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

No offence to the OP, but this is an extremely dangerous and
not-code-compliant device.

1. Soldered connections are not acceptable for AC;
2. Uninsulated terminations;

I can't tell for sure, but I don't think these breakers are designed
for 20A AC loads.

Even if this were a code-compliant device, it would be unsafe to use
this with any less than 120A overload protection at the main panel and
1/0 AWG copper conductors. *Each* of those 20A receptacles can draw up
to 20A for a total of 120A.

The OP could be held liable for any injury, death, or damage that
ensues from the use of this device. Kudos for creativity, but it
should be destroyed immediately.

Mr Fixit eh

If I bought it, I would hook it directly to the incoming main wires, or
perhaps even snake some wires out and bypass the meter entirely.

- Jeff Wisnia

Ned Simmons wrote:
> 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.

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%

Wow, who knew this would generate so many posts!

I goofed in that 120A supply would not be needed. In fact 20A branch
circuit protection in the panel would be adequate. Of course, then it
would defeat the purpose of the device, because the branch circuit
breaker would be tripping continually. In order to have adequate power
for multiple shop tools, you would need to increase the amperage
supplied to the device. The 30A 220V feeder would be a practical
solution, however as was pointed out in a previous post, this would be
non-code-compliant because you would be 'over-fusing' the individual
receptacle wiring in the device.

I still have a problem with the solder-only, non-insulated connections.
If something goes awry and the device's overcurrent protection device
overheats, the solder will melt. You could end up with a hot wire make
contact with a metal box...

I'm assuming this device was part of a UL approved UPS. That's fine so
long as it is in the original unit. Once the device is removed, it is
not UL approved for the new application. The problem is that a DIY
(again, no offence intended--I am one too) may use an inappropriate
device box or mount the device unsafely, or over-fuse the device.

And as far as legal liability, I'm not a lawyer, but if someone's house
burnt down as a result of this device, I'm sure a lawyer would get lots
of mileage out of OP if they had a way to find him/her.

I'm sure the device is worth the asking price of 25$ just for the
component parts, but if anyone does purchase this device, it should be
used for just that--parts.

Mr Fixit eh

In article <[email protected]>,
Mr Fixit eh <[email protected]> wrote:
>No offence to the OP, but this is an extremely dangerous and
>not-code-compliant device.
>
>1. Soldered connections are not acceptable for AC;
>2. Uninsulated terminations;
>
>I can't tell for sure, but I don't think these breakers are designed
>for 20A AC loads.
>
>Even if this were a code-compliant device, it would be unsafe to use
>this with any less than 120A overload protection at the main panel and
>1/0 AWG copper conductors.

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.

> *Each* of those 20A receptacles can draw up
>to 20A for a total of 120A.

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.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (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

On 21 Feb 2005 18:09:27 GMT, Ignoramus15794
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 12:34:36 -0500, tom <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Hi, I don't seem to be able to get email thru to you. I will take the panel
>>>if still available. Please contact me.
>>>Sincerely, John Lovallo
>>
>> With all the problems I've had and others trying to get to the site,
>> good thing this is a one time sale. ;) tom @ www.BookmarkAdmin.com
>>>> > > http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/outlet-panel/
>
>It should be up now. :) I am using that site as a development site for
>my main website www.algebra.com (my domain), so, sometimes it is down

Noticed the PR6, very nice.



>if I mess up some apache configuration.

Who hasn't been there before.....geez.... :)

>
>i


later,

tom

"Ignoramus15841" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> You are right that it CAN be on a 20A circuit. It does not mean that
> doing that is optimal for someone with a home shop (which is where, I
> think, this panel fits best). That would limit the number of
> simultaneously running devices. Think about someone running a
> compressor, a dust collector, a shaper with a vacuum attached
> to some strategic spot. When I think about circuit selection for this
> panel, with a shop like that in mind, I think that 40A 220V would be
> best. Any more is a waste, but having less would run a risk of not
> being able to power up a fancy shop in the most effective manner.

I know where you're coming from but the mistake I think you're making is
that you are thinking of this device as a subpanel and not as a power strip,
which is what it is more like.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

[email protected] wrote:
> Ned Simmons wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>
> 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.


That should be fine. That might even be what Ned was suggesting.

Bob

"The Real Tom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:45:04 GMT, "Rick" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Where in the NEC does it prohibit soldered connections?
> >
>
>
> In summary, no splice shall rely on solder for mechanical and
> electrical connections per 2002 NEC 110.14(b)


>
> IMHO: this means you can use solder to dress up the splice, or tin the
> tips of stranded wire for easier wirenutting.>

And IMHO, your first example is a "soldered connection". Does the 2002 code
actually prohibit the use of solder on any connection, or just as the sole
means for mechanical and electrical connection?

"Ignoramus15841" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> Looks like we are not actually disagreeing, but rather are looking at
> this issue from differing angles.
>

I'd say that is correct sir.
--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:52:32 GMT, "Rick" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Mr Fixit eh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> No offence to the OP, but this is an extremely dangerous and
>> not-code-compliant device.
>>
>> 1. Soldered connections are not acceptable for AC;
>> 2. Uninsulated terminations;
>>
>> I can't tell for sure, but I don't think these breakers are designed
>> for 20A AC loads.
>>
>> Even if this were a code-compliant device, it would be unsafe to use
>> this with any less than 120A overload protection at the main panel and
>> 1/0 AWG copper conductors. *Each* of those 20A receptacles can draw up
>> to 20A for a total of 120A.
>>
>> The OP could be held liable for any injury, death, or damage that
>> ensues from the use of this device. Kudos for creativity, but it
>> should be destroyed immediately.
>>
>> Mr Fixit eh
>>
>
>No offence to you, but please look at your breaker panel. Does the main
>breaker current rating equal the sum of all the individual breakers?
>

Ofcouse not, breakers are rated for the conductor sizes, and the
disconnect is rated for the service enterance conductors and panel.

imho,

tom @ www.ChopURL.com

"Ignoramus15841" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> The sensible thing to do for this panel would be to have a 40 A 220V
> circuit for this panel, protected at the main panel by a suitable
> breaker.

This is the second or third time you've said this and it's just wrong.
There is no reason it cannot be on a #12 wire protected by a 20A breaker.
It's no different than your house wiring.


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Mr Fixit eh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> No offence to the OP, but this is an extremely dangerous and
> not-code-compliant device.
>
> 1. Soldered connections are not acceptable for AC;
> 2. Uninsulated terminations;

Not sure about that for things like this. This is not house wiring.

>
> I can't tell for sure, but I don't think these breakers are designed
> for 20A AC loads.

Didn't they have 20A breakers on them?

>
> Even if this were a code-compliant device, it would be unsafe to use
> this with any less than 120A overload protection at the main panel and
> 1/0 AWG copper conductors. *Each* of those 20A receptacles can draw up
> to 20A for a total of 120A.

How many circuit breakers do you have in your panel? Add up the load total
of all of those breakers. It's very common for that to total more than the
200A or whatever is coming into your house. As long as the device is
protected by a 20A breaker and #12 wire, it's perfectly safe. Remember -
the breaker in your panel protects the wire. The wire is rated for a
certain level of current. It just does not matter what is attached to the
other end. Think of this - by code you can put 12 devices on a piece of #12
wire on 20A breaker. By your logic, I'd need a 240A breaker and some nasty
sized wire for that circuit. Sorry - but you were thinking about this
incorrectly.

>
> The OP could be held liable for any injury, death, or damage that
> ensues from the use of this device. Kudos for creativity, but it
> should be destroyed immediately.
>

Not if he didn't manufacture it. If he's just selling it he's no more
liable for it than if you sell a car and someone dies in it from some
defect. Even if he did build it, his liability may be quite small. If the
device is UL listed, you're point is even less valid. There's a lot of talk
here about liability for this and for that - even to the point of people
claiming that one can be held liable for posts in this forum. Bull. It's
always best to check with a lawyer first before making these statements.

"Ned Simmons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 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.

Huh???

>
> NEC's definition of "Branch Circuit":
> "Branch Circuit. The circuit conductors between the final
> overcurrent device protecting the circuit and the outlet
> (s)."

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

>
> 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.

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

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:45:04 GMT, "Rick" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Mr Fixit eh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> No offence to the OP, but this is an extremely dangerous and
>> not-code-compliant device.
>>
>> 1. Soldered connections are not acceptable for AC;
>> 2. Uninsulated terminations;
>>
>> I can't tell for sure, but I don't think these breakers are designed
>> for 20A AC loads.
>>
>> Even if this were a code-compliant device, it would be unsafe to use
>> this with any less than 120A overload protection at the main panel and
>> 1/0 AWG copper conductors. *Each* of those 20A receptacles can draw up
>> to 20A for a total of 120A.
>>
>> The OP could be held liable for any injury, death, or damage that
>> ensues from the use of this device. Kudos for creativity, but it
>> should be destroyed immediately.
>>
>> Mr Fixit eh
>>
>
>Where in the NEC does it prohibit soldered connections?
>


In summaryl, no splice shall rely on solder for mechanical and
electrical connections per 2002 NEC 110.14(b)

IMHO: this means you can use solder to dress up the splice, or tin the
tips of stranded wire for easier wirenutting.

As for grounding: I remember re-itterates no fusable metals, but
don't remember where. But 110.14(b) basicly says no.

hth,

tom @ www.WorkAtHomePlans.com

"Matt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If I bought it, I would hook it directly to the incoming main wires, or
> perhaps even snake some wires out and bypass the meter entirely.
>
> - Jeff Wisnia
>

#12 extension cord from the BORG, plugged right into the convenience outlet
in the bottom of the pole transformer and into the handy dandy panel.
--

-Mike-
[email protected]

In article <[email protected]>, "Mr Fixit eh" <[email protected]> wrote:
>No offence to the OP, but this is an extremely dangerous and
>not-code-compliant device.

Wrong: cord-and-plug connected devices do not fall under the purview of the
NEC, which applies only to premises wiring.
>
>1. Soldered connections are not acceptable for AC;

Wrong again. The NEC prohibits connections from relying on solder *only*, but,
again, the NEC does not apply to cord-and-plug connected devices. And there's
no reason not to use solder with AC.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

In article <[email protected]>, ignoramus15841
@NOSPAM.15841.invalid says...
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:01:34 -0500, Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > "Ignoramus15841" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> You are right that it CAN be on a 20A circuit. It does not mean that
> >> doing that is optimal for someone with a home shop (which is where, I
> >> think, this panel fits best). That would limit the number of
> >> simultaneously running devices. Think about someone running a
> >> compressor, a dust collector, a shaper with a vacuum attached
> >> to some strategic spot. When I think about circuit selection for this
> >> panel, with a shop like that in mind, I think that 40A 220V would be
> >> best. Any more is a waste, but having less would run a risk of not
> >> being able to power up a fancy shop in the most effective manner.
> >
> > I know where you're coming from but the mistake I think you're
> > making is that you are thinking of this device as a subpanel and not
> > as a power strip, which is what it is more like.
>
> 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.

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

In article <[email protected]>, ignoramus15841
@NOSPAM.15841.invalid says...
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 23:24:22 -0500, Ned Simmons <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, ignoramus15841
> > @NOSPAM.15841.invalid says...

> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > But the the breakers in this "panel" are not qualified for branch
> > circuit protection,
>
> Well, outlets are not branch circuits either.

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)."

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

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.

>
> > 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.
>
> It can be wired to a 20A 220V circuit (3 strips on one leg and 3 on
> another), is that correct?

Possibly, if the materials and construction of the panel
are suitable.

Ned Simmons

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "Ned Simmons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > 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.
>
> Huh???

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

>
> >
> > NEC's definition of "Branch Circuit":
> > "Branch Circuit. The circuit conductors between the final
> > overcurrent device protecting the circuit and the outlet
> > (s)."
>
> I don't understand what the purpose of this quote is. It does not relate to
> what you typed immediately above it.

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

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

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

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "Ned Simmons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> > >
> > > "Ned Simmons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Huh???
> >
> > I thought that was pretty clear. Do you have a specific
> > question or comment? "Huh???" is pretty vague.
>
> 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.

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.


> 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.

Your guess is correct.

>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > NEC's definition of "Branch Circuit":
> > > > "Branch Circuit. The circuit conductors between the final
> > > > overcurrent device protecting the circuit and the outlet
> > > > (s)."
> > >
> > > I don't understand what the purpose of this quote is. It does not
> relate to
> > > what you typed immediately above it.
> >
> > It relates to my use in the previous paragraph of the term
> > "branch circuit", which has a very specific meaning in the
> > NEC.
>
> 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.

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."

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

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

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "Ned Simmons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

> > 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.
>
> Sorry - did not see that.

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

>
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> 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.
>

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

In article <[email protected]>, ignoramus21810
@NOSPAM.21810.invalid says...
> 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.
>

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&cid=
987090561951&Sec=products>

and the big molded case breakers...
<http://www.eatonelectrical.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?
pagename=C-H/Common/AssetTemplateLink&c=Apubarticles&cid=
1063683114821&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

"The Real Tom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:52:32 GMT, "Rick" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >No offence to you, but please look at your breaker panel. Does the main
> >breaker current rating equal the sum of all the individual breakers?
> >
>
> Ofcouse not, breakers are rated for the conductor sizes, and the
> disconnect is rated for the service enterance conductors and panel.
>
> imho,
>
Exactly the point I was trying to make...

"Mr Fixit eh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> No offence to the OP, but this is an extremely dangerous and
> not-code-compliant device.
>
> 1. Soldered connections are not acceptable for AC;
> 2. Uninsulated terminations;
>
> I can't tell for sure, but I don't think these breakers are designed
> for 20A AC loads.
>
> Even if this were a code-compliant device, it would be unsafe to use
> this with any less than 120A overload protection at the main panel and
> 1/0 AWG copper conductors. *Each* of those 20A receptacles can draw up
> to 20A for a total of 120A.
>
> The OP could be held liable for any injury, death, or damage that
> ensues from the use of this device. Kudos for creativity, but it
> should be destroyed immediately.
>
> Mr Fixit eh


And how many 15A receptacles do you have on one breaker?

"Ned Simmons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> >
> > "Ned Simmons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Huh???
>
> I thought that was pretty clear. Do you have a specific
> question or comment? "Huh???" is pretty vague.

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.

>
> >
> > >
> > > NEC's definition of "Branch Circuit":
> > > "Branch Circuit. The circuit conductors between the final
> > > overcurrent device protecting the circuit and the outlet
> > > (s)."
> >
> > I don't understand what the purpose of this quote is. It does not
relate to
> > what you typed immediately above it.
>
> It relates to my use in the previous paragraph of the term
> "branch circuit", which has a very specific meaning in the
> NEC.

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.

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

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-
[email protected]

Yeah, you guys stop telling me what I can't do with my panel!

JohnL PE
"Ignoramus21810" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 23 Feb 2005 10:01:20 -0800, [email protected]
<[email protected]> wrote:
> > Ned Simmons wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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.
>
> > 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
>
> Exactly. They are overcurrent protection devices.
>
> i

my site was down for a while, it is back up again.

i

On 20 Feb 2005 18:10:02 GMT, Ignoramus29737 <[email protected]> wrote:
> For Sale is a panel of 6 20A outlets. Each outlet is individually
> protected with a separate breaker!
>
> http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/outlet-panel/
>
> You run a single circuit to your shop (say 30-40A 220V with neutral),
> with one breaker in the main panel, connect it to the panel I am
> selling, and voila, you are done.
>
> This is a very cheap way to have a lot of protected 20A outlets,
> compared to alternatives (buying electrical boxes, premium 20A
> outlets, subpanel, many breakers etc). Nice for a shop where you have
> a lot of tools that need to be plugged in.
>
> This is a pull from a large 5 kvA working UPS. I have another one,
> which I will keep for myself.
>
> $25 plus shipping (maybe $10 or so) takes it. Local pickup is free
> (Chicagoland).
>
> i


--

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 05:04:29 GMT, Jeff P. <[email protected]> wrote:
> Your site was still down when I tried it at 11:11pm central time.
>

it is up now

> On 20 Feb 2005 18:10:02 GMT, Ignoramus29737
<[email protected]> wrote:
> > For Sale is a panel of 6 20A outlets. Each outlet is individually
> > protected with a separate breaker!
> >
> > http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/outlet-panel/

--

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 12:34:36 -0500, tom <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Hi, I don't seem to be able to get email thru to you. I will take the panel
>>if still available. Please contact me.
>>Sincerely, John Lovallo
>
> With all the problems I've had and others trying to get to the site,
> good thing this is a one time sale. ;) tom @ www.BookmarkAdmin.com
>>> > > http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/outlet-panel/

It should be up now. :) I am using that site as a development site for
my main website www.algebra.com (my domain), so, sometimes it is down
if I mess up some apache configuration.

i

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:11:02 -0000, John Lovallo <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, I don't seem to be able to get email thru to you. I will take the panel
> if still available. Please contact me.
> Sincerely, John Lovallo

My email is ichudov AT algebra DOT com, or ichudov AT yahoo DOT com.

Will be happy to sell it to you.

i

> "Ignoramus29737" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 05:04:29 GMT, Jeff P. <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Your site was still down when I tried it at 11:11pm central time.
>> >
>>
>> it is up now
>>
>> > On 20 Feb 2005 18:10:02 GMT, Ignoramus29737
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > For Sale is a panel of 6 20A outlets. Each outlet is individually
>> > > protected with a separate breaker!
>> > >
>> > > http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/outlet-panel/
>>
>
>


--

On 22 Feb 2005 06:46:12 -0800, Mr Fixit eh <[email protected]> wrote:
> No offence to the OP, but this is an extremely dangerous and
> not-code-compliant device.
>
> 1. Soldered connections are not acceptable for AC;

One has to wonder though, how come they were acceptable in a big
expensive UPS that was sold to the government (Clary UPS).

> 2. Uninsulated terminations;

> I can't tell for sure, but I don't think these breakers are designed
> for 20A AC loads.

They say "20" on them.

> Even if this were a code-compliant device, it would be unsafe to use
> this with any less than 120A overload protection at the main panel and
> 1/0 AWG copper conductors. *Each* of those 20A receptacles can draw up
> to 20A for a total of 120A.

You can put them on different legs of a 220V circuit, and protect the
circuit with adequate circuit breaker.

i

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:38:45 -0500, Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Mr Fixit eh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> No offence to the OP, but this is an extremely dangerous and
>> not-code-compliant device.
>>
>> 1. Soldered connections are not acceptable for AC;
>> 2. Uninsulated terminations;
>
> Not sure about that for things like this. This is not house wiring.
>
>>
>> I can't tell for sure, but I don't think these breakers are designed
>> for 20A AC loads.
>
> Didn't they have 20A breakers on them?

They did.

>>
>> Even if this were a code-compliant device, it would be unsafe to use
>> this with any less than 120A overload protection at the main panel and
>> 1/0 AWG copper conductors. *Each* of those 20A receptacles can draw up
>> to 20A for a total of 120A.
>
> How many circuit breakers do you have in your panel? Add up the load total
> of all of those breakers. It's very common for that to total more than the
> 200A or whatever is coming into your house. As long as the device is
> protected by a 20A breaker and #12 wire, it's perfectly safe. Remember -
> the breaker in your panel protects the wire. The wire is rated for a
> certain level of current. It just does not matter what is attached to the
> other end. Think of this - by code you can put 12 devices on a piece of #12
> wire on 20A breaker. By your logic, I'd need a 240A breaker and some nasty
> sized wire for that circuit. Sorry - but you were thinking about this
> incorrectly.

The sensible thing to do for this panel would be to have a 40 A 220V
circuit for this panel, protected at the main panel by a suitable
breaker.

>>
>> The OP could be held liable for any injury, death, or damage that
>> ensues from the use of this device. Kudos for creativity, but it
>> should be destroyed immediately.
>>
>
> Not if he didn't manufacture it. If he's just selling it he's no
> more liable for it than if you sell a car and someone dies in it
> from some defect. Even if he did build it, his liability may be
> quite small. If the device is UL listed, you're point is even less
> valid. There's a lot of talk here about liability for this and for
> that - even to the point of people claiming that one can be held
> liable for posts in this forum. Bull. It's always best to check
> with a lawyer first before making these statements.

As a former student of business law, I am highly doubtful that I would
be found liable if a user used this panel in an illegal manner
(contrary to electrical code). I did not make it and I did not alter
it. Everything is possible, but the possibility of a legal liability
seems to be very remote. Besides, this panel is highly unlikely to
cause any damage as long as its back is enclosed in some sort of metal
protective enclosure.

i

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:41:53 -0000, Robert Bonomi <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Mr Fixit eh <[email protected]> wrote:
>>No offence to the OP, but this is an extremely dangerous and
>>not-code-compliant device.
>>
>>1. Soldered connections are not acceptable for AC;
>>2. Uninsulated terminations;
>>
>>I can't tell for sure, but I don't think these breakers are designed
>>for 20A AC loads.
>>
>>Even if this were a code-compliant device, it would be unsafe to use
>>this with any less than 120A overload protection at the main panel and
>>1/0 AWG copper conductors.
>
> 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.

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.

>> *Each* of those 20A receptacles can draw up
>>to 20A for a total of 120A.
>
> 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.

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.

> 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.

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

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 12:27:39 -0500, Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Ignoramus15841" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> The sensible thing to do for this panel would be to have a 40 A 220V
>> circuit for this panel, protected at the main panel by a suitable
>> breaker.
>
> This is the second or third time you've said this and it's just wrong.
> There is no reason it cannot be on a #12 wire protected by a 20A breaker.
> It's no different than your house wiring.

You are right that it CAN be on a 20A circuit. It does not mean that
doing that is optimal for someone with a home shop (which is where, I
think, this panel fits best). That would limit the number of
simultaneously running devices. Think about someone running a
compressor, a dust collector, a shaper with a vacuum attached
to some strategic spot. When I think about circuit selection for this
panel, with a shop like that in mind, I think that 40A 220V would be
best. Any more is a waste, but having less would run a risk of not
being able to power up a fancy shop in the most effective manner.

30A 220V is probably almost just as good as 40A and can be done with
#10 wire, I believe.

i

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:01:34 -0500, Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Ignoramus15841" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> You are right that it CAN be on a 20A circuit. It does not mean that
>> doing that is optimal for someone with a home shop (which is where, I
>> think, this panel fits best). That would limit the number of
>> simultaneously running devices. Think about someone running a
>> compressor, a dust collector, a shaper with a vacuum attached
>> to some strategic spot. When I think about circuit selection for this
>> panel, with a shop like that in mind, I think that 40A 220V would be
>> best. Any more is a waste, but having less would run a risk of not
>> being able to power up a fancy shop in the most effective manner.
>
> I know where you're coming from but the mistake I think you're
> making is that you are thinking of this device as a subpanel and not
> as a power strip, which is what it is more like.

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.

Looks like we are not actually disagreeing, but rather are looking at
this issue from differing angles.

i

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 23:24:22 -0500, Ned Simmons <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, ignoramus15841
> @NOSPAM.15841.invalid says...
>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:01:34 -0500, Mike Marlow <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > "Ignoramus15841" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >>
>> >> You are right that it CAN be on a 20A circuit. It does not mean that
>> >> doing that is optimal for someone with a home shop (which is where, I
>> >> think, this panel fits best). That would limit the number of
>> >> simultaneously running devices. Think about someone running a
>> >> compressor, a dust collector, a shaper with a vacuum attached
>> >> to some strategic spot. When I think about circuit selection for this
>> >> panel, with a shop like that in mind, I think that 40A 220V would be
>> >> best. Any more is a waste, but having less would run a risk of not
>> >> being able to power up a fancy shop in the most effective manner.
>> >
>> > I know where you're coming from but the mistake I think you're
>> > making is that you are thinking of this device as a subpanel and not
>> > as a power strip, which is what it is more like.
>>
>> 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.
>
> But the the breakers in this "panel" are not qualified for branch
> circuit protection,

Well, outlets are not branch circuits either.

> 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.

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

> 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.

It can be wired to a 20A 220V circuit (3 strips on one leg and 3 on
another), is that correct?

i

On 23 Feb 2005 10:01:20 -0800, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ned Simmons wrote:
>> 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.
>
> 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.

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.

> 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

Exactly. They are overcurrent protection devices.

i

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

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:11:02 -0000, "John Lovallo"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Hi, I don't seem to be able to get email thru to you. I will take the panel
>if still available. Please contact me.
>Sincerely, John Lovallo
>

With all the problems I've had and others trying to get to the site,
good thing this is a one time sale. ;)


later,


tom @ www.BookmarkAdmin.com




>"Ignoramus29737" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 05:04:29 GMT, Jeff P. <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Your site was still down when I tried it at 11:11pm central time.
>> >
>>
>> it is up now
>>
>> > On 20 Feb 2005 18:10:02 GMT, Ignoramus29737
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > For Sale is a panel of 6 20A outlets. Each outlet is individually
>> > > protected with a separate breaker!
>> > >
>> > > http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/outlet-panel/
>>
>> --
>

"Ned Simmons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

Sorry - did not see that.

>
> 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.
>

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-
[email protected]

"The Real Tom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:45:04 GMT, "Rick" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
> >Where in the NEC does it prohibit soldered connections?
> >
>
>
> In summaryl, no splice shall rely on solder for mechanical and
> electrical connections per 2002 NEC 110.14(b)
>
> IMHO: this means you can use solder to dress up the splice, or tin the
> tips of stranded wire for easier wirenutting.
>
> As for grounding: I remember re-itterates no fusable metals, but
> don't remember where. But 110.14(b) basicly says no.
>


OK-my 1999 copy says there must be a mechanically and electrically secure
joint before soldering...

"Mr Fixit eh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> No offence to the OP, but this is an extremely dangerous and
> not-code-compliant device.
>
> 1. Soldered connections are not acceptable for AC;
> 2. Uninsulated terminations;
>
> I can't tell for sure, but I don't think these breakers are designed
> for 20A AC loads.
>
> Even if this were a code-compliant device, it would be unsafe to use
> this with any less than 120A overload protection at the main panel and
> 1/0 AWG copper conductors. *Each* of those 20A receptacles can draw up
> to 20A for a total of 120A.
>
> The OP could be held liable for any injury, death, or damage that
> ensues from the use of this device. Kudos for creativity, but it
> should be destroyed immediately.
>
> Mr Fixit eh
>

Where in the NEC does it prohibit soldered connections?

"Mr Fixit eh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> No offence to the OP, but this is an extremely dangerous and
> not-code-compliant device.
>
> 1. Soldered connections are not acceptable for AC;
> 2. Uninsulated terminations;
>
> I can't tell for sure, but I don't think these breakers are designed
> for 20A AC loads.
>
> Even if this were a code-compliant device, it would be unsafe to use
> this with any less than 120A overload protection at the main panel and
> 1/0 AWG copper conductors. *Each* of those 20A receptacles can draw up
> to 20A for a total of 120A.
>
> The OP could be held liable for any injury, death, or damage that
> ensues from the use of this device. Kudos for creativity, but it
> should be destroyed immediately.
>
> Mr Fixit eh
>

No offence to you, but please look at your breaker panel. Does the main
breaker current rating equal the sum of all the individual breakers?

"Mr Fixit eh" <[email protected]> writes:


> No offence to the OP, but this is an extremely dangerous and
> not-code-compliant device.
>
> 1. Soldered connections are not acceptable for AC;
> 2. Uninsulated terminations;

I can't speak to code issues, but I've routinely seen both #1 and #2 in
plenty of unmodified, UL listed power strips both high and low quality,
and in other devices as well.

Gregm

Your site was still down when I tried it at 11:11pm central time.

--
Jeff P.

A truck carrying copies of Roget's Thesaurus over-turned on the
highway. The local newspaper reported that the onlookers were
"stunned, overwhelmed, astonished, bewildered, and dumfounded."

Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com


"Ignoramus29737" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> my site was down for a while, it is back up again.
>
> i
>
> On 20 Feb 2005 18:10:02 GMT, Ignoramus29737
<[email protected]> wrote:
> > For Sale is a panel of 6 20A outlets. Each outlet is individually
> > protected with a separate breaker!
> >
> > http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/outlet-panel/
> >
> > You run a single circuit to your shop (say 30-40A 220V with neutral),
> > with one breaker in the main panel, connect it to the panel I am
> > selling, and voila, you are done.
> >
> > This is a very cheap way to have a lot of protected 20A outlets,
> > compared to alternatives (buying electrical boxes, premium 20A
> > outlets, subpanel, many breakers etc). Nice for a shop where you have
> > a lot of tools that need to be plugged in.
> >
> > This is a pull from a large 5 kvA working UPS. I have another one,
> > which I will keep for myself.
> >
> > $25 plus shipping (maybe $10 or so) takes it. Local pickup is free
> > (Chicagoland).
> >
> > i
>
>
> --

Hi, I don't seem to be able to get email thru to you. I will take the panel
if still available. Please contact me.
Sincerely, John Lovallo

"Ignoramus29737" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 05:04:29 GMT, Jeff P. <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Your site was still down when I tried it at 11:11pm central time.
> >
>
> it is up now
>
> > On 20 Feb 2005 18:10:02 GMT, Ignoramus29737
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > For Sale is a panel of 6 20A outlets. Each outlet is individually
> > > protected with a separate breaker!
> > >
> > > http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/outlet-panel/
>
> --