ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat Box
Recent Posts
FPE in Germany
by andey - 12/09/19 01:49 PM
Do you count seconds?
by gfretwell - 12/05/19 07:36 PM
"Esoteric" countries and their wiring practices?
by Texas_Ranger - 12/02/19 10:52 AM
Look at this mess...
by NORCAL - 11/15/19 10:21 PM
New in the Gallery:
FPE in Germany pt.2
FPE Breaker panel in germany
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 11 guests, and 10 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Article 408 - Am I missing something? #172354 12/18/07 01:16 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 307
S
sabrown Offline OP
Member
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
Re: Article 408 - Am I missing something? [Re: sabrown] #172359 12/18/07 02:09 PM
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 984
G
ghost307 Offline
Member
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
Re: Article 408 - Am I missing something? [Re: ghost307] #172405 12/18/07 11:02 PM
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 853
L
leland Offline
Member
YIPEEE!!

Re: Article 408 - Am I missing something? [Re: leland] #172430 12/19/07 10:01 AM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 307
S
sabrown Offline OP
Member
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).

Re: Article 408 - Am I missing something? [Re: sabrown] #172432 12/19/07 10:32 AM
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 399
A
Alan Nadon Offline
Member
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.
Re: Article 408 - Am I missing something? [Re: Alan Nadon] #172453 12/19/07 05:59 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 307
S
sabrown Offline OP
Member
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.


Featured:

2020 National Electrical Code
2020 National Electrical
Code (NEC)

* * * * * * *

2017 Master Electrician Exam Preparation Combos
2017 NEC Electrician
Exam Prep Combos:
Master / Journeyman

 

Member Spotlight
lil suzi
lil suzi
Midwest
Posts: 57
Joined: August 2003
Show All Member Profiles 
Top Posters(30 Days)
andey 2
Popular Topics(Views)
261,276 Are you busy
196,443 Re: Forum
185,709 Need opinion
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3