FS Six 20A outlet shop electrical panel, each outlet protected

Page 2 of 3  


I'd say that is correct sir.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
@NOSPAM.15841.invalid says...

But the the breakers in this "panel" are not qualified for branch circuit protection, so it doesn't qualify as a subpanel by any stretch of the imagination, and if it were wired permanently to a breaker larger than 20A would violate the NEC. Depending on its construction, it may or may not be legal if permanently wired to a 20A circuit. The safest bet is to use it as a good rugged power strip.
Ned Simmons
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, outlets are not branch circuits either.

You may well be right, but I am curious just what provision of NECit would violate.

It can be wired to a 20A 220V circuit (3 strips on one leg and 3 on another), is that correct?
i
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
@NOSPAM.15841.invalid says...

But those 20A receps must be protected by 20A overcurrent protection and the CBs in your panel aren't qualified for branch circuit overcurrent protection.
NEC's definition of "Branch Circuit": "Branch Circuit. The circuit conductors between the final overcurrent device protecting the circuit and the outlet (s)."

For starters:
"240-3. Protection of Conductors Conductors, other than flexible cords and fixture wires, shall be protected against overcurrent in accordance with their ampacities as specified in Section 310-15, unless otherwise permitted or required in (a) through (g)."
See 210-24 for requirements for protection of receps.

Possibly, if the materials and construction of the panel are suitable.
Ned Simmons
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Huh???
I don't understand what the purpose of this quote is. It does not relate to what you typed immediately above it.

Again - why post this quoted text? The branch circuit is protected in the panel.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net says...

I thought that was pretty clear. Do you have a specific question or comment? "Huh???" is pretty vague.

It relates to my use in the previous paragraph of the term "branch circuit", which has a very specific meaning in the NEC.

Not if you were to take the suggestion made in the first post in this thread, and repeated in other posts, to feed the panel from a larger than 20A circuit.
Ned Simmons
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, it begs an explanation for a statement that is completely against NEC and the purpose of Circuit Breakers. Of course the breakers in your panel are qualified for branch circuit protection. That is in fact, exactly what they are there for. Obviously, you mean to state something else but the vague nature of the way you have either made statements like the above and the included NEC text without explanation of the point you are trying to make, causes it to be difficult for others to understand what you are saying. I can't argue with a lot of what you're trying to say, because I can't understand what you're trying to say. There's one thought that is occurring to me and that is that you are using the word "panel" to refer to the unit being sold by the OP that started this whole thread as opposed to the breaker panel in the house. Throughout this thread we have used the word panel to refer to the later. If my guess is true then I do understand what you are trying to say and in fact I agree. But, that's a guess and if my guess is wrong then there's something very wrong in what you are saying.

relate to

It would have been a lot more beneficial to explain yourself briefly instead of a reply like this which is really quite obtuse. Clearly at least one person here is not getting the point your are trying to get across and this response does nothing to clear that up.

the
Ok... but again, simply quoting NEC without an explanation of why you are quoting it - an explanation of your objection which uses the NEC as validation, does nothing to further a conversation, or (if it is your intent) the understanding of the poster in error.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net says...

Didja look at the title of the thread? The original post where Igor referred to his multi-receptacle device as a "panel"? Do you recall referring to Igor's multi-receptacle device as a "panel" yourself?
It seems to me "panel" has been used pretty consistently to refer to the multi-receptacle device that is the subject of this thread.

Your guess is correct.

I did in my first post...
******************************************** Igor: "That each outlet has its own breaker, is a feature similar to what a subpanel provides (protection for individual circuits). A power strip,at best, protects the entire strip.
My response: "But the the breakers in this "panel" are not qualified for branch circuit protection, so it doesn't qualify as a subpanel by any stretch of the imagination, and if it were wired permanently to a breaker larger than 20A would violate the NEC. Depending on its construction, it may or may not be legal if permanently wired to a 20A circuit. The safest bet is to use it as a good rugged power strip."
***************************************************

I quoted the NEC only because Igor asked for a specific provision of the NEC that supported my assertion that using his "panel" as he originally suggested would be a violation.
I don't know how to help if your objection is that an individual post may be ambiguous after earlier posts have been snipped in follow-ups, and when taken out of the context of the entire thread.
Ned Simmons
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry - did not see that.

Nope - that's not my objection Ned. I had missed at least some of the replies in this thread. I read all that I saw, but obviously not all of them made it to me from my ISP. There seems to be only a couple or a few replies that I did not receive for some reason, so viewed in the context of what appeared to have been a complete discussion, your later comments did not make sense. At least now they do and I understand what you are trying to say. Thanks for hanging in there on this one.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Now, a killer question. How come the breakers on the panel do not qualify as overcurrent protection devices under NEC. They are, after all, designed to interrupt the line if the current exceeds the rated amount. The whole issue of just how much current can be supplied to the panel, is depending on the answer to this question.
i
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
@NOSPAM.21810.invalid says...

It's a good question. I went through this a year ago when building a large industrial control panel. Usually when I do this sort of thing it's for a self contained piece of automation I've built, so this issue does not come up because the connections to the various devices are not "premises wiring" and do not constitute a branch circuit. In the case in question there were many pumps and fans powered by the panel spread around a large room, with their wiring mingled with the plant wiring.
Even though you can buy a suitable CB for your home panel for a few dollars, and the miniature circuit breakers (MCBs) referenced in the article below are reasonably priced, the breakers approved for branch circuit protection and suitable for use in an industrial control enclosure start around $200/ea for a 3 phase device, and are physically very large. We ended up protecting the conductors leaving the cabinet with Class CC fuses, which are approved for the use. By the time you buy the fuses and a quality finger safe holder, they're more expensive than the MCBs.
Here's a link to MCBs... <http://www.eatonelectrical.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer ? pagename=C-H/Common/AssetTemplateLink&c=Apubarticles&cid987090561951&Sec=products>
and the big molded case breakers... <http://www.eatonelectrical.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer ? pagename=C-H/Common/AssetTemplateLink&c=Apubarticles&cid1063683114821&Sec=products>
This article is a pretty good summary of the issue. If you want to google up more the key words are "supplementary protection", UL 489, and UL 1077.
http://www.ce-mag.com/archive/02/Spring/deionno.html
Ned Simmons
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(Ignoramus21810) writes:
| Now, a killer question. How come the breakers on the panel do not | qualify as overcurrent protection devices under NEC. They are, after | all, designed to interrupt the line if the current exceeds the rated | amount. The whole issue of just how much current can be supplied to | the panel, is depending on the answer to this question.
Reminds me of another old question: can an electric range listed for direct connection to a 60A branch circuit have 15A utility outlets protected by small panel-mounted pop-up circuit breakers? At one time the answer appears to have been yes since I had such a thing.
                Dan Lanciani                 ddl@danlan.*com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net says...

No wonder you felt like you were guessing at what I meant.

I should have realized earlier something was amiss; my earliest post showed up on one machine here, but not the other. I was afraid you were going to insist that each post stand on its own as if it were a formal research paper <g>. Glad we were able to avoid a shouting match.
Ned Simmons
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ned Simmons wrote:

stretch
larger
or
bet
Any reason this device couldn't be wired to a 30A electric clothes dryer pigtail and plugged into a 240V dryer receptacle, to provide 120V, 60A total to downstream devices? The receptacle would have to be all 4 proper conductors of course: 2 hots, neutral, and ground.
The individual 12 ga conductors on the device are protected by the onboard 20A breakers. If the breakers are not qualified for branch circuit protection, what are they qualified for, and would that be sufficient for a non-permanent (i.e. plugged-in) device?
%mod%
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@worldnet.att.net wrote:

That should be fine. That might even be what Ned was suggesting.
Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 23 Feb 2005 10:01:20 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@worldnet.att.net

Well, this device is not portable and is not for plugging into receptacles, it is for permanent wiring. If you build a steel enclosure for it, then it could be made portable, but it was not meant to be.
http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/outlet-panel /
By the way, the device is sold.

Exactly. They are overcurrent protection devices.
i
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yeah, you guys stop telling me what I can't do with my panel!
JohnL PE
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

WRONG! Size the 'upstream' wiring to match whatever size of breaker is used to feed the outlet panel. IF smaller than 120A, then the upstream breaker will trip *before* the individual breakers. This is perfectly acceptable. It just means that you cannot use all the sub-circuits to maximum capacity simultaneously. Which *is* the 'normal' state of affairs.
Furthermore, 120A only needs #2 wire.

Do you work for Microsoft Tech Support? This is eerily reminiscent of their responses -- "technically accurate, but utterly meaningless in application".
It is entirely allowable to have sub-strings with their own breakers, where the aggregate maximum load exceeds the rating of the feedline/breaker.
If you add up the individual breakers in a typical 'home' panel, you'll find that they often total _more_ than 150% of the main breaker rating, just for one example. Heck, the electric stove, electric clothes dryer, and the air-conditioner compressor will often equal the main breaker all by themselves. Not counting the 8-10 (or more) other circuits in the house.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Furthermore, to put 20a power on each outlet, all one needs is a 60A 220V circuit with neutral. #6 wire should be perfectly adequate for that. I recently put a subpanel into my garage and put it on a 60A breaker.
Since no one actually needs full 20A use of all six outlets, 40 amps 220V should be more than adequate. That would be equivalent to 80A use at 110V.

Yep, think of a typical subpanel. Sum of the capacities of its individual circuits usually exceeds the capacity of the breaker that the subpanel is on, on the theory that it is highly unlikely that all circuits would be loaded at the same time.

There is an elaborate formula/method for calculating whether the circuits exceed capacity. I am not familiar with its details, but exceeding the main breaker by even more than 150% is often, if not usually, acceptable. It depends on how many loads are truly continuous. Shop outlets do not count with the same "weight" as does AC or electric dryer or a range.
i
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Where in the NEC does it prohibit soldered connections?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.