ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Electricians revenge
by gfretwell - 05/23/24 11:15 AM
240V only in a home and NEC?
by emolatur - 05/18/24 06:12 PM
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 (Scott35), 36 guests, and 14 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,682
Likes: 3
Admin Offline OP
Administrator
Member
[Linked Image]

Quote
Is this in violation of disconnect mounting rules?

I thought so since if the fuses fall out on the load side there would be a ground fault. I knew one could not mount a disconnect upside down vertically due to the gravity of the knife switch. But upsidedown horizontally. This picture was taken in the old sears headquaters in seattle. It is now the headquarters for Starbucks Coffee.

-Eandrew

Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,236
Likes: 1
Member
404.8(A)

Note the exceptions, there may be a loophole...


-Virgil
Residential/Commercial Inspector
5 Star Inspections
Member IAEI
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,527
B
Moderator
That's a tricky one. ’66’—is 404.8 the same as 380-8 for those of us lost in the stone age? At any rate, I would have broached a lifetime home-/jobsite-delivered latté pass early in the negotiations. {I’ll bet the fire marshal has one.}

I think it's a judgment call from a compliance standpoint. If it were adjacent to a served air-handler or drytype transformer, and non-fused, and allowed unencumbered use of a lock and tag, it maybe preferable to a remote location.

It may be worth asking if UL evaluates NEMA 1-enclosed disconnects mounted in other than the ‘upright’ position, or if any of their stock tests would potentially fail alternate mounting. The subject facility could use some slack {and permanent variance} for their charitable, strategic and precise worldwide distribution of a very popular and legal-in-most-states drug.

Aside from the apparent Art.110 clearances, it could be mounted in the ‘normal’ position with a handful of gusseted brackets, spring nuts and framing channel. [It would sorta’ make a nice j-box complete with ‘testable terminal point’ between EMT or GRC and vibration-isolating flex to the motor or drytype.]


[This message has been edited by Bjarney (edited 06-10-2002).]

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 518
J
Member
NEMA-1 requirements address only the entry of rather large foreign objects; as far as the enclosure is concerned, the mounting shown is not a problem. This would change if the application required any other sort of NEMA enclosure.
NEC rules seem to encourage a "natural" motion to disconnect, but there is no "natural" motion here- unless one is to try to manipulate the switch with a stick.
Two issues need to be addressed: accessibility, and protection from damage. It is also not clear what is controlled by that switch.


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