Dick:
I do not desire to find building official who insist on a strict
interpretation of the code, but it is a reality in our jurisdictions. We
have to be pro-active and know the code better than they do, or we lose
money when we are assessed corrective actions that increase our
costs. Bruc
William,
You may well find inspectors and others who will agree with you on this. I
remain firmly unconvinced. Yes, the code may be taken literally. . . . .and
also, sometimes, be taken out of context. I believe you are doing that here. It
is impossible to use words in such an airtight manner that
Dick,
I think im in William's camp and you may have gathered from my earlier post in
this thread. The actual logic and safety concerned in reality and practice may
be totally true and valid from your perspective (and in reality), however the
wording of the code allows for you to get a out of th
Dick:
Regardless, the code requires that all portions of the circuit accommodate
the sum of the over current devices supplying the circuit. The citation is
below.
I am not defending the code, I am telling you what I believe it says. You
don't need to sell your view point to me, you need to
ny) scenario. So why would you have to increase
>conductor size?
>
>Thanks, Allan
>
>--
>From: re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org
>[mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of William Miller
>Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 11:13 PM
>To: RE-wr
, August 01, 2009 11:13 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] down-sizing main breaker
Allan:
I whipped up three drawings that indicate three overload scenarios
possible with incorrectly sized distribution equipment. They are on our
web site at: http://millersolar.com/case_studies
On Behalf Of William
Miller
Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 11:13 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] down-sizing main breaker
Allan:
I whipped up three drawings that indicate three overload scenarios possible
with incorrectly sized distribution equipment. They are on our web site at:
ht
Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 6:11 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] down-sizing main breaker
Dick:
Your logic is correct but incomplete. Consider it like this: The buss
bars in the service panel can handle 100 amps (they are rated for that
amount). The main breaker feed
Brian, William & Allan,
Perhaps I've misunderstand the specific distribution equipment involved. I have
assumed the main SERVICE consisted of a meter and single, 100 amp main breaker,
as a combo unit or as separate enclosures, but with no busbar provision for
additional breakers there at the pedes
: re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of William
Miller
Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 6:11 PM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: Re: [RE-wrenches] down-sizing main breaker
Dick:
Your logic is correct but incomplete. Consider it like this:
Dick:
Your logic is correct but incomplete. Consider it like this: The buss
bars in the service panel can handle 100 amps (they are rated for that
amount). The main breaker feeds 100 amps into that buss, maximizing it's
capabilities. If you feed an additional 40 amps into that buss bar, yo
William,
I don't know if I've solved Brian's dilemma yet either. But, with regard to your
example below, if the 100 amp meter main is accepting 20 amps, or even all of
the 50 amps of PV, that would mean that the house, at that moment, presented no
load at all, and that all the PV would be backfeed
Dick:
In my last post, I meant to cite 690.64(B).
William ___
List sponsored by Home Power magazine
List Address: RE-wrenches@lists.re-wrenches.org
Options & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
List-Archive
Dick:
I don't believe you have solved Brian's dilemma yet. It is my
understanding that if one is going to install a load side tape, the back
feed calculations need to work for every link of the distribution system
upstream to the meter. In the scenario you suggest, that will not be the
case
On 8/1/09 11:08 , William Miller wrote:
Our best solution would be to install a 200 amp meter panel with a 100
amp breaker. The application is an agricultural based residence, so
based on how one interpreted this, the back feed allowance would be
either 100 amps or 120 amps, enough to cover ou
William,
I stand corrected. Thank you.
This is not a supply side tap. I should have said it was a tap on the supply
side of the panelboard main breaker. That said , I think it works and meets
code, provided the conductors spliced to the feeder are properly sized. The
panelboard busbar is protect
Dick:
I disagree with your plan. To qualify as a supply side tap, the tap needs
to be on the supply side of the main disconnecting means, If I understand
your plan correctly, your suggestion does not achieve this.
Bruce:
Your inspector is correct -- not in his interpretation of the code --
Hi Nick,
I may not be entirely clear on your situation, but I interpret 690.64(B)(2),
literally or otherwise, as meaning a busbar, or a conductor used in the SAME WAY
as a busbar, rather than as a feeder. By that, I mean the conductor would have
the solar breaker's energy tapped into it in such a
Bruce,
This sounds like a good situation for a line side tap,
rather than going to all the work of replacing the panel.
Turn off main breaker at the pedestal, no need to touch the meter.
At the house, pull the feeder out of the panel.
Put it into a proper new junction box. Splice
one set of ne
if you read 690.64b it does mention both the buss rating AND conductors.
for years and years I thought it was just for the buss rating until i got
called recently for the feeders being undersized and unable to accommodate the
solar within 120%. I see a lot of sentiments in this thread that it is
if you read 690.64b it does mention both the buss rating AND conductors.
for years and years I thought it was just for the buss rating until i got
called recently for the feeders being undersized and unable to accommodate the
solar within 120%. I see a lot of sentiments in this thread that it is
-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Mendocino
Solar Service
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 9:57 AM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: [RE-wrenches] down-sizing main breaker
Hi Folks,
Can anyone provide code reference or advice on this question?
Our customer has 100 amp service at the meter
ject: [RE-wrenches] down-sizing main breaker
Hi Folks,
Can anyone provide code reference or advice on this question?
Our customer has 100 amp service at the meter pedestal, 100 amp main breaker
feeding 200 foot underground run to a 100 amp panel at the house. We need to
land a 40 amp breake
sts.re-wrenches.org
[mailto:re-wrenches-boun...@lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Mendocino
Solar Service
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 9:57 AM
To: RE-wrenches
Subject: [RE-wrenches] down-sizing main breaker
Hi Folks,
Can anyone provide code reference or advice on this question?
Our customer has 100 amp s
Hi Folks,
Can anyone provide code reference or advice on this question?
Our customer has 100 amp service at the meter pedestal, 100 amp main
breaker feeding 200 foot underground run to a 100 amp panel at the
house. We need to land a 40 amp breaker, so are proposing to replace
main panel at
25 matches
Mail list logo
