In article ,
says...

"Ned Simmons" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"Ned Simmons" wrote in message
...

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