14 tied to 12 on 20 amp breaker

[mivey]

the inspector was an electrician before becoming an inspector.

Hmmm. The opposite case being one of the time-honored complaints posted against inspectors.

 

[jxofaltrds]

That's appears to be a rather long thread. I started reading it and got to your post (#12). Got some work to do so I'll have to continue reading later...


...but if this is so plainly obvious as everyone makes it out to be, just tell me where in 210.19 there is a prohibition of #14 copper tap on a 20A circuit...???

Correct. No prohibition in 210.19.

It is just not 'permitted' as per 240.4. If 210.19 were to 'permit' it then we could debated it some more.

 

[Smart $]

Correct. No prohibition in 210.19.

It is just not 'permitted' as per 240.4. If 210.19 were to 'permit' it then we could debated it some more.

But it is permitted in 240.4...

240.4 Protection of Conductors. ?

(D) Small Conductors. Unless specifically permitted in
240.4(E)?

(E) Tap Conductors. Tap conductors shall be permitted
to be protected against overcurrent in accordance with
the following:
(1) 210.19(A)(3) and (A)(4), Household Ranges and Cooking
Appliances and Other Loads
(2) ?



210.19 Conductors ? Minimum Ampacity and Size.

(A) Branch Circuits Not More Than 600 Volts.

?

(4) Other Loads. Branch-circuit conductors that supply
loads other than those specified in 210.2 and other than
cooking appliances as covered in 210.19(A)(3) shall have
an ampacity sufficient for the loads served and shall not be
smaller than 14 AWG.

Exception No. 1: Tap conductors shall have an ampacity
suffıcient for the load served. In addition, they shall have an
ampacity of not less than 15 for circuits rated less than 40
amperes and not less than 20 for circuits rated at 40 or 50
amperes and only where these tap conductors supply any of
the following loads:
(a) Individual lampholders or luminaires with taps extending
not longer than 450 mm (18 in.) beyond any portion
of the lampholder or luminaire.
(b) A luminaire having tap conductors as provided in
410.117.
(c) Individual outlets, other than receptacle outlets,
with taps not over 450 mm (18 in.) long.
(d) Infrared lamp industrial heating appliances.
(e) Nonheating leads of deicing and snow-melting
cables and mats.

Exception No. 2: Fixture wires and flexible cords shall be
permitted to be smaller than 14 AWG as permitted by
240.5.



Branch Circuit. The circuit conductors between the final
overcurrent device protecting the circuit and the outlet(s).

​

If 240.4(E)(1) were to limit tap conductors to the Exceptions of 210.19(A)(3) & (4), I would agree with everyone of the general consensus.

 

[jxofaltrds]

But it is permitted in 240.4...

​

If 240.4(E)(1) were to limit tap conductors to the Exceptions of 210.19(A)(3) & (4), I would agree with everyone of the general consensus.

How does 240.4(E)(1) comply with 240.4(D)? "Unless 'specifically permitted' ****"

If we use 240.4(E)(1) other loads to 210.19(A)(4) other loads, yes 14 AWG is the min. wire size allowed. But it is supplying an outlet not a load.

 

[Smart $]

How does 240.4(E)(1) comply with 240.4(D)? "Unless 'specifically permitted' ****"

How does it not? 240.4(D) says "Unless specifically permitted in 240.4(E)" and 240.4(E) says "shall be permitted" for 210.19(A)(3) & (4).

If we use 240.4(E)(1) other loads to 210.19(A)(4) other loads, yes 14 AWG is the min. wire size allowed. But it is supplying an outlet not a load.

What of the case where it supplies lighting outlets with hard-wired loads not more than 20A calculated?

What of the case where it supplies receptacle outlets where a cord-and-plug connected load is limited to 15A or 20A by way of the receptacle configuration and other requirements.

 

[jxofaltrds]

How does it not? 240.4(D) says "Unless specifically permitted in 240.4(E)" and 240.4(E) says "shall be permitted" for 210.19(A)(3) & (4).


What of the case where it supplies lighting outlets with hard-wired loads not more than 20A calculated?

What of the case where it supplies receptacle outlets where a cord-and-plug connected load is limited to 15A or 20A by way of the receptacle configuration and other requirements.

210.19(A)(3) is for Household Ranges and Cooking Appliances. I know you know that but I am writing it anyway.

210.19(A)(4) is for Other Loads. An outlet is not a load.
The OP was about changing from 12AWG to 14AWG 'on' the branch circuit correct?

I do not see wires between outlets as taps but part of the branch circuit.

 

[jetlag]

It was always a violation........... the AHJ probably misinterpreted the tap rules.



There's more than just motors that allow 14 on a 20.

I am talking 1972 are you sure the 18" allowed now for luminarie was not longer back then . Enough for a switch leg . Also give codes where #14 is allowed on 20 amp breaker besides motors and tap conductors

 

[Smart $]

210.19(A)(3) is for Household Ranges and Cooking Appliances. I know you know that but I am writing it anyway.

210.19(A)(4) is for Other Loads. An outlet is not a load.
The OP was about changing from 12AWG to 14AWG 'on' the branch circuit correct?

First off, who said we are talking about unused "outlets".

Second, if there is no load, no current is taken, and therefore by definition it is not an outlet

Outlet. A point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment.

The definition does not say "at which current may be taken".

For the purpose of this discussion, I believe we should be talking about used outlets, even if they are of the receptacle type. Even Article 220 calculations consider receptacles as having loads, whether they are installed, used, or not.

I do not see wires between outlets as taps but part of the branch circuit.

Where wires to or of an outlet supply only that outlet, those wires could be ran as branch-circuit tap conductors. For example, the last outlet on the the run, or where each of several outlets are supplied with separate wiring from a junction box. Supplying a receptacle with tap conductors contained entirely within the box is no different.

Reminder: I'm not saying this is the correct way to wire. I'm only saying the current wording of the Code—literally interpreted—permits such wiring.

 

[jxofaltrds]

First off, who said we are talking about unused "outlets".

Second, if there is no load, no current is taken, and therefore by definition it is not an outlet

​

The definition does not say "at which current may be taken".

For the purpose of this discussion, I believe we should be talking about used outlets, even if they are of the receptacle type. Even Article 220 calculations consider receptacles as having loads, whether they are installed, used, or not.


Where wires to or of an outlet supply only that outlet, those wires could be ran as branch-circuit tap conductors. For example, the last outlet on the the run, or where each of several outlets are supplied with separate wiring from a junction box. Supplying a receptacle with tap conductors contained entirely within the box is no different.

Reminder: I'm not saying this is the correct way to wire. I'm only saying the current wording of the Code?literally interpreted?permits such wiring.

Please note that all the exceptions use equipment that has factory equipped tails. They are connected (tapped) at the oulet.

 

[jetlag]

Do you ever feel like you are dealing with morons ? I called an inspector last week to discuss a hazardous situation that the service "electrician" was about to make worse. The inspectors responses were,"It's safer then it was" and "what should I do about it?" AHHHHH Last time I read the code "safer" didn't equal "SAFE" and if the inspector isn't going to do anything, who is ? Did I forget to mention, the inspector was an electrician before becoming an inspector.

Thats like a job I did I a county I dont usually work in , I change out a damaged meter base . Every other county around here requires the service to have to ground rods if you repair an existing service . The ahj came early and did not have the rods in yet but they were laying on the ground , I told him I had everything but the ground rods finished . He said you dont need that , I see it allready has a ground rod , I said thats a 3/4 in pipe and the house has plastic water lines . He said well its worked all these years hasnt it :roll:

 

[iwire]

Second, if there is no load, no current is taken, and therefore by definition it is not an outlet

​

The definition does not say "at which current may be taken".

No that does not seem like a silly thing to bring up at all.





(That is called sarcasm)

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

Was failed by local inspector back this past winter for similar install. According to him, "it don't matter if it is going to be on a 15amp breaker or not - you can't mix #12 and #14 in a circuit." That was his answer when I asked for code reference.

I blame you for letting him get away with that answer. We have many competent inspectors and electricians , he simply was not 1 of them. It is a 2 way street, he inspects your work and you should do the same. His kind of inspector we do not need. Likely never was much of an electrician either so not likely to ever make it as an inspector. If an inspector is unwilling to back up a red tag with code then take it to his boss. And that is not the final step either.

 

[Smart $]

Please note that all the exceptions use equipment that has factory equipped tails. They are connected (tapped) at the oulet.

The Exceptions to 210.19(A)(3) & (4) are what they are... Exceptions. Where does it say tap conductors are limited to these Exceptions? I can qualify a tap conductor (as the Code is currently worded) under the general requirements of 210.19. Why should I qualify a tap conductor under an Exception if I don't have to?

 

[Smart $]

No(-w?) that does not seem like a silly thing to bring up at all.





(That is called sarcasm)

Silly statements sometimes demand a silly response... such as yours

 

[david]

The Exceptions to 210.19(A)(3) & (4) are what they are... Exceptions. Where does it say tap conductors are limited to these Exceptions? I can qualify a tap conductor (as the Code is currently worded) under the general requirements of 210.19. Why should I qualify a tap conductor under an Exception if I don't have to?

210.19 deals with min. branch circuit ratings, branch circuit are rated in accordance to the overcurrent protection rating the exception deals with tap conductors being protected by the branch circuit overcurrent device. You know all that.

What I do not understand how are you ignoring the definition for branch circuits or more accurately taps and trying to define branch circuit ratings as a tap.

Tap Conductors. As used in this article, a tap conductor is defined as a conductor, other than a service conductor, that has overcurrent protection ahead of its point of supply that exceeds the value permitted for similar conductors that are protected as described elsewhere in 240.4.

 

[tom baker]

As long as they are on 15A breakers, yes. They should be labled to indicate this as well.QUOTE]
Is the labeling required by code?

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

As long as they are on 15A breakers, yes. They should be labled to indicate this as well.QUOTE]
Is the labeling required by code?

Good point and it should be required but as far as i know it is not. I see the inspectors concern but he can not just write this in to his copy of NEC.
He should know the steps to do so or create a writen local ammendment to require labels.
I sure hope he is smarter than to think # 12 can't be mixed on a 12 amp breaker

Was this by chance a combo inspector ?

 

[jxofaltrds]

What I do not understand how are you ignoring the definition for branch circuits or more accurately taps and trying to define branch circuit ratings as a tap.

I have been trying to say that but not that clearly.

Good point and it should be required but as far as i know it is not.

I disagree. It should not be required. Too many rules as it is.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

I have been trying to say that but not that clearly.

I disagree. It should not be required. Too many rules as it is.

No it should not be needed but sadly with the high number of unqualified electricians do you really think this does not happen on panel changes ? I have had fellow electricians ask me some very stupid questions that scare me as to how little they know.

 

[jxofaltrds]

I have been trying to say that but not that clearly.



No it should not be needed but sadly with the high number of unqualified electricians do you really think this does not happen on panel changes ? I have had fellow electricians ask me some very stupid questions that scare me as to how little they know.

I agree but we can not protect stupid.