Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Andrew Blair
I agree. Especially if you replace the fuse in the SPIKE with an auto-reset, which is legal.
|
By <R61> this is specifically legal for the compressor; however, it is implicit that for any other device, this constitutes an illegal modification to the Spike (since it is specifically permitted
as a modification, in one exceptional case only).
Also, if we interpret 5.3.9.1 in a consistent sense, to "protect" a circuit refers to the presence of an appropriate breaker
in the panel, and not (necessarily) in the Spike itself, if present. (I say consistent, because the same phrasing is used to refer to Victors, which lack an integral fuse.)
So while that section may have been the source of the confusion, it appears that FIRST intends that the Spike fuses remain as installed, and an extra breaker be used to protect that circuit in a redundant fashion. From an electrical standpoint, I don't really see why this is necessary, or even desirable—why mandate the use of two devices of the same current rating to protect a circuit, when one circuit breaker would be simpler, or two circuit breakers would be more useful (albeit exceptionally redundant)? Even a manually-resettable circuit breaker ought to be allowed (but isn't) in place of the fuse. This rule seems to be one that keeps appearing in this form, and I'm not really sure why.