Thanks Ron(or Natalie). Maybe I am just going about the whole problem wrong but this panel seems to be the only thing that does what I want. Here's the scenario: I have a 100A meter box on a pole. The meter and box feeds a main disconnect on the same pole. The disconnect is a 100A breaker. There are no other breakers on the disconnect and no space for breakers. That 100A feeds the mobile home's main breaker panel which distributes power to the house. I want to replace the disconnect with this new panel because I can put a couple extra breakers for yard lights, etc. The unique feature of this panel is that it has feed-through terminals on the load side of the breaker. That way, it's main breaker can feed the trailer and feed a couple other breakers as well - potentially significant when it comes to switch counts. Alternatively, as I see it with my very limited knowledge of the options, I could put in a standard main breaker panel with a 100A main and then have a 100A breaker in the panel that feeds the trailer (adding another switch to the count). Any suggestions of which route, or a different route I haven't even thought of, would be truly appreciated. Regards, Dale

You may be able to "backfeed" a two-pole breaker at your sub-panel. That is, you ignore the two hot lugs and connect the two hot wires to the "pseudo-main" breaker (my term) so that the incoming current goes through the breaker "backwards" to the hot busses. HOWEVER, to do this legally, you'll need a hold-down kit for the backfed breaker to prevent someone from pulling out an energized breaker accidentally or ignorantly. I have no idea whether a hold-down kit is available for that particular panel. Another possible low-cost workaround is to install a cheap disconnect ahead of the panel. 30- 60- and/or 70-amp disconnects (often marketed as air conditioning disconnects) can be purchased at big box stores for as low as about $10. Because you're planning to put a six-slot panel in a separate building, you'll also need to drive at least one (and probably two) grounding electrode(s) to be connected to the panel ground bar with #6 (or larger) copper wire. Since you seem pretty certain that you'll never need more than those two circuits, it might be worth pointing out that you may have another available option. That is, you could run a single 20-amp circuit to the shed and skip having a sub-panel (as well as local ground rods) altogether. In this context, the definition of "single circuit" includes what is known as a "multiwire branch circuit" (MWBC) having two hots and a shared neutral. An MWBC can then be split into what amounts to two circuits at the shed. So, if you size both of the circuits in the shed at 20 amps, you can use one hot for your receptacles and the other for your lights, sharing the single neutral. Of course, your lighting circuit will have to be wired with #12 wire (whereas #14 would be OK for the lights if it were a 15-amp circuit) but that would probably not add anything to the costs because, as often as not, you save money by using one wire size. The obvious disadvantage of running an MWBC without a subpanel is that if you exceed the overcurrent limit on either your lighting or your receptacles, they'll both trip simultaneously and you'll have to walk back to the house to reset. (The breaker in your main panel must be a double breaker with the hots on opposite poles -- never two independent breakers!) If you want to investigate this second option, be sure to run it by your local AHJ (inspector or permit-issuing office) first. Based on a couple of anecdotal accounts I've read on this forum, some local codes do not permit the MWBC approach. YMMV.

Houses did not necessarily have electricity when they were built. The earliest electricity in my area was 1935. Hard as it may be to believe, houses were built before that time. The neighborhood where I live now was electrified in 1942-- don't know who they managed that with the war effort at the time. Some nearby areas got power in 1947, after the War. Wiring a completed house is not quite as easy as one might think. A refrigerator was the first purchase- and they cost $300.00 in 1947 if one could be found. Two months wages. So money for fancy wiring was just not in most budgets- in my area. Crazy? Not at all. You got what you could pay for or did without. Now all the regulations do make for better houses. But those who cannot afford to build per those regulations live in public housing, are tenants or homeless. I'm not convinced that all the regulations are really for the better. We could make housing far safer than it is now -- and completely unaffordable.

This circuit will eventually have a switch, the third in a 3 gang box. If I use this box as the tempoorary terminus point for the new circuit should I: 1)leave the third switch space empty with the hole in the switch plate open, and cap off wires 2)Install the third switch but do not connect it, and cap off wires 3) connect the wires to the line side of the switch only