Do you know if joining bars as for the two central breakers pictured are available somewhere ? The local electric supply stores do not carry them

 

When I needed one, I didn't even try to buy it. I found holes in the switch handles, so I grabbed a chunk of 10 ga copper wire (solid) and made one. Zero code enforcers would approve of that, but it worked.

 

What you want are called breaker handle ties.

https://www.platt.com/search.aspx?q=square+d+breaker+ties

One of the local Home Depot carries this style:
https://www.homedepot.com/p/Square-D-QO-Circuit-Breaker-Handle-Tie-QO1HTCP/100165878

 

Thanks, gentlemen. That was helpful... the correct terminology made a big difference !

 

When I needed one, I didn't even try to buy it. I found holes in the switch handles, so I grabbed a chunk of 10 ga copper wire (solid) and made one. Zero code enforcers would approve of that, but it worked.

Actually, I've seen "official" joining bars made of wire....that's what the holes are for.

 

The breaker you show, as indicated, has a "common trip" mechanism. A handle tie doesn't reliably provide that function.

If your circuit breaker panel, a.k.a. "load center" has any open spaces, you should use a 2-pole breaker (it has a common trip mechanism) and move some of your existing breakers to accommodate that if need be.

Unfortunately, here in the US, the national electrical code has grown by a factor of 4 during my years in the trade. It has not become 4x safer, but has in reality been used to cut safety margins closer and closer. (Your "Homeline load center" is some evidence of that). I only mention it because what should be a very simple little chore,,, sometimes, has unforseen complexities, and other than open flames, power wiring in residential occupancies tends to still be a top fire hazard. If in doubt, find an electrician, but "supervise" him closely and ask questions; they (we) often don't give this type of thing much respect.

just sayin'....

 

Unfortunately, here in the US, the national electrical code has grown by a factor of 4 during my years in the trade. It has not become 4x safer, but...

As the old adage does, the first 10% of the code covers 90% of the safety issues encountered. It will take a lot of research and text to cover the last 0.2% of issues but I would rather have the code writers address them than let some poor second guy fry after they realize a first guy fried because of an unaddressed issue.

 

I read the NEC book (1977 version) and found that, "Electrician" was easily a sub-species of, "Electronics Nerd".
I had worked on TV tuners with 56 wires going to them and couldn't figure out why 3 wires was so difficult. Still, I couldn't sit for the Electrician Test because I had not schlepped around behind a "real" electrician for 4 years. I had only designed modules for fighter planes.

I thought most of it was about keeping the building owner from trying to make an electrician stuff 16 wire nuts in a 4x4 box, but that could be called safety if that's the way your bias slants. Personally, I was defending against a boss who would say anything to pinch a penny, so I was looking for ways to refuse to install a fire hazard.

I don't know what they changed in 40 years, but it looks pretty simple to me. It's just safety and physics. No problem, dude.

 

has in reality been used to cut safety margins closer and closer. (Your "Homeline load center" is some evidence of that).

Oh. I guess that's why I recently started seeing melted buss bars.

 

Unfortunately, here in the US, the national electrical code has grown by a factor of 4 during my years in the trade. It has not become 4x safer, but has in reality been used to cut safety margins closer and closer.

just sayin'....

It has also really grown here in Iceland over the last 40 years however not to cut any corners. In reality it has become more strict and more safe than ever before. Which of course is more expensive but cost of a life is expensive (at least in a small country...)

I took a class last semester which is simply named "Regulations" which like the name suggests are about the regulations regarding anything electric. Everything from consumers electronics to the biggest industrial complex in the country. Much of our regulations are the same as in Europe but with our own additions as well.

The book I had to buy for that class(mind you this is not the complete set of regulations in the field of electronics) is A4 377 pages. So instead of droning the whole book I want to mention something that the teacher that taught the class thought would be worth mentioning.

I'm slightly paraphrasing here...

"The main cause of fire in this country is caused by electricity" (It was at least 80% closer to 90%+ but I don't want to exaggerate and you might for a sec think that our electricians are dumb as bricks but the fact is that in 99% of the cases there is an "user error")

"The core of it all is. Better safe than sorry, dead things can burn to the ground and we will just build it again but lives lost we can't get back "

I don't know how the regulations regarding electronics and electricity(industrial/consumer) come about in the US but I'm somewhat sure that they were not written by some laymen.(well I hope not...)

 

I don't know how the regulations regarding electronics and electricity(industrial/consumer) come about in the US but I'm somewhat sure that they were not written by some laymen.(well I hope not...)

At one time they were in fact wrote by such people being the average 'layman' who was part of the original codes writing was some guy who had 20 - 40+ years of hands on experience and knew exactly what issues in system layout and operation caused the most problems and needed justifiable regulatory correction.

Now the vast majority of the codes are written by half-wit safety nazi/nanny state do gooders backed by deep pockets and a very greedy industry and their lawyers that drools over the thought of forcing everyone to replace good reliable components and whole systems with new stuff that in the vast majority of cases isn't any better or more functional than what it replaces.

If you can make $200 for 10 minutes of work changing out a loose $3 electrical outlet with a new industry mandated $68GFI (you make $22 profit on by billing the customer $30 for because they have no clue what one worth) that ultimately will fail in far less time than the $3 non GFI outlet will simply due to its added complexity, would you be against adding the extra surplifulous regulations and claiming , - SAFETY - LIVES SAVED - SAFETY -, even if you damn well it' not actually universally statistically true?

I wouldn't, but then I don't represent the other 99.9% of the greedy money driven half-wits in the industry. (the same types of people #12 can probably attest to that also work in HVAC service industry.)

Believe me as someone who has sat through more than enough industrial safety meeting and certification classes I can tell you for sure that right now the near if not now #1 safety issue problem is over application of safety.

When I worked in the oil industry this stuff came up in every meeting every single time simply because by our own companies safety records employees trying to act and work safe by the rules and regulation we had to follow accounted for well over half our reportable recorded injuries claims.

 

Now the vast majority of the codes are written by half-wit safety nazi/nanny state do gooders backed by deep pockets and a very greedy industry and their lawyers that drools over the thought of forcing everyone to replace good reliable components and whole systems with new stuff that in the vast majority of cases isn't any better or more functional than what it replaces.

It's a bit different here. You are not forced to update your system and there are different codes for older buildings with older systems. Plus the new buildings are inspected by the "chief electrician" that has the project so it's more of a self inspection. Strange nanny that.

However schools and other public buildings are a another matter ...

 

It's a bit different here. You are not forced to update your system and there are different codes for older buildings with older systems. Plus the new buildings are inspected by the "chief electrician" that has the project so it's more of a self inspection. Strange nanny that.

However schools and other public buildings are a another matter ...

Most older wiring and general installs are 'Grandfathered' in but when it comes to new components being added they often do not retrofit and meet codes or will pass inspection, even if technically they should, thus forcing the owner to refit and upgrade whatever parts of the systems are ahead of it which in many cases if pushed far enough equates to basically a whole new systems having to be installed just because one minor subcircuit was upgraded for some arbitrary reason.

 

I'm pissed about this whole AFCI concoction. I don't know if it's actually any good. It was jammed through very quickly, and I was told that it was still under patent/royalties when the code initially required it. There are good aspects to the concept, and I haven't heard of much nuisance tripping or obvious unit failures, but I haven't heard of much end-user/anecdotal evidence of actual incidents where benefits were clear and helpful.

 

The breaker you show, as indicated, has a "common trip" mechanism. A handle tie doesn't reliably provide that function.

The concern I would have with just tying the handles together is that the tripping breaker wouldn't provide enough force to open the other breaker and the other break would prevent the tripped breaker handle from leaving the closed position. Now, I suspect that the tripping breaker will open internally even if the handle is glued in the closed position. Isn't that part of the reason why, to reset a breaker, it has to be moved to the opened position first?

Not knowing the details of how breakers are required to operate, is this a valid concern?

 

I'm pissed about this whole AFCI concoction. I don't know if it's actually any good. It was jammed through very quickly, and I was told that it was still under patent/royalties when the code initially required it. There are good aspects to the concept, and I haven't heard of much nuisance tripping or obvious unit failures, but I haven't heard of much end-user/anecdotal evidence of actual incidents where benefits were clear and helpful.

To me they are like GFCI devices. In application specific areas they are great devices and well worth their creation and use. The problem is too often they are forcibly required to be used by regulatory statute in applications that do not warrant or even function properly due to their presence.

From all my years of experience with GCFI's having them on portable power units like portable generators and light plants, that in themself have no real earth ground, they are one of the worst things to have simply due to how often they will trip due to false detection.

I'm sure I could fill a 5 gallon bucket and then some with all the ones I have removed or bypassed over the years in order to make something work because a overly sensitive GFCI kept tripping for no real justified reason thusly making a portable power source useless for its intended purpose.

When it -20F and you have a $20K tote tank of fraccing chemicals about to freeze up (or my or someone elses own house) because a stupid GCFI will not let any loads run even though siad loads easily pass a basic ground fault resistance or even megger test you can bet I have zero issue with cutting them out of the circuit.

In a kitchen, bathroom washroom or like application I think they are super devices for safety reasons. Out on a portable power source that does not actually have a ground to fault to they are stupid and too often detrimental to the machines own design and intended purpose.

 

The concern I would have with just tying the handles together is that the tripping breaker wouldn't provide enough force to open the other breaker and the other break....., is this a valid concern?

The vast majority of circuit breakers will trip and open their current carrying contacts regardless of the handle being impeded. Many small breakers like that shown will trip from the action of a handle tie, but it's always questionable, as the force exerted is slight, and also tangential; precisely as you've pointed out. Handle ties are intended to force users to manually disconnect the loads on both of the circuits affected, primarily for rudimentary safety related interlocking. They've (unfortunately, in my view) become much more common in recent years, as multi-wire branch circuits, where accepted, allow and virtually encourage their use.