Thread: Remote panel fused taps.

Here's a picture of an adjacent panel fed from the main service equipment. The feeders to the panel are from separately fused 30 amp circuit taps.

I believe a single pull 2-pole block fuse or single two pole breaker is required for feeder protection, but I don't know the code language that supports my belief?

(I realize there are many other problems but I'm wondering about the code language for single protection of feeders. Not necessary to comment about the double tap, the undersized 30A circuit conductors, and the non-isolated neutral-grnd in remote panel.)

Thanks for the help.

Similar Threads:

• Double Taps Re-visited
• Feed From Main Panel to Sub Panel
• Fused main
• multiple taps at main
• Double Taps

There are problems with the EGC's and neutrals not being separate at the sub and the sub's feeders not being terminated correctly on the fuse terminals. It is permitted to feed a sub-panel with a 30 amp feeder if a load calculation proved that 30 amps is adequate.

Your 'belief' is ill-founded.

Each half phase conductor requires protection, in this case a fuse.

Feeder concutors leave the panel via same. (service equipment being the source or origination of the feeder - therefore feeder conductors leave the main panel, not "enter" same).

You're probably thinking of a Disconnect for a remote or detached structure requiring a disconnect. Possibly you're thinking of protection for a TAP, again not the case here.


The "feeder" is incorrect. It is using a cable or cord's grounding (G)conductor for a grounded conductor(N) which is not identified (white, gray, etc.) and likely undersized, further creating a path for objectional current.
The "sub" is not correct, N's & G's are not separated.
A "service" may have no more than six disconnects.

Robert and HG - thanks for the replys, but I'm still confused.

Here's my issue: If the adjacent panel (forget about the neutral ground issues) had a 220V - 2 pole breaker feeding an AC unit and one of the 30A fuses (protecting the feeder wire to this adjacent panel) blows -- then only one leg of the 2-pole breaker to the AC unit would be live and the AC unit could become damaged.

Are there no issues with that??

Originally Posted by Ken Amelin

Robert and HG - thanks for the replys, but I'm still confused.

Here's my issue: If the adjacent panel (forget about the neutral ground issues) had a 220V - 2 pole breaker feeding an AC unit and one of the 30A fuses (protecting the feeder wire to this adjacent panel) blows -- then only one leg of the 2-pole breaker to the AC unit would be live and the AC unit could become damaged.

Are there no issues with that??

There is no issue with one fuse blowing in a 1Ø, 240 volt circuit.

Well, you've managed to confuse me with your question (in circles!).

First of all, some clarification:

the difference between a straight 240V circuit (branch or feeder) vs. 120/240 V vs. a 120V. I cannot ignore the incorrect.

You require a properly sized and identified Neutral conductor the feeder to the "sub".

The distinction between overload protection (fuse(s) or circuit breaker(s)) and disconnect(s)..

Common trip features of modern multipole circuit breakers...

Next - you're throwing in refrigeration equipment feeder questions ??.



Please clarify your questions, while I sneak off and grab a cup of (forbidden) coffee.

It should have a double pole breaker on it, so they both disconnect when one is tripped. If not, Fraggles may come out of the wall and hammer on the appliance.

Ken, you are correct. A fuse pull should have been installed in the main panel. A double breaker would be even better.

The green neutral should be marked 'white'.

I see a main disconnect.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Your 'belief' is ill-founded.

Each half phase conductor requires protection, in this case a fuse.

Which the OP said they have and showed in the pic.

Feeder concutors leave the panel via same. (service equipment being the source or origination of the feeder - therefore feeder conductors leave the main panel, not "enter" same).

The OP said "

Here's a picture of an adjacent panel fed from the main service equipment. The feeders to the panel are from separately fused 30 amp circuit taps.

You're probably thinking of a Disconnect for a remote or detached structure requiring a disconnect. Possibly you're thinking of protection for a TAP, again not the case here.

The OP was asking if the OCPD on the feeder needed to be a simultaneous disconnect of both legs. Not if a disconnect was required.

The "feeder" is incorrect. It is using a cable or cord's grounding (G)conductor for a grounded conductor(N) which is not identified (white, gray, etc.) and likely undersized, further creating a path for objectional current.

It is a feeder, albeit with problems. It is fed with individual conductors, not a cable.

The "sub" is not correct, N's & G's are not separated.

Correct

A "service" may have no more than six disconnects.

The subpanel is not a service so this would not apply. There is a breaker ahead of the fuse block to satisfy as a disconnect.

Bump. Could somebody give Ken the code reference he asked for?

Jim,

Thanks for clarifying HG's comments. They seemed a bit obscure.

Originally Posted by John Kogel

Bump. Could somebody give Ken the code reference he asked for?

Originally Posted by Ken Amelin

Robert and HG - thanks for the replys, but I'm still confused.

Here's my issue: If the adjacent panel (forget about the neutral ground issues) had a 220V - 2 pole breaker feeding an AC unit and one of the 30A fuses (protecting the feeder wire to this adjacent panel) blows -- then only one leg of the 2-pole breaker to the AC unit would be live and the AC unit could become damaged.

Are there no issues with that??

You make a good point Ken. Two pole C/Bs eliminated this problem. Fuses are becoming increasingly rare and this scenario even rarer. The possibility of one leg only would be a potential safety problem, but I do not think the equipment would be damaged. The loss of one leg on a 240 volt circuit would mean the circuit was opened. Wired correctly there should be no circuit path for the one hot through the compressor. An isolated fuse block would provide for complete power disconnect when pulled, but it would not preclude the possibility of only one energized leg.

I don't have easy access to any code books that would go back that far as when fuses were the prevalent means of protection. I would suspect that the code would want both legs to be disconnected at the same time. Ovens and ranges both used to have a pullout with two fuses. I don't see why a sub feed would not need the same. I suspect a pullout was not available and the two single fuses were used.

Originally Posted by John Kogel

Bump. Could somebody give Ken the code reference he asked for?

How far back do you want?

All ungrounded conductors of feeder conductors have been required to all be disconnected at the same time for ... well ... for more than 100 years.

Same for all ungrounded circuit conductors of circuits other than multiwire branch circuits - and now they all need to be disconnected too.

Originally Posted by Jim Port

Which the OP said they have and showed in the pic.



The OP said "




The OP was asking if the OCPD on the feeder needed to be a simultaneous disconnect of both legs. Not if a disconnect was required.




It is a feeder, albeit with problems. It is fed with individual conductors, not a cable. (*1)



Correct




The subpanel is not a service so this would not apply. There is a breaker ahead of the fuse block to satisfy as a disconnect.(*2)

Look again.
Where feeder exits fuse panel, offset fitting common sheath or braid, not reflectively bouncing photo flash light, black in color, appears "fatter" than individual conductors, leaving the fuse block containing panel and entering offset fitting (to CB panel) SEE PHOTO below, also red conductor termination appears aluminum - so I'm thinking pre 74 rayon braid NM (not NM-B) or cord (now chap 4), not cable.



(*2) Safety swtiches, pull outs, and/or unprotected master switches are not circuit breakers; furthermore you're making an assumption as to what has not been described nor pictured by the OP, not stating facts in re '72 and prior vintage(s) equipments & installations.

Regardless, the panel(s) and feeder have PROBLEMS which are in need of correction for SAFETY.