ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
Top Posters(30 Days)
Potseal 11
Recent Posts
Permit Snafus...AHJs and Contractors Jump in
by sparky. 04/29/17 05:59 PM
201 volt equipment?
by bigpapa. 04/29/17 12:15 AM
Schneider LC1D09
by jraef. 04/28/17 11:05 PM
Electrode boilers question
by annemarie1. 04/27/17 01:40 PM
Why cables look like they do
by LongRunner. 04/26/17 09:36 AM
New in the Gallery:
SE cable question
Popular Topics(Views)
235,037 Are you busy
169,878 Re: Forum
163,068 Need opinion
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 85 guests, and 7 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#98710 - 02/17/05 09:00 PM 110.14(C)(1)(a)(4)  
Roger  Offline
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,716
N.C.
Does anybody know why motors with design letter "E" were dropped from this section?

And while we are here, what is the reason for the special consideration of the design types in this section anyways?

Roger

[This message has been edited by Roger (edited 02-17-2005).]


2017 / 2014 NEC & Related Books and Study Guides

#98711 - 02/17/05 09:03 PM Re: 110.14(C)(1)(a)(4)  
Ralpha494  Offline
Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 73
Pewaukee,WI,USA
I heard nobody ever made one.


#98712 - 02/17/05 09:33 PM Re: 110.14(C)(1)(a)(4)  
Roger  Offline
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,716
N.C.
That's interesting, I must admitt I don't recall ever seeing one.

But what about the second part, why are these particular design types given this allowance?

Roger


#98713 - 02/17/05 11:38 PM Re: 110.14(C)(1)(a)(4)  
gfretwell  Offline


Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,069
Estero,Fl,usa
I assume you are talking about 430.52.
That just reflects the ratio between normal FLA and LRA. The high effeciency motors evidently have a lower FLA for a given LRA.
It must be a very short LR time since the big difference is in the instant trip breaker column


Greg Fretwell

#98714 - 02/18/05 01:24 AM Re: 110.14(C)(1)(a)(4)  
rbalex  Offline
Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 12
Laguna Hills, CA USA
Quote
11-16 Log #2308 NEC-P11
(430-7(A)(9))
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Vince Baclawski, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) / Rep. NEMA
Recommendation:
Revise as shown below:
(9) Design letter for design B, C, or D, [or E deleted] motors.
Substantiation:
The Design E motor standard was rescinded by NEMA in February 2000. All references to Design E motors have been removed from NEMA Standards Publication MG 1-1998 "Motors and Generators".

This was one of approximately two dozen Proposals, all with the same Substantiation


[This message has been edited by rbalex (edited 02-18-2005).]


#98715 - 02/18/05 11:08 AM Re: 110.14(C)(1)(a)(4)  
Roger  Offline
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,716
N.C.
Let me clarify my secod question.

Why are motors of desing types B,C, or D specifically allowed to use conductors of 75 deg regardless of markings or lack of?

Why would these particular motors be allowed this consideration while other motors would have to comply with the 60 deg limitation for 100 amps or smaller unless marked for higher terminations?

Roger


#98716 - 02/18/05 01:23 PM Re: 110.14(C)(1)(a)(4)  
rbalex  Offline
Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 12
Laguna Hills, CA USA
Roger,

The same question was asked in this forum earlier. The only change to the Section was the elimination of “Design E” motors.

“General Purpose” motors, or as UL refers to them, “motors in ordinary locations,” are not listed; however, if they are designed to NEMA MG-1, their terminals are already suitable for 75C, regardless of the hp.

“Explosion-Proof” motors are listed, but are also generally NEMA Design B, C or D, so they also have terminals that are automatically rated at 75C no matter what hp.

Bob


#98717 - 02/18/05 02:05 PM Re: 110.14(C)(1)(a)(4)  
Roger  Offline
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,716
N.C.
Hello Bob, and welcome to the forum.

I know that the deletion of the E design was the only change, but as far as my other question, since the terminals are 75 deg and marked, why is it necessary to include this wording in 110.14(C)(1)(a)(4)?

I'm just nitpicking, but it seems as though it is a waste of ink. [Linked Image]

Roger


#98718 - 02/18/05 03:52 PM Re: 110.14(C)(1)(a)(4)  
rbalex  Offline
Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 12
Laguna Hills, CA USA
The motor terminals aren't required to be marked (they usually aren't) and the motors themselves aren’t listed; but, if the motor nameplate indicates they are NEMA Design B, C or D, the terminals are suitable for the full ampacity of conductors rated 75C or less.


#98719 - 02/18/05 04:36 PM Re: 110.14(C)(1)(a)(4)  
Roger  Offline
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,716
N.C.
Bob, I just don't understand why these particular motors are different than all other types as far as temp ratings.

Roger


Page 1 of 2 1 2

Member Spotlight
cookcc
cookcc
California ,Long Beach
Posts: 28
Joined: May 2007
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: 0.014s Queries: 15 (0.002s) Memory: 0.8172 MB (Peak: 0.9925 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-04-30 18:37:16 UTC