## User Tag List

1. Originally Posted by jumper
What was the answer in the text?
I'm curious of the text answer also.

FWIW, I'm on the 41.6 ship.

2. Originally Posted by augie47
I'm curious of the text answer also.

FWIW, I'm on the 41.6 ship.

Now, could you ever put actually put a 41.6A load on the conductor?

90C is the highest terminal rating we have and 310.15(B)(3) specifically stays 110.14(C).

3. Junior Member
Join Date
Feb 2015
Location
Millbrae CA, San Mateo
Posts
23
Mentioned
0 Post(s)
Tagged

## to the moderator:

I thought I'd replied to your question. I don't see it posted here. The answer was indeed 41.6. Accordingly, the Henrys employed 310.15 B (2) (a) and my argument is that if you're going to do that
you must also apply 110.14 C . . .

4. Originally Posted by ohmboyz
I thought I'd replied to your question. I don't see it posted here. The answer was indeed 41.6. Accordingly, the Henrys employed 310.15 B (2) (a) and my argument is that if you're going to do that
you must also apply 110.14 C . . .
FWIW, with all due respect... I don't see where 110.14 enters into THIS question. It would if one was sizing a feeder, branch circuit or service, yes, but when the question only asked "ampacity" the relevant factors are wire size, insulation and any derating Tables that might be applicable.
I am also an instructor (which does not make me "right") but employ the same tactics to stress to my students that "amapcity" is just what it's definition states "maximum current that a conductor can carry without exceeding it's temperature limit"..... terminations at that point don't enter into the equation.

5. Originally Posted by augie47
FWIW, with all due respect... I don't see where 110.14 enters into THIS question. It would if one was sizing a feeder, branch circuit or service, yes, but when the question only asked "ampacity" the relevant factors are wire size, insulation and any derating Tables that might be applicable.
I am also an instructor (which does not make me "right") but employ the same tactics to stress to my students that "amapcity" is just what it's definition states "maximum current that a conductor can carry without exceeding it's temperature limit"..... terminations at that point don't enter into the equation.
Look up 310.15(B). Second paragraph.

Using the table for adjustment is dependent on not exceeding terminal rating.

The terminals are specifically stated there and 110.14(C)

The temperature correction and adjustment factors shall be permitted to be applied to the ampacity for the tempera- ture rating of the conductor, if the corrected and adjusted ampacity does not exceed the ampacity for the temperature rating of the termination in accordance with the provisions of 110.14(C).
Last edited by jumper; 02-05-18 at 03:42 PM.

6. I just checked 2008, the 110.14 reference was a FPN, not anymore.

It was changed in the 2011 and became part of using the charts.

7. Originally Posted by ohmboyz
I thought I'd replied to your question. I don't see it posted here. The answer was indeed 41.6. Accordingly, the Henrys employed 310.15 B (2) (a) and my argument is that if you're going to do that
you must also apply 110.14 C . . .
Henry was wrong as far as the code is written now.

Under 2008, the answer could have been stated that way.

Not installed at that ampacity though.

The 2008 only had a FPN directing one to 110.14(C).

8. Junior Member
Join Date
Feb 2015
Location
Millbrae CA, San Mateo
Posts
23
Mentioned
0 Post(s)
Tagged

## thank you everyone

this string puts me in mind of a gathering of electrical engineers discussing a particular grounding strategy for a colony shelter on Mars. if there were 30 sparktrician engineers
in the room, you'd have opinions to the second harmonic . I still maintain that once the Henry's went down the road of making an ambient temperature correction,
they must as well employ other relevant aspects of the code. Can't have it both ways unless the question was intended for word play. In that case it is of little value
to someone preparing for the exam and indeed will only confuse things, make one second guess oneself each and every time, as to the author's intent. Not good pedagogy,
either in the field or in the classroom.

9. Originally Posted by ohmboyz
this string puts me in mind of a gathering of electrical engineers discussing a particular grounding strategy for a colony shelter on Mars. if there were 30 sparktrician engineers
in the room, you'd have opinions to the second harmonic . I still maintain that once the Henry's went down the road of making an ambient temperature correction,
they must as well employ other relevant aspects of the code. Can't have it both ways unless the question was intended for word play. In that case it is of little value
to someone preparing for the exam and indeed will only confuse things, make one second guess oneself each and every time, as to the author's intent. Not good pedagogy,
either in the field or in the classroom.
As I said a few posts ago, under 2008, I would have accepted the 41.6, but not now.

If you were including 110.14 as the question is written before the 2011, you would have been technically incorrect IMO.

10. Jumper,
excuse my thickheadness... can you try to get it through that thick head again why 41.6 is incorrect under the '11 Code since we are only asking for conductor ampacity and there is no mention of terminations,.
(I got lost in your earlier posts)

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•