0 members (),
205
guests, and
28
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 814
Member
|
" As long as the two breakers are on opposing poles of the panel buss there is no code violation"
Mike, while I'm sure everyone agrees that is a good practice, is it actually stated in the code as a requirement? Don't get me wrong, I always put them on opp legs, but what would be the violation if say it was 2 dedicated ckts with the total load on all conductors, neutral included, within their ampacity?
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 162
Member
|
210.19 (A) (2) Multioutlet Branch Circuits. Conductors of branch circuits supplying more than one receptacle for cord-andplug- connected portable loads shall have an ampacity of not less than the rating of the branch circuit.
This language may be a problem if the neutral capacity is not increased
Charlie
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 717
Member
|
quote" Mike, while I'm sure everyone agrees that is a good practice, is it actually stated in the code as a requirement? Don't get me wrong, I always put them on opp legs, but what would be the violation if say it was 2 dedicated ckts with the total load on all conductors, neutral included, within their ampacity?"
BigB you are correct here there would not be one in that situation. However then it would not actually be a multiwire branch circuit, but two circuits sharing a grounded conductor. NEC 100-1
[This message has been edited by macmikeman (edited 08-22-2006).]
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,391
Moderator
|
At least it will allow handle-ties, and need not necessarily be a common-trip unit. It is very difficult to find a handle tie that ties circuit breakers in positions 1, 4 and 42 together.
Bob Badger Construction & Maintenance Electrician Massachusetts
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 680
Member
|
It is very difficult to find a handle tie that ties circuit breakers in positions 1, 4 and 42 together.
I seen alot of #12 Solid as a handle tie, maybe if you bent it just so...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 345
Member
|
It is very difficult to find a handle tie that ties circuit breakers in positions 1, 4 and 42 together.
I seen alot of #12 Solid as a handle tie, maybe if you bent it just so... The picture that this conjures up in my mind gave me a good chuckle. Thanks a lot. [This message has been edited by tdhorne (edited 09-16-2006).]
Tom Horne
"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous for general use" Thomas Alva Edison
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 693
Member
|
It is very difficult to find a handle tie that ties circuit breakers in positions 1, 4 and 42 together. True, but I always place shared-neutral MWBC's on adjacent breakers to minimize the chance of overloading the neutral.
Larry Fine Fine Electric Co. fineelectricco.com
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,391
Moderator
|
Well I prefer to place them side by side but I don't always.
The NEC does not require them to be side by side.
Regardless none of my neutrals will be overloaded unless someone changes the locations after I leave.
Bob Badger Construction & Maintenance Electrician Massachusetts
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 751
Member
|
Definitions, Article 100: "Branch Circuit, Multiwire. A branch circuit that consists of two or more ungrounded conductors that have a voltage voltage between them and each ungrounded conductor of the circuit and that is connected to the neutral or grounded conductor of the system."
To meet this definition, we must use phases A and B (and maybe C too).
Earl
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,507
Member
|
earlydean- You are 100% correct and I will say they will need to be side by side by side. I know there aren't any words that say they need to be so physically located but that is just too easy to figure out. If they are to be simultaneously tripped that's the only way this hard nosed inspector will accept them. (Sorry Bob)
Edited causs I can't spill
[This message has been edited by George Little (edited 09-18-2006).]
George Little
|
|
|
Posts: 44
Joined: July 2013
|
|
|
|