Quote History Quoted:
No.
Why not just delete the old ham radio breakers? That's four circuits freed up right there.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Quote History Quoted:
No.
Why not just delete the old ham radio breakers? That's four circuits freed up right there.
4 circuits? How do you figure that? There is a single 50-amp breaker of the first style. Even if I delete that (which I really don't want to do) it only frees up space for a single 220 circuit if I have to use the first style breaker in it's place, or two 220 circuits if I can use the 2nd style breaker. Which is why I'm asking. I would rather leave that 50-amp 220 circuit because 220 outlets are handy to have when you need them.
Quoted:
You can't do what you're describing.
The first breaker you show is a 2-pole breaker. It can provide 220V because it is connected to both legs of the service. You see 220V between the lines because one leg will be 110V when the other is -110V and vice versa. You can also use this type of breaker to supply a multi-wire branch circuit at 110V.
The second breaker you show is a single-pole tandem breaker. It can only supply 110V since it is only connected to one leg of the service.
220V breakers must trip both legs simultaneously.
I fully understand the electrical functions, the 2 different legs etc. Just not sure if there is some obscure reason they would have used both of the above style breakers in my panel for various 220 circuits and why one was chosen over the other.
The 2nd breaker pictured may, in fact, be a single pole tandem breaker (I just snagged a pic from google), but there are breakers like that in my panel (on the right side) with a tie-bar between the 2 poles that are supplying 220. Can this not be done if there is a tie-bar connecting both sides of the "tandem" breaker together so they both simultaneously trip and it is placed so that it connects each pole to different legs? ETA, I just noticed the MWBC comments; if the 2nd style can be used to supply a MWBC why can't it supply a 220 load? A MWBC is basically a 220 load that shares a common neutral. You CANNOT power both hots of a MWBC from the same line. They have to be the 2 different lines (which combined will create 220), and you have to use a tie-bar on the breaker to ensure simultaneous tripping. How does that vary from a 220 load with or without a neutral? The breaker is the same and serves the same function...
I already pulled one of the 220 breakers of that narrow style and verified that they're hitting 2 different legs on the panel and they are. That was one of my first steps to verify that this could physically be done.
I'm mostly wondering if there is some obscure NEC reason why the fat/wide breakers were used in-lieu of the narrow style for the other 30-amp 220 circuits. Why mix & match?
FWIW, in regards to both legs tripping at the same time, one of the issues I'm trying to fix is a 220 circuit (not sure where it goes, but I think it may be for the hot-tub) that is currently connected to 2 different single-pole breakers; 1 wire on a dedicated breaker, the other piggy-backed onto another single-pole breaker 7 spaces away. That is F'ed up; not only unacceptable, but down-right dangerous. I'm trying to fix this issue correctly.