ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
Shout Box
Recent Posts
MRI LED lights dimmer control replacement - wow!
by Potseal. 01/19/18 08:52 PM
VDE 0100 to introduce AFCIs
by sparky. 01/19/18 08:03 PM
Video: Inventor of the GFCI self-testing shocks
by Bill Addiss. 01/17/18 11:11 PM
FPE in Germany
by HotLine1. 01/17/18 07:07 PM
Fujifilm Recalls Power Adapter Wall Plugs
by Admin. 01/16/18 07:04 PM
New in the Gallery:
Housebilding DIY wiring
SE cable question
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 16 guests, and 13 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
110.14(C)(1)(a)(4) #98710
02/17/05 08:00 PM
02/17/05 08:00 PM
R
Roger  Offline OP
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
Re: 110.14(C)(1)(a)(4) #98711
02/17/05 08:03 PM
02/17/05 08:03 PM
R
Ralpha494  Offline
Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 73
Pewaukee,WI,USA
I heard nobody ever made one.

Re: 110.14(C)(1)(a)(4) #98712
02/17/05 08:33 PM
02/17/05 08:33 PM
R
Roger  Offline OP
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

Re: 110.14(C)(1)(a)(4) #98713
02/17/05 10:38 PM
02/17/05 10:38 PM
G
gfretwell  Offline

Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,166
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
Re: 110.14(C)(1)(a)(4) #98714
02/18/05 12:24 AM
02/18/05 12:24 AM
R
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The Design E motor standard was rescinded by NEMA in February 2000.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).]

Re: 110.14(C)(1)(a)(4) #98715
02/18/05 10:08 AM
02/18/05 10:08 AM
R
Roger  Offline OP
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

Re: 110.14(C)(1)(a)(4) #98716
02/18/05 12:23 PM
02/18/05 12:23 PM
R
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

Re: 110.14(C)(1)(a)(4) #98717
02/18/05 01:05 PM
02/18/05 01:05 PM
R
Roger  Offline OP
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

Re: 110.14(C)(1)(a)(4) #98718
02/18/05 02:52 PM
02/18/05 02:52 PM
R
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.

Re: 110.14(C)(1)(a)(4) #98719
02/18/05 03:36 PM
02/18/05 03:36 PM
R
Roger  Offline OP
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

Featured:

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

 

Member Spotlight
HCE727
HCE727
Delaware County, PA, USA
Posts: 186
Joined: November 2005
Show All Member Profiles 
Top Posters(30 Days)
Admin 20
sparky 15
Potseal 15
Popular Topics(Views)
243,566 Are you busy
180,366 Re: Forum
170,844 Need opinion
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.1
(Release build 20180101)
Page Time: 0.026s Queries: 15 (0.004s) Memory: 1.0228 MB (Peak: 1.1980 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2018-01-20 18:59:49 UTC