User Tag List

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: 80% total load on a service??

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Simi Valley, CA
    Posts
    8,446
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That 80% thing has been around for a long time, and I don't really know where it started.
    I can build anything you want if you draw a picture of it on the back of a big enough check.

    There's no substitute for hard work....but that doesn't mean I'm going to give up trying to find one.

    John Childress
    Electrical Inspector
    IAEI / CEI / C10
    Certified Electrical Inspector

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Madison, WI, USA
    Posts
    355
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by cowboyjwc View Post
    That 80% thing has been around for a long time, and I don't really know where it started.
    There are so many rumors and assumptions like that made by even master electrician's. Some people hear something through word-of-mouth that may or may not be true or they think that it applies universally

    Sent from my A574BL using Tapatalk
    Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Wa state
    Posts
    434
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by charlie b View Post
    The cartoon cat and others have made an assumption that is likely correct. But before you talk to the inspector, . . . . . . can you confirm that your load calculation did, in fact, include 125% for any continuous loads? If so, I agree that the inspector was in error.

    Just a dryer, water heater, range and a dishwasher.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    26,358
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jap View Post
    I was thinking the exact same thing.

    One must confirm the calculations are correct before saying the inspector was wrong, but, I agree with the others because it seems the inspector is basing his judgment solely on the 98 amps.

    JAP>
    Why? They asked for a load calculation and the inspector based his response on the load provided by the guy doing the calculation. The inspector never stated that the calculation was incorrect, it's his code knowledge that's in question.
    Rob

    Moderator

    All responses based on the 2014 NEC unless otherwise noted

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    多伦多
    Posts
    29
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    just wondering how u argue with the inspector if his wrong


    从我的 iPhone 发送,使用 Tapatalk

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia
    Posts
    23,946
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kylelee View Post
    just wondering how u argue with the inspector if his wrong
    It's called appealing his decision. You politely and respectfully, but firmly, ask him to arrange for his/her supervisor to inspect the work, and either agree with you or with the inspector.

    I have challenged an inspector's failing of my work twice over the years, and "won" both times.
    Code references based on 2005 NEC
    Larry B. Fine
    Master Electrician
    Electrical Contractor
    Richmond, VA

  7. #17
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    4,771
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If you use the optional calcs for an existing dwelling there's nothing about adding 25% for continuous loads. Then again, there doesn't seem to be any requirement to account for that.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Madison, WI, USA
    Posts
    355
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jaggedben View Post
    If you use the optional calcs for an existing dwelling there's nothing about adding 25% for continuous loads. Then again, there doesn't seem to be any requirement to account for that.
    The limitations on loading are already in place on the individual Branch circuits. There's no reason to apply it again to the service

    Sent from my A574BL using Tapatalk
    Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NE Nebraska
    Posts
    38,813
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jaggedben View Post
    If you use the optional calcs for an existing dwelling there's nothing about adding 25% for continuous loads. Then again, there doesn't seem to be any requirement to account for that.
    There also is seldom any significant continuous load in a dwelling.
    I live for today, I'm just a day behind.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    4,771
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DrSparks View Post
    The limitations on loading are already in place on the individual Branch circuits. There's no reason to apply it again to the service
    I don't follow your logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by kwired View Post
    There also is seldom any significant continuous load in a dwelling.
    Unless there's an EV. Or two.

Posting Permissions

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