# common neutral



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

RICK BOYD said:


> is there a new rule on adjacent breakers sharing a neutral


Not a new rule. The 'old' rule was if a MWBC fed a single yoke in a dwelling, a common disconnecting means was required. Now, *all* MWBCs (not just in dwellings, either!) must have a common disconnecting means. 2104(B) of the '08.

I am assuming you are referring to MWBCs. There's no rule they must be used for adjacent breakers.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

RICK BOYD said:


> is there a new rule on adjacent breakers sharing a neutral


Yes.


----------



## TOOL_5150 (Aug 27, 2007)

480sparky said:


> Not a new rule. The 'old' rule was if a MWBC fed a single yoke in a dwelling, a common disconnecting means was required. Now, *all* MWBCs (not just in dwellings, either!) must have a common disconnecting means. 2104(B) of the '08.


Thankfully, CA will be using the 2005 for the next 2.5 years :thumbsup:

~Matt


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

TOOL_5150 said:


> Thankfully, CA will be using the 2005 for the next 2.5 years :thumbsup:
> 
> ~Matt










Personally, I think it's one of the most stupid rules in the '08. Anyone worth their salt as a PROFESSIONAL electrician will have no problems with MWBCs. This rule, IMPO, is designed to dummy down the codebook in favor of the unqualified, who shouldn't be working with wires to begin with.

Rant over.


----------



## drsparky (Nov 13, 2008)

So when do you think the NEC will be published in other languages?


----------



## Celtic (Nov 19, 2007)

480sparky said:


> Not a new rule. The 'old' rule was if a MWBC fed a single yoke in a dwelling, a common disconnecting means was required. Now, *all* MWBCs (not just in dwellings, either!) must have a common disconnecting means. 2104(B) of the '08.
> 
> I am assuming you are referring to MWBCs. There's no rule they must be used for adjacent breakers.



If they are not "adjacent", how does one apply - at a minimum - an approved tie?


----------



## TOOL_5150 (Aug 27, 2007)

480, I totally agree with you. I guess they can remove the parts about qualified personel in the code book as well.

~Matt


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Celtic said:


> If they are not "adjacent", how does one apply - at a minimum - an approved tie?



I agree the new code does not say that the breakers must be adjacent however the breaker ties would be impossible if the breakers weren't adjacent.


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 11, 2008)

480sparky said:


> Personally, I think it's one of the most stupid rules in the '08. Anyone worth their salt as a PROFESSIONAL electrician will have no problems with MWBCs. This rule, IMPO, is designed to dummy down the codebook in favor of the unqualified, who shouldn't be working with wires to begin with.
> 
> Rant over.


I have argued with the AHJ's here till I was blue in the face over this to no avail. That's been my argument the whole time. ANYONE worth their salt should be able to look in the box and reconize a MWBC in a heartbeat. It just falls on deaf ears. So, I was told as of recently, approved handle ties must be used. I won't even say what I was using before.:whistling2:


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Kevin J said:


> I have argued with the AHJ's here till I was blue in the face over this to no avail. That's been my argument the whole time. ANYONE worth their salt should be able to look in the box and reconize a MWBC in a heartbeat. It just falls on deaf ears.


By the same token, some people are alive today solely due to the fact that it's against the law to kill them.



Kevin J said:


> So, I was told as of recently, approved handle ties must be used. I won't even say what I was using before.:whistling2:


Lemme guess. #10 solid copper or a 8b common nail. :whistling2:


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

480sparky said:


> Lemme guess. #10 solid copper or a 8b common nail.


 Seen a many of those.:laughing:


----------



## TOOL_5150 (Aug 27, 2007)

I have used solid #10 and nails before to tie handles. However, I have only done it temporarly, and at my own house.

~Matt


----------



## manchestersparky (Mar 25, 2007)

Without the use of approved handle ties or a common trip circuit breaker, one can not tell if it's a MWBC or not with the panel cover on.
I believe the intent was to protect the service person from turning off one circuit breaker then taking apart the circuit only to find a load on the neutral,due to it's part of a MWBC.

Do you take off the panel cover every time you need to work on a circuit?

Arc faults have done away with most MWBC any way


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

manchestersparky said:


> ...........Arc faults have done away with most MWBC any way


Only in dwellings, though.


----------



## micromind (Aug 11, 2007)

I have to agree that the handle-tie is the dumbest thing I've ever seen in any codebook. 

We're still on 2005 here (I hope we NEVER go to 2008!), but when we do, I think that on Square D QO panels I'll tie the handles of every breaker on each side together. 

I can't find where this is a violation, and 'safety first!'. 

Rob


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

micromind said:


> I have to agree that the handle-tie is the dumbest thing I've ever seen in any codebook.
> 
> We're still on 2005 here (I hope we NEVER go to 2008!), but when we do, I think that on Square D QO panels I'll tie the handles of every breaker on each side together.
> 
> ...


Silly me.........I'd just turn the main off.


----------



## Magnettica (Jan 23, 2007)

480sparky said:


> Personally, I think it's one of the most stupid rules in the '08. Anyone worth their salt as a PROFESSIONAL electrician will have no problems with MWBCs. This rule, IMPO, is designed to dummy down the codebook in favor of the unqualified, who shouldn't be working with wires to begin with.
> 
> Rant over.


I have to disagree. I think the rule is a good one and will save lives even if the dopey HO decides to work on his own wiring. It's going to be a PITA though for a few years until more AFCI double-pole breakers are introduced to the market place.


----------



## knowshorts (Jan 9, 2009)

drsparky said:


> So when do you think the NEC will be published in other languages?


It's already in published in Spanish.


----------



## frenchelectrican (Mar 15, 2007)

drsparky said:


> So when do you think the NEC will be published in other languages?


 It allready in Spainish verison however I got a specail order transalted book in French and myself I been working back and forth to get the grammer correct that something in any other languages is translated from the oringail verison.

Merci,Marc 

{ I don't know if NEC will ever go with French languange verison due the market demand }


----------



## drsparky (Nov 13, 2008)

knowshorts said:


> It's already in published in Spanish.


That must be fun, I've seen people get in near fisticuffs about the meaning a fraise, now you have to worry about translating words correctly?


----------

