Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "RBM" rbm2(remove wrote:
In a situation where the service disconnect is in the main service panel,
there is no main feeder

And feeders from the main panel to subpanels don't qualify? As described in
the Code, it seems that they would.


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
t...
In article , "RBM" rbm2(remove
wrote:
That table only applies to dwelling services and their "main power feeder"
not to feeders in general

"For application of this section, the main power feeder shall be the
feeder(s)
between the main disconnect and the lighting and appliance branch circuit
panelboard(s)." [Art. 310.15(B)(6)]

Note the deliberate inclusion of the plural in feeder(s) and
panelboard(s).

Since the feeder in question runs between the service entrance panel
(which,
in a single family dwelling, is the location of the main disconnect) and a
branch circuit panelboard, it appears to me to qualify.

As always, though, the local inspection authority has the final say, and
it
would be best to ask their opinion -- since, in the end, neither your
opinion
nor mine matters at all if the local inspection authority has other ideas.

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

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.



No such feeders to panels that supply only a fractional portion of the
dwelling units load do not qualify. The use of the plural in the code
language is intended to cover feeders to multiple dwelling units within
a single structure. Each feeder must be the main feeder for the entire
dwelling unit in question. The reduced conductor sizes are predicated
on the diversity of loading that is inherent in the way an entire
dwelling uses power. When only parts of the load are carried by a sub
feeder that diversity is no longer assured.
--
Tom Horne

"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous
for general use." Thomas Alva Edison