his stand on that issue with regard to being impeachable for committing perjury under oath.

This by the way is why, whenever you get involved with a lawyer in a courtroom, you hear them ask questions in the most round about fashion, such as "Are you now, or have you ever been, involved in anything even suggestive of an intimate relationship with Monica Lewinski?" Whomever had asked Clinton that question must not have been a lawyer, Clinton was one. He saw a tiny loophole in how the question was posed and drove a truck through it. That's what lawyers do.

Remember this whenever you get involved in a lawsuit, trust me, it's important...

 

[ggunn]

It came from his explaining to the grand jury about how he wasn't really lying when he said to his top aides that with respect to Monica Lewinsky, "there (is) nothing going on between us." He then said:



Translate: he was parsing the earlier statement to avoid looking like he lied, by saying he meant "at this exact moment" vs "at any time ever, now or in the past". it may be obvious to all concerned that his aides meant "at any time ever, now or in the past", because that's what they would have been concerned with. But because that conversation was on the record, Clinton had to be held accountable for it and how it contradicted his stand on that issue with regard to being impeachable for committing perjury under oath.

This by the way is why, whenever you get involved with a lawyer in a courtroom, you hear them ask questions in the most round about fashion, such as "Are you now, or have you ever been, involved in anything even suggestive of an intimate relationship with Monica Lewinski?" Whomever had asked Clinton that question must not have been a lawyer, Clinton was one. He saw a tiny loophole in how the question was posed and drove a truck through it. That's what lawyers do.

Remember this whenever you get involved in a lawsuit, trust me, it's important...

I think that Clinton should have answered, completely truthfully, "It's none of your damn business."

 

[iwire]

And with that we are done here.