Talk:Distribution board

Canadian imperialism

Is "Dief box" a common phrase other than in Canada? I could only find one reference with Google, and that was to a Canadian manufacturer of distribution boxes. --Wtshymanski 23:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard it used in the UK Rob cowie 20:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate picture

A fine picture, but do we need it twice in one article? And shouldn't the article indicate that panelboards usually have a cover (even in the UK, I assume). --Wtshymanski 03:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You got a pic (under a suitable license of course) of a board with the cover on, maybe we could use that as the initial picture. the reason for the duplication is i wanted pictures asside detailed descriptions (which were way too long for an image caption) but i still wanted to have a picture in the standard initial picture position. Plugwash 14:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GE/US board pic added. 68.39.174.238 00:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've got a live one!

The article currently contains the following statement:

American breaker panels commonly have many live parts exposed with the lid off.

While it's true that our panelboards (load centers, etc.) have exposed live parts, I think I'd disagree about the word "many". Basically, the readily-exposed live parts are limited to the 1, 2, or 3 phase bars and their associated connection lugs. The terminals on the individual circuit breakers are usually shrouded so you'd have to make an effort to contact them. I gather that continental breakers have about the same exposure.

Any thoughts?

Atlant 14:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I agree with Plugwash's edits -- thanks!)

Atlant 14:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if someone else noticed that tone in this. I have no objection to the fact that the British ones may have a shield over the incoming lines, but the way it's stated (Twice for that fact, and the comments about "better safety") make it seems like it's trying to make a case against US (Or for UK) boxes.

Almost forgot this one, what exactly is a "IP20" ?

See Ingress protection rating Plugwash 19:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New one on me... 68.39.174.238 16:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not just the incoming lines that are covered. Its the main busses, the bulk of the breaker terminals (the screws are visible but not touchable with a finger) and everything else. If the board has been wired correctly its perfectly safe to take the lid off with the power on (you do generally expose a live part when you remove a breaker or blank though) . Plugwash 17:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mention dead front but fail to discuss anything in regards to Arc Flash. For residential no you really dont have to worry about it much but in commercial or industrial applications you best have the proper PPE on depending on the circuit (even for a 20 Ampere single phase). You also make it sound like all Circuit Breakers are rated for switching duty which is not the case and simply stating a C/B is used to de-energize a circuit for servicing is a somewhat incorrect statement considering the primary design is to clear faults. Circuit Breakers are NOT "safety switches".

The name

While I think this is the most likely "internationally" understandable name, I suggest adding "electrical" to it, so it's more obvious on looking at the title what it is, since it's probably not immediately understandable to someone who isn't familiar with this turn of phrase. 68.39.174.238 08:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upside down picture?

That so-called "American" panel is very strange looking to me...you're not supposed to have the line lugs at the bottom! It may well be a Code violation, too. It is certainly unusual and I've never seen one with the live feed at the bottom. --Wtshymanski 18:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's anything in the code that requires your line lugs to be at the top. In fact, the instructions for a Murray (?) distribution board specifically described the board as being invertable.

Atlant 00:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm pretty sure it's legit (A public building I'm regularly in, that is not that old, has some like that), however it IS defiantely VERY strange comparatively, especially WRT residential installations, which I think are probably in the 90th %ile top-feed boxes. I have a pic of mine (Top feed) which I intend to upload to illustrate that as well as give a better example of the entire box, not just the line in part. Also, weird colors for a "US" box (IMAO, I haven't seen in a really new box though). 68.39.174.238 00:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through my CEC and NEC and couldn't find a prohibition - but I'm pretty sure there's a NEMA spec that says power should come in at the top. The panel shown is a 3-phase panel, which explains all the colors - unusual for a single-family home. It's also unusual in that it is a sub-panel - no main breaker, not a service entrance. Contrary to the caption, you can see the white neutral wire but it's not easily made out in the thumbnail image. --Wtshymanski 18:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weird... and its in his (her?) LIVING ROOM... Gotta wonder where they live... a lighthouse? 68.39.174.238 22:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Careful: the lack of main breaker might not mean "sub-panel", it might just mean that it has a remote main breaker. This is the fashion in which my house is wired: the service entrance and main breaker is out in the garage near the meter and a length of SE cable connects to a lugs-only distribution panel down in the basement.

Atlant 19:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pics

I've added a few of my own pics. I'm open to comments on all parts of the change. Thanx. 68.39.174.238 01:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sub-panels?

The article is much appreciated. A discussion of sub-panels common in today's construction would be appreciated by me. Especially the limitations on them. For example is it legit to add a 200 amp sub-panel(s) with its own main breaker by attaching the new sub-panel to the entrance lug on an existing main panel?Fried! 03:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC) In other words can one add a 200 amp sub-panel to a 200 amp panel which is already occupied by for example 150 amps of breakers?Fried! 03:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no electrician, but I don't think that's legit. I'm reasonably sure that (at least in residential setups), there has to be a single "MAIN" breaker that will cut off all power service. 68.39.174.238 21:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]