ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Increasing demand factors in residential
by gfretwell - 03/28/24 12:43 AM
Portable generator question
by Steve Miller - 03/19/24 08:50 PM
Do we need grounding?
by NORCAL - 03/19/24 05:11 PM
240V only in a home and NEC?
by dsk - 03/19/24 06:33 AM
Cordless Tools: The Obvious Question
by renosteinke - 03/14/24 08:05 PM
New in the Gallery:
This is a new one
This is a new one
by timmp, September 24
Few pics I found
Few pics I found
by timmp, August 15
Who's Online Now
1 members (Scott35), 272 guests, and 14 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
#89732 10/17/04 02:38 PM
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 751
E
Member
Just to add a little more fuel to the fire:
How about the instance where there is an item of equipment that extends a little bit too far into the working zone, but doesn't really interfere with access? Like a transformer mounted below a panel? (As a matter of fact, the transformer below the panel actually enhances access, as it can serve as a tool bench for test meters and the like.) But, it is strictly enforced as a violation of the working clearance rules.
Nobody can work with their face 6 inches from the panel front. I need at least 12 inches, and I am comfortable with 18 to 24 inches. Why not allow items below the panel to extend out 18 inches beyond the face of the panel?????


Earl
Stay up to Code with the Latest NEC:


>> 2023 NEC & Related Reference & Exam Prep
2023 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides

Pass Your Exam the FIRST TIME with the Latest NEC & Exam Prep

>> 2020 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides
 

#89733 10/17/04 02:52 PM
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
R
Member
Roger,
Quote
How do we handle switches above counter tops?
This is a problem with the code wording in 110.26. The counter top receptacles the are required by 210.52 are in violation of 110.26. The CMP has been very reluctant to accept any changes in the wording of 110.26. This section really needs some work as in its current state is not useable.
Don


Don(resqcapt19)
#89734 10/17/04 03:23 PM
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,716
R
Member
Don,
Quote
The counter top receptacles the are required by 210.52 are in violation of 110.26. The CMP has been very reluctant to accept any changes in the wording of 110.26. This section really needs some work as in its current state is not useable.
this is my feeling also, and if these receptacles or switches are not included in 110.26, why would a knife type switch or enclosed breaker not be ignored the same as these devices?

Roger

#89735 11/17/05 06:08 PM
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1
J
Junior Member
Hello all, great site, first time poster.

Sorry for digging up an old thread, but this is the best example of specifically what I was looking for (looked around here for over an hour).

Does this scenario apply to a table that is in front of a non-fused disconnect? Take the example of a industrial welding work station that has the disconnect mounted on the wall right behind the work table. Very easy to reach over and shut down, but the working space isn't clear.

Could a disconnect be considered something that isn't likely to require "examination, adjustment, servicing, or maintenance"?

Page 2 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5