What is odd about this 400 amp fused bus duct switch?

And no, it's not the 3" KO missing since 1963.




[This message has been edited by iwire (edited 02-24-2005).]

Switch mounted upside down?

-Most disconnect doors open right to left.

-All disconnect off positions are to be in the DOWN position NOT UP.

-Is that ABS pipe into the switch??

-Greg

Inclosed ventilated busway?

Or to be a smart aleck,the fact that its FPE.

What is odd about this 400 amp fused bus duct switch?

It's fpe and their are no scorch marks on it.

Maybe it's an optical illusion, but it looks like the buss duct runs through the switch instead of the switch mounted on the buss duct.

Also the upside down thing. All visible labels are right side up except the nameplate is illegible. Is the nameplate right side up? The door catches appear to be upside down. Usually you push up on them.

Or is this a violation we can't see because the door is closed (like those meter sockets)?

Also the missing knockout on the upper right side, or would that be lower left. Looks downside up to me as well.

It's mounted a bit low for my tastes but I do like that anti-slip floor covering. You did turn the picture upsidedown didn't you Bob.

If thats the case that must be anti gravity string.

You know, I think I remember Pauluk one time mentioning that in Great Britain UP is "OFF", and DOWN is "ON"
Looks like I'll have to dig out my old FPE catalogue (What a sick thing to save, huh?)



[This message has been edited by electure (edited 02-24-2005).]

I know why it looks upside down, The panel must be in Australia, right?
Sorry, bad joke

Awful shallow pan and I thought switches had to be "down-to-turn-off"

What's missing is the ACTUATOR ARM....the looped handle, designed to be snagged by a hook on the end of a pole. This is usually on the side of the box....what you see is simply a lever actuated indicator, so you can tell the position from a distance. (On some of these switches the actuator didn't move very far).

You all are very good, not much of a test for this crowd.

It is upside down.

This bus duct runs vertically 15 floors in an condo building. There is a switch like this every other floor.

What I really want to know is if the tags where moved by the EC because they installed the bus duct the wrong way up or if FPE supplied it this way.

Here is the first one I saw, it's hard to tell but the switch handle is about 4' off the floor



This is the top floor and is only a 200 amp fused switch.

Now here is one of the 400 amp fused switches opened up



It is supposed to have a plastic barrier to protect people from the line side busing but it is missing, there was a piece of Sheetrock in there leaning on the busses when I opened the door.

This building was built in 1963-64 and I am sure that the rules for "Up is On" where in place long before that.

Bob

Bob,
In the second to last pic, is that a piece of string or wire supporting that conduit?.
(Just next to the ladder)

I have a question about that 400a. disco. Shouldn't there be more than just the bus duct to support something that large (i.e., some kind of support from the back of the box directly to the wall)?

Mike (mamills)

The metal nameplate is definitely upside down, so it's quite clear that the boxes are. The inside door label in the 3rd photo confirms that. And there are the inverted mounting keyholes. Were it not for that string hanging there, I could invert the 3rd, and maybe 1st, photo and no one would be the wiser.

Gotta love the garbage heap in there.

smokumchevy

It is RMC.

adamb

LOL

sandsnow

The door catches are the items that really caught my eye when I was looking at the switch.




watthead



electure

I am starting to worry about you..

The original prints I saw have late 1964 as a date, not sure exactly when it was constructed.

Trumpy

No, that is 3/8" (12 mm ?) steel threaded rod. Very strong but not doing much as installed.


Bob

Mike (mamills)

Mike I have never seen one that required additional support or recommend it. This is actually shallow for a 400 amp fused bus duct disconnect. I would expect one today to be at least a 12" deep not 6"(?) like these ones.

The switch grabs the bus duct in 4 places, it is very rigid, the bus duct is bolted to each floor it passes though through a series of springs to compensate for expansion / contraction. Mounting the switch to the wall would defeat the reason for the springs.

We usually use flex for the connection to a bus duct switch.


Actually the metal name plate is right side up,



and that is impressive as is is on with rivets, not nuts and bolts like a I would expect in a 'field modification'.


Another 'impressive' job was the use of a wireway 'ell' in place of a conduit body or bend.





This was repeated 3 or 4 times, besides the fact the wireway should be supported and it is just plain ugly work I know I would not have enjoyed getting the four 500 or 600 Kcmil copper conductors into that fitting.

Bob

Bob,
I don't mean to be silly here, but shouldn't there be some sort of Fire-stopping around where the cable duct penetrates that ceiling?.
I realise you still have to have ventilation for the cables inside, but....

Not a silly question at all.

This would be unacceptable by todays standards.

It does have some thin metal closing off the hole on the top side but it is not fire stopping.

Two major changes now would be totally enclosed bus duct and a fire stopping system would be required around the penetration.

This building has hundreds of open penetrations at water, waste, heating, cooling, electrical pipes and duct work.

It surprises me that as recently as 1964 a 120 unit apartment building could be built in a major city without,

1)Sprinklers

It still does not have sprinklers, it does have a standpipe in each stairway to run hoses from. The standpipe is dry, it must be supplied from a fire dept truck in the street.

2)Fire Alarm System.

It has a basic one now, no smoke control provisions. Even a three story apartment building near my house has smoke exhaust / hallway pressure fans controlled by the fire panel.

3)No fire stopping. (New work gets sealed)

The building is constructed of cement and steel I imagine that made it sound safe without the other items.

Sorry for ranting...Bob




[This message has been edited by iwire (edited 02-27-2005).]

Well, check out what they offered instead (really, this one had a max 200A @ 600V rating)



This is an item on the same page as the disconnect shown above. It's from an '83 FPE catalogue.
I've never seen one of these, and hope I never will.

[This message has been edited by electure (edited 02-28-2005).]

Time out. I know that in most of the Frankenstein movies I have they pull the switch down to energize the circuit. I think this installer was right, I think Dr. Frankenstein was right, and I think you are all wrong!

I'm surprised, but not surprised, if you know what I mean. I don't think the life safety systems that we take for granted today were all that common even 30 years ago.

Consider this:

Dormitory building at a Connecticut state university, built 1970. It had no fire alarm or sprinkler system when new. (Not related to safety, but it's funny to see how it used to have only one phone per hallway, and of course had no cable TV or internet hook up in each room. )

In fact, hardly any buildings on the campus, had a fire alarm system or sprinklers when they were built. These have all been added in the last 10-15 years.

Does anyone know at what point in time these systems became common to install?

Bob,
That isn't a rant, it's merely stating the plainly obvious.
Electure,
I must say I agree with you about that disconnect, it looks like a death-trap.
Imagine closing that onto a fault?.
Hi Ryan,
But didn't the monster "turn" on the Dr?.

Thats true...monsters are so inconsiderate anymore, ya know?

Ryan was right the first time. The monster didn't turn on the Doctor. It was the Dr. that turned the monster on......And he did it with a switch.....that was "dead" when up. and "alive" when down.



Yup, just like Ryan said

Just a few recollections...forgive me if I'm off a year or two.

Sprinklers: Sprinklers were quite often not required in commercial and residential applications...until the '68 fire at Chicago's McCormic Place Convention Center focused attention on them.
As late as '78, the NFPA was in conflict with a reformer named Patten, who argued that the sprinkler code was only interested in property protection, and not in saving lives. This was about the time the battery-powered smoke detector was making its' own mark. Eventually, Patten won the argument, and a sprinkler code was written, and products developed, for household applications.
Even today, the use of sprinklers in residences is spotty....often with only the public areas so protected.

Firestopping: As a result of the '71 fire in the Harpers Ferry nuclear power plant, firestopping began to get some serious attention. Until then, I'm not even sure intumescent caulk even existed....the fire started when a plumbers' candle, used to check for air leaks, ignited the spray foam that was used to seal penetrations.

I hope my recollections are better than my answer to this "test"....I sure blew this one!

Scott,
That looks like a pretty "progressive" sort of a Frankenstien movie you have there.
On the one hand we have a Frankenstein wearing Roller blades.
On the other, we have a guy that looks like one of the guys from ZZ Top holding up the board with the switch on it.
Hmm.

Was this one of the subs?