Comments?

I would be most concerned with the three poles tied together on the bottom left on what appears to be a single phase panel. One of those breakers is a GFCI.

As for mixing of equipment, it is getting harder to avoid now that single entities own all these sub brands such as Schneider, Eaton etc.

Nice handle-tie!

I was not aware anyone had a listed 3 or 4 pole handle-tie yet!

Obviously necessity is the mother of all invention......

I have a local plan checker here that insists the intent of 210.4(B) is that a fault in one circuit will trip all circuits within the multiwire circuit. Reasoning does no good with him.

Question:

Is this sort of handle-tie acceptable anywhere?

I'm not overly concerned ... regardless of the 'fine print' regarding 'listing,' 'classified,' etc.

Good heavens, some clowns are carrying it to the extreme of saying you can't put a classified breaker in an obsolete panel, because, they argue, there is no way the breaker maker could have provided UL with a smaple of that exact panel for evaluation.

Ditto for the various mergers, etc. Again, some folks will say you can't put a Brand X breaker in a panel made by Brad Y, even though the two were once the same firm. You need a scorecard to keep them straight.

Personally, I consider the desires of certain manufacturers to prevent standardising parts to be simply ignorant. "Legal logic" aside, look at every successful product, and you see that it has both opened itself to others, as well as defeated technically better, but proprietary, competitors. VHS/Betamax, Windows/Apple, and Zerk/Alemite are all such examples.

I'd rather see a genuine C-H breaker in a Square-D panel than a counterfeit.

Finally, there are plenty of perfectly legal panels out there that were not made by the guy who made the breakers. A certain -was it Thomas & Betts?' panel comes to mind, as well as the fine panels made by American Switchboard.

What we really need is a way to test breakers for proper operation. Only then could we tell if things are operating properly. If they can invent 'arc detetors,' then a simple overcurrent test ought not be that difficult!

Joe,

Why would you want to trip that "Twin" 15 amp? Do they think it will give them 240 volts? Plus why would they want to trip a GFI breaker with another breaker. Also it goes without saying that the "tie handle" is not an approved listed method.
I also agree with the rest, it is getting tough to figure out if the CH breaker is a "BR" breaker and if it can go into a CH panel, a GE panel, Murray panel, ITE panel, etc.

ITE was making breakers to go into Sqaure D panels. What is this world coming to?

For as long as I remember there is/was a philosophy that 'if it fits, it works'! GE/Murry,Bryant,etc, etc. Some even went to the extreeme of removing the rejection tab on twins to get them in. Heck, I saw a 42 circuit panel with 42 twins installed, and no cover due to the excessive # of conductors. (That was "only a temp, sir")

Bottom line, one added circuit in an existing panel, brand 'x' breaker, might get by. However, do a service upgrade, or a new install....all must be of same mfg.

John,


As you and I know, we know how to get past the manufactures rejection tabs. Which also helps me in my inspections. How many CH twin breakers do you see in a CH panel that doesn't allow it? I also count breakers when I see an ITE panel that says 20/20 MB and as I look in the panel and see 24 breakers.

Have you guys seen the new 60 circuit panel yet? I have heard about it and seen pictures in the trade mag, but I haven't seen it yet.

I believe our friends from the great white north already have 60 circuit panels. I would think it would be trivial to list them here.

we are actually up to at least 80 circuit panels (40/80 circuit) in Canada, I am surprised to hear they are not distributed in the States. An NEC rule prohibiting that?

There used to be.

Greg,

I don't know how tall those bad boys would be, but from the pictures, they look like they are as big as a tombstone.

well, i'm well aware of all the breaker wars , and the dumber than toast couterfiet hooey foisted by the very same companies that manufacture them*

so i'll out it in even simpler terms

at least they (the pix) DO have breakers

i mean, a lotta my carear has been convincing folks thier glass fuses that have been around since the rural electrification program are obsolete

~S~





*does anyone else pitch EC mag in the woodstove over this here?

I seem to remember 42 being the most ckts you could have in one panel. When you say "it used to" is that what you're referring to? Has that recently changed from the 08 NEC?

Also, Hi everyone. Just joined, love the info. Good to be in good company.

The 42 circuit restriction was removed.

Cowboy Joe:

Welcome to ECN forums, from one of the 'Jersey Guys'!!!

Jump right in anytime!

Harold:

The 'over 42' circuit panels are 'side-by-side', at least the few that I have seen up close & personal. (SQ D)

jumping in because I have put in some of the 80 circuit combination panels and they can be up to 49 inches high, some a little shorter. Any that I have installed are all lined up in the same enclosure. This can make meeting the code requirements for meterbase, panel and breaker heights a challenge.

That true only if the states did adpoted the new code cycle IIRC it in the 08 edition but I know few states rejected or modifed the codes.

If they did allow it but the market demand is not really huge at the moment but it slowly catch up and in France we did got rid of 32 circuit limit as well that was bunch of connires { BS }

As speaking of larger panels {42 and larger circuits } did the tub width increase or still the same width ? { 14.5 inches or 368mm }

Merci,
Marc

Marc:

The Sq D NQOD is a 20" wide backbox. I have not looked at any other mfg. It may be tough to get the conductor space (volume) and KO's in the 14.5" backboxes.

Can anyone explain the logic(?) behind the 42 circuit limit?

I think it was just an arbitrary number someone picked.
Maybe Joe knows which cycle it came in. I doubt the ROP is easy to find tho.

Had to do with a fire in a NYC hotel Forty-Two Circuit Restriction look here for some information:

It is interesting that this whole topic was considered to be "inoperative" by the 2008. "42" is gone and they do not have the "lighting and appliance" distinction anymore.

I was curious how old "42" was tho since it has been around as long as I can remember, certainly since the Nixon administration. I see your article puts it back to 1933.