120 And 240 Lighting - Electrical - Page 2 - DIY Chatroom Home Improvement Forum
Advertisement


Go Back   DIY Chatroom Home Improvement Forum > Home Improvement > Electrical

CLICK HERE AND JOIN OUR COMMUNITY TODAY...IT'S FREE!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes
Old 03-08-2015, 12:53 AM   #16
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 2,512
Rewards Points: 1,832
Default


Quote:
Originally Posted by nap View Post
but there is a lever that is used to manually turn off the loads. If nothing else, it is a bad idea since the uninformed may flip that lever thinking there is no power to the loads only to discover the hard way there is.

but unless the code says timers with integral means of manually disconnecting the load, I do not see where the code prohibits it from being considered a disconnect.

a photocell cannot be considered a disconnect because there is no means of using it as a disconnect.
The lever is just manual on/off it is not a listed disconnect because its automatic and not designed for it. Not to sound arrogant, but the misinformed should not be working on electrical installations without understanding the basics first. Seeing whether or not lights come on as a method to verify safety is the absolute last way to know power is disconnected. I could have a break in the circuit or a failed lamp, so because of that tripping a disconnect like breaker and testing is the only way to know power is off. This is the reason why MWBC did not require handle ties in the past. Code assumed you were qualified and where able to verify power was off.

Of course unqualified home owners were being belted on MWBC hence the handle ties, but it would be impossible to idiot proof every part of the code.


Now, from a fault perspective or having an extra layer of safety would switching all hots be a good idea? You bet. But code is the minimum standard. Ds as bad as they are will get you through school.
Jump-start is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-08-2015, 01:01 AM   #17
nap
You talking to me?
 
nap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: sw mi
Posts: 7,551
Rewards Points: 6,290
Default


Quote:
Jump-start;1812017]The lever is just manual on/off it is not a listed disconnect because its automatic and not designed for it. Not to sound arrogant, but the misinformed should not be working on electrical installations without understanding the basics first. Seeing whether or not lights come on as a method to verify safety is the absolute last way to know power is disconnected. I could have a break in the circuit or a failed lamp, so because of that tripping a disconnect like breaker and testing is the only way to know power is off. This is the reason why MWBC did not require handle ties in the past. Code assumed you were qualified and where able to verify power was off.
but you must realize the code is being re-written to accommodate the untrained. Otherwise we would have no reason to group breakers on a MWBC or many other issues the code is now requiring.

Quote:
Of course unqualified home owners were being belted on MWBC hence the handle ties, but it would be impossible to idiot proof every part of the code.
but the code was not intended to be a safety service manual for the untrained.
nap is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-08-2015, 01:12 AM   #18
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 2,512
Rewards Points: 1,832
Default


Quote:
Originally Posted by nap View Post
but you must realize the code is being re-written to accommodate the untrained. Otherwise we would have no reason to group breakers on a MWBC or many other issues the code is now requiring.
I regret to say it but you are 100% correct Code is being idiot proofed. By idiot proofing will just make more idiots, so code will have to adjust and you end up with a run away effect. As Bob Badger once said "if idiots were the only thing we had to consider on electrical systems, we would have to shut down the entire power grid because idiots can screw up a two wire lamp cord"



Quote:
but the code was not intended to be a safety service manual for the untrained.
I agree. In fact half of stuff would surprise people (a straight 240 volt circuit does not even need common trip for a fault, an AC unit can have #14 on a 40 amp breaker, ect) but its assumed that anything outside of changing a residential light bulb or plugging something in that you have the knowledge to under take it safely.
Jump-start is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Jump-start For This Useful Post:
nap (03-08-2015)
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-08-2015, 12:23 PM   #19
A "Handy Husband"
 
rjniles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: South Carolina Low Country
Posts: 10,609
Rewards Points: 358
Default


The OP has not returned to supply more info, but if this is in a dwelling unit, there are limits on the type of lighting that can be supplied using more than 120 volts.

210.6 Branch-Circuit Voltage Limitations. The nominal voltage of branch circuits shall not exceed the values permitted by 210.6(A) through (E).
(A) Occupancy Limitation. In dwelling units and guest rooms or guest suites of hotels, motels, and similar occupancies, the voltage shall not exceed 120 volts, nominal, between conductors that supply the terminals of the following:
(1) Luminaires
(2) Cord-and-plug-connected loads 1440 volt-amperes, nominal, or less or less than 1⁄4 hp
(B) 120 Volts Between Conductors. Circuits not exceeding 120 volts, nominal, between conductors shall be permitted to supply the following: (1) The terminals of lampholders applied within their voltage ratings (2) Auxiliary equipment of electric-discharge lamps (3) Cord-and-plug-connected or permanently connected utilization equipment
__________________
My electrical answers are based on 2014 NEC, you may have local amendments.

Location: Coastal South Carolina
rjniles is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to rjniles For This Useful Post:
nap (03-08-2015)
Old 03-08-2015, 12:47 PM   #20
nap
You talking to me?
 
nap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: sw mi
Posts: 7,551
Rewards Points: 6,290
Default


That's the section I couldn't find way too late last night.
nap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2015, 01:34 PM   #21
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 2,512
Rewards Points: 1,832
Default


One could argue "In" a dwelling vs exterior

But you are correct, a 240 volt light in a home is not allowed.
Jump-start is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2015, 03:52 PM   #22
Semi-Pro Electro-Geek
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 3,376
Rewards Points: 3,652
Default


Quote:
Originally Posted by nap View Post
To start with it would be a code violation since both hot conductirs of the 240 volt circuit must be disconnected. Other than that the timer does not appear to be listed for the purpose making it another code violation.

Then your mwbc system is also a code violation. You cannot use half of a 240 volt circuit plus a neutral to create a 240 volt circuit for this purpose.
The information you found for the timer is not the actual listing or labeling. Keep looking on the Intermatic site and you'll find the label on the device. It's labeled as a 240V 40A double pole switch, also with HP ratings. There is no restriction on how you choose to use those two poles. Running separate circuits through different poles of a switch is pretty commonly done and not against code. Only "disconnects" need to interrupt both hot conductors of a 240V circuit, not an operating control switch like this.

I'm not clear on why the MWBC would necessarily always be a code violation. Mixed 120/240V circuits are used all the time. The only issue here is that the OCPD must be appropriate for both the 120V and 240V devices. As long as that works out, I'm not sure what code provision would be violated.
__________________
I am a lawyer, but not your lawyer. And who cares anyways? We're here to talk construction. This is DIY advice, not legal advice.
mpoulton is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to mpoulton For This Useful Post:
Jump-start (03-08-2015)
Old 03-08-2015, 04:21 PM   #23
nap
You talking to me?
 
nap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: sw mi
Posts: 7,551
Rewards Points: 6,290
Default


Quote:
mpoulton;1814297]The information you found for the timer is not the actual listing or labeling. Keep looking on the Intermatic site and you'll find the label on the device. It's labeled as a 240V 40A double pole switch, also with HP ratings. There is no restriction on how you choose to use those two poles. Running separate circuits through different poles of a switch is pretty commonly done and not against code. Only "disconnects" need to interrupt both hot conductors of a 240V circuit, not an operating control switch like this.
that is why I said a call to Intermatic may clear things up.

but I will still stick with the concern of the timer being considered to be a disconnect. I suspect an inspector may agree with me on this.

any inspectors in the house?

but as we have found, 240 volt lighting circuits in a house are quite limited so in reality, it may be a moot point anyway.


Quote:
I'm not clear on why the MWBC would necessarily always be a code violation. Mixed 120/240V circuits are used all the time. The only issue here is that the OCPD must be appropriate for both the 120V and 240V devices. As long as that works out, I'm not sure what code provision would be violated
because code says it is, but there is an exception that would allow it if complied with. That exception was never mentioned and without that mention, it is a violation of the code so, my position is; as written, it would be a violation.

210.4(C)

line to neutral loads. Multiwire branch circuits shall supply only line to neutral loads.

exception 2 would allow it if all ungrounded conductors of the MWBC are opened simultaneously by the BC OCPD

of course 210.4(B) does require that each multiwire branch circuit shall be provided with a means that will simultaneously disconnect all ungrounded conductors at the point where the branch circuit orginates (new addition in 2008 code)

so it shouldn't be a problem as well as the fact a 240 volt circuit is required to have a common trip breaker, but simply dealing with what the code has provided me.

and of course the circuit ampacity must be limited to a 20 amp rating so, depending on what the OP intends on doing, there may not be enough capacity if sharing the 240 circuit with the 2- 120 volt circuits (with one exception possible but that would require ALL lights attached to a circuit in excess of 20 amps to fulfill the requirements of 210.21.
nap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2015, 10:39 PM   #24
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 2,512
Rewards Points: 1,832
Default


Quote:
Originally Posted by nap View Post
so it shouldn't be a problem as well as the fact a 240 volt circuit is required to have a common trip breaker, but simply dealing with what the code has provided me.

This might help. IF the breaker has both manual and internal common trip it can handle a circuit with both line to line and line to neutral loads.

Also if the timer is going to disconnect a circuit with both line-line and line to neutral loads I would break both because the 240 volt load will back feed the other phase into the 120 volt loads. So half the 120 volt stuff will be in series with the 240volt equipment. Now, if you are breaking a straight 240 volt load only one leg needs to be switched.
Attached Thumbnails
120 and 240 lighting-breaker.jpg  
Jump-start is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2015, 07:46 AM   #25
A "Handy Husband"
 
rjniles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: South Carolina Low Country
Posts: 10,609
Rewards Points: 358
Default


I just noticed that the OP asked his question on 3/7/15 at 5:16 PM and last signed in the same evening at 10:09 PM. This was hid first and only post. He saw only 1 post (from NAP) that said he could not do what he wanted to do. He has seen none of the rest of the discussion. Hopefully some else will get some information from this discussion.
__________________
My electrical answers are based on 2014 NEC, you may have local amendments.

Location: Coastal South Carolina
rjniles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2015, 08:44 AM   #26
nap
You talking to me?
 
nap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: sw mi
Posts: 7,551
Rewards Points: 6,290
Default


I know I will. Anytime a question makes me break out the code book I learn i don't know everything but I do remember where to get the answers though.
nap is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Top of Page | View New Posts