ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
UL 508A SPACING
by ale348 - 03/29/24 01:09 AM
Increasing demand factors in residential
by tortuga - 03/28/24 05:57 PM
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
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 (ale348), 302 guests, and 14 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
#110353 04/03/06 03:39 PM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 693
L
Member
"And as techie pointed out, after taking a closer look and blowing up that part of the picture, there are more than two wires in each nut. So it appears that two circuits are connected to one breaker. Red tag?"

Not necessarily. The worst that can happen is nuisance tripping, and that's only if the two wires' loads exceed the wire/breaker rating. This is no worse than the infamous home-inspectors' dreaded "double-tap."


Larry Fine
Fine Electric Co.
fineelectricco.com
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
 

#110354 04/03/06 05:01 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 745
M
Member
OK, regarding the use of another panelboard interior, let me ask about this stiuation;

At a local school here, there was once in service an old Frank Adam Fusible lighting panel - the kind with heavy duty tumbler switches next to each fuse. Come time to retire this venerable interior, the EC removed the interior and replaced it with a Square D QO style. The can for the Frank Adam was huge (compared to that required for a QO) so the only real modifications needed were to remove the FA door on the cover, mount the QO door over this existing cover (with no extra openings, actually a very good fit), and then install the QO interior in the proper place with some type of standoffs to bring the circuit breakers up to the usual position behind the cover. It turned out to be a much less traumatic event for the wires inside, with no conduit cutting and re-fitting needed, or extra J-boxes.

Going by the "letter of the law", I guess this would not be allowable, but does this type of thing happen anyway? With regard to safety, I would think that this is far safer than a fuse panel with an open socket or two, as was the case with the FA.

Mike (mamills)

[This message has been edited by mamills (edited 04-03-2006).]

#110355 04/03/06 07:19 PM
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,294
Member
The wirenutted circuit draws <10 Amps when in use.(This whole loadcenter is dedicated to one machine.) The alternative would be double lugging the breaker, which is definitely out.

An old Frank Adams box sounds like it would be a candidate for the same treatment.

[This message has been edited by electure (edited 04-03-2006).]

#110356 04/04/06 12:53 AM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 717
M
Member
What other option would be available when a panel is in a highrise apt. and mounted flush in poured concrete? But anyway for Challenger I would have at least used a Cuttler Hammer busbar and cover since it is the same thing with a different name on it.

#110357 04/04/06 07:33 AM
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 943
Likes: 2
N
Member
Challenger was not the same as a BR panel prior to Westinghouse buying Challenger.

Page 2 of 2 1 2

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