what are your thoughts on this?

[pjholguin]

This is not my install, I read this post on another forum. What are your thoughts? :?:blink:

" 50 Amp/20 Amp Neutral

---

I ran some temp power today, about 80' of 1" EMT from a 120/208 3? 4 wire panel. 50 amp 2 pole and a [COLOR=blue !important]20 amp[/COLOR] single pole going to a 50 amp 3 pole 4 wire receptacle, plus a basic 20 amp GFI next to it.

I ran 3 - #8s (black, red and white) and 1 - #12 (blue). All 3 hots are on different phases.

After I was done, I wondered if the next guy who sees this will think I'm a hack for sharing a #8 neutral with both a 50 amp and a 20 amp [COLOR=blue !important]circuit[/COLOR]. I just couldn't see pulling both a #8 white and a #12 white.

Remember, the neutral shares all 3 phases, no chance of overloading it, and I can't see any code issues.
"

 

[iwire]

Are the breakers handle tied together?

 

[pjholguin]

That was my first question. Poster didn't say.

Are the breakers handle tied together?

 

[kingpb]

Would seem the neutral on the 20A ckt is over-sized, but who cares. Handle would need to be properly tied together otherwise, its a little quirky but should work.

However, I do not like to share neutrals on a GFI circuit.

 

[iwire]

Would seem the neutral on the 20A ckt is over-sized, but who cares. Handle would need to be properly tied together otherwise, its a little quirky but should work.

However, I do not like to share neutrals on a GFI circuit.

I am sure it is a GFCI outlet so a common neutral should be a non-issue.

 

[kwired]

Will it work, yes.

Is it code compliant, no.

Even if you had handle ties on breakers it still doesn't meet 210.4(C). It could be possible to comply with exception 2, but that means you will need to find a three pole breaker that provides 50 amps protection in two poles and 20 amps in the third pole to meet exception 2. Chances of finding that are not that great.

 

[paul]

15 years or so ago, you had yourself a code compliant install. Now, with that whole breaker tie on shared neutrals, not so much.

 

[augie47]

Will it work, yes.

Is it code compliant, no.

Even if you had handle ties on breakers it still doesn't meet 210.4(C). It could be possible to comply with exception 2, but that means you will need to find a three pole breaker that provides 50 amps protection in two poles and 20 amps in the third pole to meet exception 2. Chances of finding that are not that great.

Would a handle tie not meet the requirement for "simultaneously open" ?
The exception does not require "common trip" !

 

[david luchini]

Would a handle tie not meet the requirement for "simultaneously open" ?
The exception does not require "common trip" !

I think the exception does require a "common trip", at least the way I read it.

This is different from the "disconnecting means" requirement of 210.4(B) for which handle ties would suffice.

 

[augie47]

I think the exception does require a "common trip", at least the way I read it.

This is different from the "disconnecting means" requirement of 210.4(B) for which handle ties would suffice.

on second thought, I agree with you. it would be a good code change proposal for clarity.
where is fmtjfw

 

[kwired]

Would a handle tie not meet the requirement for "simultaneously open" ?
The exception does not require "common trip" !

I think it could use some more clarification, but as written I think it wants common trip more then it wants a handle tie. If it wanted handle ties it likely would have called it disconnecting means instead of overcurrent device.