Curious Electrics Question

[EBB]

So I did a gig recently where there was a 50 amp company switch and I found attached to it was the camlocks. But from camlock it went into a soco-break in and down the line had a breakout with the cam ends to the distro. I've never seen this before but I was told it's actually code... But since the equipment I saw was rather sketchy in itself- stolen hotel distro(with wooden backing and no metal lid. Extra professional), chinese scanners, and whatnot, I can't help but feel like this guy is not a certified electrician...

But the way he explained it to me was that he was taking the cams and putting two of the circuits from the soco into a single cam. And since there was only 3 cams, six circuits worked just fine for it. I didn't stay around for the show but I was told stuff was going wrong the whole time... no surprise. Just didn't know what was the cause of it all.

So anyways. Was that explanation actually up to code..?

 

[meatpopsicle]

This sounds frightening. And I can't believe that it is code to "share load" with 2 different conductors through a single connector at either end.

 

[Van]

I notice you're from Florida. I have seen MANY sketchy electrical setups in Florida and Arizona, for some reason. I cannot imagine a setup like that could every be considered "code" it's too complicated. If an inspector has to have it explained to him, chances are it's not code. Now, it's possible that what he was saying was, "Hey Man, I'm not exceeding the rated capacity of any single piece of equipment in the 'system'." but that, and 'Code' are two different things.

 

[EBB]

admitidly his explanation was pretty convincing- though I still was pretty confident that it wasn't code to put all of that into one cable and sharing connectors.

 

[DuckJordan]

it could also be that he assumes its code because it doesn't necessarily violate code. Correct way to do it? Probably not, but its just complicated and albeit not the safest way to do it.

 

[EBB]

I notice you're from Florida. I have seen MANY sketchy electrical setups in Florida and Arizona, for some reason. I cannot imagine a setup like that could every be considered "code" it's too complicated. If an inspector has to have it explained to him, chances are it's not code. Now, it's possible that what he was saying was, "Hey Man, I'm not exceeding the rated capacity of any single piece of equipment in the 'system'." but that, and 'Code' are two different things.

Actually, It was up in Georgia. But close enough. And I figured that it was rated since the soco was rated for 20A each circuit. But I still had a hard time grasping that code part and how it was anywhere near it.

 

[derekleffew]

... But from camlock it went into a soco-break in and down the line had a breakout with the cam ends to the distro. ...

Ignoring the issue of properly-sized OCPD for the moment, let's talk about these break-in s/break-out s:
If E1015 Cam-Loks, the smallest single conductor permitted by NEC section 520.53(H)(2): is #2 AWG. The largest conductor E1015's will accept is #4.
If E1016 Cam-Loks, the smallest conductor to be used is #2, per their UL Listing. The largest conductor a Socapex-compatible connector will accept is #10. 520.67.

See also NEC 520.69(A).

... I've never seen this before but I was told it's actually code...
So anyways. Was that explanation actually up to code..?

Like the device in this post, the Soca-Camlok adapters might be prevalent, and might be safe, but ARE NOT code-compliant.

 

[STEVETERRY]

So I did a gig recently where there was a 50 amp company switch and I found attached to it was the camlocks. But from camlock it went into a soco-break in and down the line had a breakout with the cam ends to the distro. I've never seen this before but I was told it's actually code... But since the equipment I saw was rather sketchy in itself- stolen hotel distro(with wooden backing and no metal lid. Extra professional), chinese scanners, and whatnot, I can't help but feel like this guy is not a certified electrician...

But the way he explained it to me was that he was taking the cams and putting two of the circuits from the soco into a single cam. And since there was only 3 cams, six circuits worked just fine for it. I didn't stay around for the show but I was told stuff was going wrong the whole time... no surprise. Just didn't know what was the cause of it all.

So anyways. Was that explanation actually up to code..?

You've heard of the Three Big Lies, the ones that begin with "This won't hurt a bit", and "The check is in the mail" ? We'll leave lie number three out of this discussion.

Actually, there are FOUR Big Lies. Number four is "Don't worry, this is up to Code".

Where to start?

1. Paralleling of two 20A circuits in the Socapex cable to a 50A overcurrent device is not permitted. Paralleling of conductors is only allowed on conductors of 1/0 AWG or larger.

2. Single pole separable connectors (Cam Loks) are only allowed on cable of #2 AWG or larger.

3. Adapters (and unfortunately that is what this mess is) are not allowed a reduction in ampacity (50A to 20A).

4. If improperly plugged, this rig could be a fire hazard.

5. Only a moron would devise such a diabolical device.

ST

 

[Dionysus]

This Steve is in complete agreement with STEVETERRY.

THIS IS NOT CODE! Not in the USA, not in Canada.

) Paralleling like that is a nono
) Using something rated for 20A with a 50A OC Device is a nono
) The Soca like any other cable is derated in more than one way (depends on possible ampacity of each conductor, temprature, etc, etc)

I do not know why someone would go to a contrived method of distro, it scares the crap out of me... Did he not have enough feeder? If so this solution is not cool.

Not only is this a fire hazard, but also a sever risk to anyone near it.

Any inspector I know would give that mess an immediate failure without even talking to the guy who did it.

 

[mrb]

movie guys seem to like doing this sort of thing. I keep coming across 100 amp stage pin to socapex adapters (with no OCP of course)

 

[shiben]

movie guys seem to like doing this sort of thing. I keep coming across 100 amp stage pin to socapex adapters (with no OCP of course)

Movie guys also drive forklifts through moving lights and drop heavy feeder from the tops of boom lifts...

 

[Gern]

Movie guys also drive forklifts through moving lights and drop heavy feeder from the tops of boom lifts...

Ha Ha, we are a crazy bunch, us movie guys(& gals). Though we do use OCP nowadays and get the transpo dept. to drive the forklifts through moving lights, we do still need to supply the BFL's in the condor(don't forget rooftops) with the proper sized feeder. We too are striving to increase safety protocols all the time.

 

[shiben]

Ha Ha, we are a crazy bunch, us movie guys(& gals). Though we do use OCP nowadays and get the transpo dept. to drive the forklifts through moving lights, we do still need to supply the BFL's in the condor(don't forget rooftops) with the proper sized feeder. We too are striving to increase safety protocols all the time.

Yeah... Always wanted to work on a non-independent movie set, they look fun. Just was thinking of some photos on LN of the MLs off of Iron man, one returned "NFG" with a pretty clear fork hole in it... And a video of a strike I saw for a larger production where these dudes in a boom lift dropped a loom of feeder from the roof to the deck, then took the hoist that had brought it up down with the lift... I guess it was faster? Also does BFL stand for what it would seem to?

 

[Gern]

Yeah... Always wanted to work on a non-independent movie set, they look fun. Just was thinking of some photos on LN of the MLs off of Iron man, one returned "NFG" with a pretty clear fork hole in it... And a video of a strike I saw for a larger production where these dudes in a boom lift dropped a loom of feeder from the roof to the deck, then took the hoist that had brought it up down with the lift... I guess it was faster? Also does BFL stand for what it would seem to?

Yes, a "Big ... Light".
Same with "No ... Good"