Bain Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 In my area, a disconnect is no longer required on a water-heater circuit if the clip in the photos is installed on the breaker. I don't understand the logic, and I don't actually understand what purpose the clip serves. It looks as if it would prevent the breaker from tripping, rather than adding any additional safety value. I was tempted to push the breaker back and forth to see what happened, but I'm in new construction and don't want to destroy anything. Click to Enlarge 48.48 KB Click to Enlarge 37.69 KB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kogel Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 The repair guy snaps the breaker off and then he puts his little padlock on it. A disco for the WH has never been required here, and I wonder if that is local requirement? Somebody in your area got zapped while installing a tank, no doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bain Posted March 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 That makes sense, but I thought the reason disconnects were required for water heaters and condensers was that the electrical panel wasn't always accessible to a repairperson. Disconnects for water heaters aren't required around here if the heater is "in sight" of the electrical panel--when the breaker clip isn't used, clearly. It is a local requirement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Katen Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 The NEC has required a line-of-sight disconnect or a lockout at the breaker for a long time. It shouldn't be a new thing. You can't prevent a breaker from tripping by holding its lever in the "on" position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kogel Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Different country, different perceived hazards, sorry for the diversion. [] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben H Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 In Bain's first photo, with the lever "down" wouldn't that prevent the breaker from tripping? What is this device actually called anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Katen Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Different country, different perceived hazards, sorry for the diversion. [] Jim, you mean closed, I think. Yes. I altered my post to say "on." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Katen Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 In Bain's first photo, with the lever "down" wouldn't that prevent the breaker from tripping? What is this device actually called anyway? It's called a breaker lockout. It isn't possible to prevent a breaker from tripping by fastening the handle in any position. The breaker will trip regardless of the position of the handle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bain Posted March 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 The NEC has required a line-of-sight disconnect or a lockout at the breaker for a long time. It shouldn't be a new thing. You can't prevent a breaker from tripping by holding its lever in the "on" position. Well, but that was my original question, which apparently I didn't word well. I didn't understand why having the lock-out obviated the need for a disconnect. I didn't realize the NEC allowed "either/or." I had never seen one of those clips till about a year ago when a large-volume builder began using them in their houses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Port Posted March 28, 2012 Report Share Posted March 28, 2012 Something like that would also be required for a hard wired dishwasher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onishaw Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 My understanding is that the point of either is to prevent some jamoke from coming along while someone is working on the appliance and saying "Hey this breaker is off" and flipping it on. If line-of-sight, the person about to be zapped will say "Hey idiot, step away from that disconnect and go find someone else to kill." If lockout, the idiot would have to get (small) bolt cutters to remove the lock to turn the breaker back on, hopefully causing him/her to say "Oh, someone must really want this turned off since they locked it off." Not quite as foolproof as it requires actually placing the lock. Don't know if this is the real reason or urban legend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Katen Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 My understanding is that the point of either is to prevent some jamoke from coming along while someone is working on the appliance and saying "Hey this breaker is off" and flipping it on. If line-of-sight, the person about to be zapped will say "Hey idiot, step away from that disconnect and go find someone else to kill." If lockout, the idiot would have to get (small) bolt cutters to remove the lock to turn the breaker back on, hopefully causing him/her to say "Oh, someone must really want this turned off since they locked it off." Not quite as foolproof as it requires actually placing the lock. Don't know if this is the real reason or urban legend. Yes. The purpose is to prevent someone from casually re-energizing the circuit at an inopportune time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Booth Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 .........all HUD codes are shipped with the lockouts along with signage to warn about filling the tank before energizing.......Greg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.