ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals

ECN Shout Chat
Top Posters(30 Days)
Admin 19
Recent Posts
Anyone hiring inspectors?
by HotLine1. 03/27/17 08:03 AM
Old decora style outlets
by Admin. 03/25/17 11:40 AM
ESA Arc flash course
by TheShockDoctors. 03/24/17 10:15 AM
fuse rejectors
by HotLine1. 03/24/17 07:53 AM
Another Forum Update
by Admin. 03/22/17 03:04 PM
New in the Gallery:
SE cable question
Popular Topics(Views)
231,651 Are you busy
166,552 Re: Forum
160,731 Need opinion
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 84 guests, and 8 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
#172354 - 12/18/07 02:16 PM Article 408 - Am I missing something?  
sabrown  Offline
Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 302
Ogden, Utah, USA
I just dropped into article 408 looking for 408.34 and it is no where to be seen. Interesting, I tried to find anything like it in 100, 220, or 225, but until I get my electronic version I am giving up.

Anyone know the reasoning or where it may be?


2017 / 2014 NEC & Related Books and Study Guides

#172359 - 12/18/07 03:09 PM Re: Article 408 - Am I missing something? [Re: sabrown]  
ghost307  Offline
Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 900
Chicago Illinois USA
408.34 and 408.35 have both been deleted in the 2008 NEC.

The original reason that the 42 circuit maximum was written back in the 1930's was to prevent the rubber insulated conductors from being damaged by overcrowding and/or overheating. This is no longer an issue, so the 42 circuit limit is now history.


Ghost307

#172405 - 12/19/07 12:02 AM Re: Article 408 - Am I missing something? [Re: ghost307]  
leland  Offline
Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 853
Lowell area, Ma. USA
YIPEEE!!


#172430 - 12/19/07 11:01 AM Re: Article 408 - Am I missing something? [Re: leland]  
sabrown  Offline
Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 302
Ogden, Utah, USA
I was looking for it for the lighting and appliance branch circuit panelboard for the tie in to 408.36 which has been totally rewritten also.

The number of disconnects on my main feeder to a building will total 4 one of which is a 15 amp, 240 VAC dosing station. The main feeder is protected remotely by a single breaker properly sized and even though the job is in California, it's a Federal project that will be built under the 2008. It was OK before, with some exceptions (like a feeder protected higher than the rating of the panel), but I wanted to be sure under the new. See 225.33 and NEC 2005 408.36(A) ex 1 versus 2008 408.36 (exception not required).


#172432 - 12/19/07 11:32 AM Re: Article 408 - Am I missing something? [Re: sabrown]  
Alan Nadon  Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 399
Elkhart, IN. USA
Please remember that just because the 42 circuit restriction has been removed it does not allow you to fill a panel with tandem breakers.
Only if the panel is listed for tandem breakers can you use them.


Alan--
If it was easy, anyone could do it.

#172453 - 12/19/07 06:59 PM Re: Article 408 - Am I missing something? [Re: Alan Nadon]  
sabrown  Offline
Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 302
Ogden, Utah, USA
I agree. In this case here a 42 circuit panel would serve the building, but trying to be considerate to the electrician in getting runs through the stud walls, I am calling out 2 subpanels. It also helps to minimize penetrations through a firewall.



Member Spotlight
RH1
RH1
California
Posts: 22
Joined: August 2009
Show All Member Profiles 
Featured:

2017 NEC and Related
2017 NEC
Now Available!

Shout Box
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.018s Queries: 15 (0.004s) Memory: 0.7743 MB (Peak: 0.9220 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-03-28 19:33:22 UTC