14 tied to 12 on 20 amp breaker

[david luchini]

So if the branch circuit conductors are required to follow this rule;
210.20 Overcurrent Protection.
Branch-circuit conductors and equipment shall be protected by overcurrent protective devices that have a rating or setting that complies with 210.20(A) through (D).
(B) Conductor Protection. Conductors shall be protected in accordance with 240.4. Flexible cords and fixture wires shall be protected in accordance with 240.5.

and this would mean that if the tap conductors are still branch circuit conductors that a 20 amp circuit tapped with #14 copper would have to follow this rule

240.4(D) (3) 14 AWG Copper. 15 amperes

If the tap is still branch circuit conductors then once the tap is made then the branch circuit must be protected by no more than 15 amps.

Why would they have to follow 240.4(D)(3)? Why couldn't they follow 240.4(E)(1)? 240.4(D) says "unless specifically permitted in 240.4(E) or (G)."

The #14AWG tapped from the 20A branch circuit is specifically permitted if it meets the requirements of 210.19(A)(4).

 

[jwelectric]

Types NM, NMC, and NMS #14 has a 60?C ampacity of 20A (unless you are already working under the 2011 version of the NEC ), but the point is moot so long as the load is less than the conductor's ampacity

No my friend Type NM, NMC, NMS, UF, SE, MUST be sized from 240,4(D) in sizes #10 abd smaller as outlined in Table 310.16 unless 240.4 (E) or (G) apply.
Now if you look at 240.4(E) you will find that the title of that section is ?Tap Conductors?
If you are going to use 240.4(E)(1) and go to 210.19(A)(3)&(4) then you will have to find the ?tap conductor? rule in those sections and the ?Tap? is not mentioned until you get to the exception.
Nowhere in the main body text is the term ?tap? mentioned so what are the rules for these taps you keep calling branch circuit conductors?

The definition of tap conductor does not say a tap conductor is not a branch-circuit or feeder conductor... does it?

Yes it calls it a ?tap conductor?
The term ?tap conductor? can be found in 12 different places throughout the NEC so I suppose that the NEC does call a tap conductor a tap conductor

Does the NEC say anywhere that a tap conductor is not a service, feeder, or branch-circuit conductor?

Yes the NEC has a definition of ?tap conductor? in 240.2. Now being that your very own reference to the tap conductors in our discussion comes from 240.4(E) then the 240 definition most certainly address your branch circuit tap.

Where is the defintion of tap conductor in Article 210? You keep referring to the definition in 240.2, but even the definition itself "As used in this article", which if you didn't quite grasp the meaning, it means the definition does not apply to any other article.

But my friend it is you who is saying that this tap is allowed by what?---240.4(E) which brings us right back to the definition of tap conductor found in that very same article. So if you are going to say that we are allowed to tap a conductor in 210.19 because 240.4(E) say we can then the definition found in 240 would apply.

And in Article 210, there is no need for the term tap conductor. Just because it is in a couple exceptions does not mean it is necessary.

Well my friend if it is not necessary pray tell us why they used the term for. Why didn?t they just say branch circuit.

Yes, it could be that a branch-circuit tap conductor is not also a branch-circuit conductor... but the defintion of branch circuit is going to have to change before that is the case.

Why do you say that? Branch circuits stop at the outlet not the load. In a light the branch circuit stops in the box and the fixture taps carry current to the loads.

 

[jwelectric]

Why would they have to follow 240.4(D)(3)? Why couldn't they follow 240.4(E)(1)? 240.4(D) says "unless specifically permitted in 240.4(E) or (G)."

The #14AWG tapped from the 20A branch circuit is specifically permitted if it meets the requirements of 210.19(A)(4).

If you are going to say that the branch circuit tap is still a bracnh circuit then this conductor will have to adhere to 210.20 which will send the reader to where?

please show me where in 210.19(A)(4) where it makes this statement, "The #14AWG tapped from the 20A branch circuit is specifically permitted"

In order to help here is that section;

(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.

 

[david luchini]

If you are going to say that the branch circuit tap is still a bracnh circuit then this conductor will have to adhere to 210.20 which will send the reader to where?

210.20(B) sends the reader to 240.4. "Conductors shall be protected in accordance with 240.4."

240.4 says conductors shall be protected in accordance with their ampacities specified in 310.15, unless otherwise permitted or required in 240.4(A) thru (G).

240.4(D) says small conductors shall have OCP not exceeding that required by (D)(1) thru (D)(7) unless specifically permitted in 240.4(E).

240.4(E)(1) says tap conductors shall be permitted to be protected against overcurrent in accordance with 210.19(A)(4).

210.19(A)(4) Ex 1, says that tap conductors supplying any of the loads in (a) thru (e) shall have an ampacity of not less than 15 for circuits rated less than 40A, and not less than 20 for circuits rated at 40A or 50A.


So if I had a 40A branch circuit (#8AWG) supplying a fixed lighting unit with heavy-duty lamp holders, and I wanted to tap that branch circuit to supply an infrared lamp industrial heating appliance that was a 10A load, I could tap #14AWG from the #8AWG to feed the appliance.

Both the #8 and the #14 are "circuit conductors between the final OCPD protecting the circuit and the outlets," so both are part of the "branch circuit."

 

[jwelectric]

210.20(B) sends the reader to 240.4. "Conductors shall be protected in accordance with 240.4."

240.4 says conductors shall be protected in accordance with their ampacities specified in 310.15, unless otherwise permitted or required in 240.4(A) thru (G).

240.4(D) says small conductors shall have OCP not exceeding that required by (D)(1) thru (D)(7) unless specifically permitted in 240.4(E).

240.4(E)(1) says tap conductors shall be permitted to be protected against overcurrent in accordance with 210.19(A)(4).

210.19(A)(4) Ex 1, says that tap conductors supplying any of the loads in (a) thru (e) shall have an ampacity of not less than 15 for circuits rated less than 40A, and not less than 20 for circuits rated at 40A or 50A.


So if I had a 40A branch circuit (#8AWG) supplying a fixed lighting unit with heavy-duty lamp holders, and I wanted to tap that branch circuit to supply an infrared lamp industrial heating appliance that was a 10A load, I could tap #14AWG from the #8AWG to feed the appliance.

Both the #8 and the #14 are "circuit conductors between the final OCPD protecting the circuit and the outlets," so both are part of the "branch circuit."

We doing pretty good here but the “tap” is no longer branch but instead is a “tap” as outlined in the text of the exception, ie;
Exception No. 1: Tap conductors shall have an ampacity

So these conductors from the outlet to the light are no longer branch circuit as the definition of "branch circuit" ends at the outlet and the "tap conductor" picks up the load to the light.


Also notice there is not even one word in this exception that says anything about tapping a 20 amp circuit with 14 either

 

[david luchini]

We doing pretty good here but the ?tap? is no longer branch but instead is a ?tap? as outlined in the text of the exception, ie;
Exception No. 1: Tap conductors shall have an ampacity

So these conductors from the outlet to the light are no longer branch circuit as the definition of "branch circuit" ends at the outlet and the "tap conductor" picks up the load to the light.


Also notice there is not even one word in this exception that says anything about tapping a 20 amp circuit with 14 either

Yes, the definition of a "branch circuit" ends at the outlet. The "tap conductor" is between the OCPD and the outlet, that is to say, it is BEFORE the outlet. Therefore the tap conductor IS a branch circuit conductor.

A feeder tap is by definition a feeder conductor. It is a conductor between the service equipment and the final branch OCPD.

A branch circuit tap is by definition a branch circuit conductor. It is between the final OCPD protecting the circuit and the outlet.

How did conductors "after" the outlet enter the picture? Conductors "after" the outlet are no longer part of the premises wiring system. The wiring after the outlet is not a "tap conductor" as indicated in 210.19(4)ex.1. The tap conductor is between the branch OCPD and the outlet. I think this is where you are going awry.

 

[jxofaltrds]

Yes, the definition of a "branch circuit" ends at the outlet. The "tap conductor" is between the OCPD and the outlet, that is to say, it is BEFORE the outlet. Therefore the tap conductor IS a branch circuit conductor.

A feeder tap is by definition a feeder conductor. It is a conductor between the service equipment and the final branch OCPD.

A branch circuit tap is by definition a branch circuit conductor. It is between the final OCPD protecting the circuit and the outlet.

How did conductors "after" the outlet enter the picture? Conductors "after" the outlet are no longer part of the premises wiring system. The wiring after the outlet is not a "tap conductor" as indicated in 210.19(4)ex.1. The tap conductor is between the branch OCPD and the outlet. I think this is where you are going awry.

Where does it say that a branch circuit tap conductor is between an OCPD and an outlet?

210.19 is about branch circuit conductors. Not until you get to exceptions, as stated before, do taps come into play.

Now maybe 210.19(A)(4) Exception No. 1 (c) may allow a 14 AWG. So I would let you run 14 AWG between two outlets. But only 6" outside of the boxes.

(c) 18" max. - 6" of conductor each box leaves you 6" outside of the boxes.

So if you would like to switch a sconce 6" above the switch outlet with 14 AWG I would approve it.

 

[david luchini]

Where does it say that a branch circuit tap conductor is between an OCPD and an outlet?

210.19(A)(4)ex.1: ...'tap conductors supply any of the following loads:" lampholders, luminaires, outlets (other than receptacle outlets), infrared lamp industrial heating appliances, nonheating leads of deicing...

All of these are outlets, "points on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply utilization equipment."

210.19 is about branch circuit conductors. Not until you get to exceptions, as stated before, do taps come into play.

The entire Article 210 is about Branch Circuits, including the part about taps.

Now maybe 210.19(A)(4) Exception No. 1 (c) may allow a 14 AWG. So I would let you run 14 AWG between two outlets. But only 6" outside of the boxes.

Yes, by Ex.No.1(c) you could run 14awg between two outlets, not exceeding 18" apart (but not including receptacle outlets), if for example, the first outlet was on a 20A, or 30A, etc branch circuit. I don't understand your point about 6" outside of the boxes.

(c) 18" max. - 6" of conductor each box leaves you 6" outside of the boxes.

If you are suggesting tapping a branch circuit to run to one outlet and then extend the tap conductors to another outlet, I think that would be a violation of Ex.No.1(c). That exception allows the tap to supply and Individual outlet, not multiple outlets.

So if you would like to switch a sconce 6" above the switch outlet with 14 AWG I would approve it.

A switch is not an "outlet" it is a "device." But if you wanted to tap a 20A branch circuit (#12AWG) with #14 to supply a sconce (an individual luminaire) and extend those #14 conductors 18" beyond the sconce to a switch, I think that would be OK by 210.19(A)(4)Ex.No.1(a).

 

[jwelectric]

To be sure that we are on the same page here you are saying that by the permission given in 240.4(E)(1) that a tap can be installed as outlined in 210.19(A)(3)&(4), am I correct so far?

Yes, the definition of a "branch circuit" ends at the outlet. The "tap conductor" is between the OCPD and the outlet, that is to say, it is BEFORE the outlet. Therefore the tap conductor IS a branch circuit conductor.

Okay let?s look at the definition of branch circuit;

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

Okay now using this definition any and all wires installed as outlined in that definition would be required to adhere to this rule;

210.20 Overcurrent Protection.

Branch-circuit conductors and equipment shall be protected by overcurrent protective devices that have a rating or setting that complies with 210.20(A) through (D). (B) Conductor Protection. Conductors shall be protected in accordance with 240.4.

where we are told that #14 copper is good for 15 amps.
But if we are going to look at 240.4(E) then we are now looking at a conductor that is defined in this Article and is a conductor that is entirely different in definition of that of a branch circuit conductor as outlined;

240.2 Definitions.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.

Being that you are wanting to use 240.4(E) in order to tap this branch circuit then this article?s definition of the conductor that you are connection to that branch circuit.

A feeder tap is by definition a feeder conductor. It is a conductor between the service equipment and the final branch OCPD.

A feeder is;

Feeder. All circuit conductors between the service equipment, the source of a separately derived system, or other power supply source and the final branch-circuit overcurrent device.

This feeder as described must be already in place before a tap can be installed. This tap to this feeder is defined as;

240.2 Definitions.

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

There is a clear difference between the two. And being that the feeder tap comes from 240.4(E) the definition of tap conductors will come from that same article.

A branch circuit tap is by definition a branch circuit conductor. It is between the final OCPD protecting the circuit and the outlet.

and is the reasons for the exceptions found in 210.19(A)(3) to allow a tap from the range outlet to the load being served be it a countertop or oven and in 210.19(A)(4) for the six reasons outlined in the two exceptions found there

How did conductors "after" the outlet enter the picture? Conductors "after" the outlet are no longer part of the premises wiring system. The wiring after the outlet is not a "

tap conductor" as indicated in 210.19(4)ex.1. The tap conductor is between the branch OCPD and the outlet. I think this is where you are going awry.

So what you are saying is the conductors from a range outlet and the cook-top installed in a island would not be part of the premises wiring?
What about strapping a fixture whip to a ceiling grid support wires in a fire rated ceiling. Didn?t the whip come with the fixture and the conductors inside smaller than #12? I can?t help but wonder just what was meant by this; Exception No. 2: Fixture wires and flexible cords shall be permitted to be smaller than 14 AWG as permitted by 240.5. Don?t them fixture wires come with the fixture?

I suppose I just got carried away with that outlet thing there but I suppose they meant things like these in those exceptions which come after the outlet, don?t you?

 

[david luchini]

To be sure that we are on the same page here you are saying that by the permission given in 240.4(E)(1) that a tap can be installed as outlined in 210.19(A)(3)&(4), am I correct so far?

Yes, that is correct.

Okay let?s look at the definition of branch circuit;

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

Okay now using this definition any and all wires installed as outlined in that definition would be required to adhere to this rule;

210.20 Overcurrent Protection.
Branch-circuit conductors and equipment shall be protected by overcurrent protective devices that have a rating or setting that complies with 210.20(A) through (D). (B) Conductor Protection. Conductors shall be protected in accordance with 240.4.

Yes, that is exactly what I said in post #104.

where we are told that #14 copper is good for 15 amps.

This is where I think you go wrong. 240.4 says conductors shall be protected in accordance with their ampacities specified in 310.15, unless otherwise permitted or required in 240.4(A) thru (G). You want to take 240.4(D)(3) as the be-all and end-all for #14AWG, but 240.4 PERMITS protection of conductors at other than their ampacity for specific instances, including the branch circuit tap conductors in 210.19(A)(4).

(240.4 actually tells us that #14 is good for 20A, but can only be protected at 15A, unless specifically permitted in 240.4(E) or (G)).

But if we are going to look at 240.4(E) then we are now looking at a conductor that is defined in this Article and is a conductor that is entirely different in definition of that of a branch circuit conductor as outlined;

Being that you are wanting to use 240.4(E) in order to tap this branch circuit then this article?s definition of the conductor that you are connection to that branch circuit.

240.2 Definitions.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.

The definition of a tap conductor has to do with how the conductors are protected (ie, by a value that exceeds the value permitted for similar conductors.) The definition of feeder and branch circuit relate to where the conductors are within the premises wiring system, ie, between the service disconnect and final OCPD, or between the final OCPD and the outlets. A branch circuit conductor tap is still between the final OCPD and the outlet. It is a "branch circuit conductor" which has "OCP ahead of its point of supply that exceeds the value permitted for similar conductors."

A feeder is;

Feeder. All circuit conductors between the service equipment, the source of a separately derived system, or other power supply source and the final branch-circuit overcurrent device.

This feeder as described must be already in place before a tap can be installed.

And the branch circuit must also be in place before a tap can be installed.

This tap to this feeder is defined as;

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

There is a clear difference between the two. And being that the feeder tap comes from 240.4(E) the definition of tap conductors will come from that same article.

The only difference is how the conductors are protected, either at their ampacity or exceeding their ampacity. But as I noted earlier, the definition of feeder and branch circuit relate to where the conductor is within the premises wiring system, not how they are protected. A feeder tap is still a feeder by definition, that is protected by on OCPD higher than its ampacity within the rules of 240.21(B).

and is the reasons for the exceptions found in 210.19(A)(3) to allow a tap from the range outlet to the load being served be it a countertop or oven and in 210.19(A)(4) for the six reasons outlined in the two exceptions found there

I'm afraid I don't follow what you are trying to say here. The reason you are allowed to tap from a range branch circuit for instance, is that the code permits it.

So what you are saying is the conductors from a range outlet and the cook-top installed in a island would not be part of the premises wiring?

Again, I don't follow. A range outlet and cook-top installed in an island would still have branch circuit conductors from the branch c/b to the outlets. It is part of the premises wiring system. (The cord&plug from the range outlet to the range is not part of the premises wiring system.)

What about strapping a fixture whip to a ceiling grid support wires in a fire rated ceiling. Didn?t the whip come with the fixture and the conductors inside smaller than #12? I can?t help but wonder just what was meant by this; Exception No. 2: Fixture wires and flexible cords shall be permitted to be smaller than 14 AWG as permitted by 240.5. Don?t them fixture wires come with the fixture?

The fixture whip that comes with the fixture is a part of the utilization equipment, and is therefore, not part of the premises wiring system. The outlet box where the whip connects would be "outlet" on the premises wiring system.

I suppose I just got carried away with that outlet thing there but I suppose they meant things like these in those exceptions which come after the outlet, don?t you?

I don't think the exceptions refer to things which come after the outlet.

 

[jwelectric]

Yes, that is correct.

Good then I am glad that we are agreeing.

This is where I think you go wrong. 240.4 says conductors shall be protected in accordance with their ampacities specified in 310.15, unless otherwise permitted or required in 240.4(A) thru (G). You want to take 240.4(D)(3) as the be-all and end-all for #14AWG, but 240.4 PERMITS protection of conductors at other than their ampacity for specific instances, including the branch circuit tap conductors in 210.19(A)(4).

No this is not where either of us are going wrong. I do believe once again we are in agreement with the exception that you think that Table 310.16 is part of 310.15 which does not happen until 2011.
It is in Table 310.16 that tells us to look at 240.4(D) for the ampacity of a #14 conductor.

The definition of a tap conductor has to do with how the conductors are protected (ie, by a value that exceeds the value permitted for similar conductors.)

Wow boy am I surprised. All my life I thought that a definition of something was to tell you what that something was.
Is it not you that keeps saying that the ampacity of#14 is 20 amps? Then how can #14 be a tap on a 20 amp circuit? In order to be a tap it must be a conductor that has overcurrent protection ahead of its point of supply that exceeds the value permitted for similar conductors. If the 14 is a 20 amp conductor then it is not a tap on a 20 amp circuit.

The definition of feeder and branch circuit relate to where the conductors are within the premises wiring system, ie, between the service disconnect and final OCPD, or between the final OCPD and the outlets.

once again I think we are on the same page and we all agree

A branch circuit conductor tap is still between the final OCPD and the outlet.

Now here is where someone is going astray. As outlined in the exceptions under 210.19(A)(3)&(4) it is very clear that the tap is not the branch circuit not part of any feeder and this is by definition of both branch circuit and tap conductor.

It is a "branch circuit conductor" which has "OCP ahead of its point of supply that exceeds the value permitted for similar conductors."

then it is an illegal installation in violation of 210.20

And the branch circuit must also be in place before a tap can be installed.

Boy we sure agree a lot

The only difference is how the conductors are protected, either at their ampacity or exceeding their ampacity.

Any conductor that is protected above its ampacity is a tap conductor and in no way fits the definition of branch circuit or feeder.

But as I noted earlier, the definition of feeder and branch circuit relate to where the conductor is within the premises wiring system, not how they are protected.

The code mandates how all conductors are to be protected. Branch circuits must have a conductor that will carry the load served and be protected accordingly. The same is true for feeders. For conductors under 800 amps the next higher overcurrent protective device can be used as long as the circuit is not supplying a multioutlet branch circuit supplying receptacles for cord-and-plug-connected portable loads.

A feeder tap is still a feeder by definition, that is protected by on OCPD higher than its ampacity within the rules of 240.21(B).

then pray tell us why they would have a definition for Tap Conductors? A tap conductor in no way fits the definition of a feeder.

I'm afraid I don't follow what you are trying to say here. The reason you are allowed to tap from a range branch circuit for instance, is that the code permits it.

and 210.19(A)(3) Exception 1 tells me the criteria that I must follow to install this range outlet tap. It is not in the main body of the text it is in the exception. I can wire this cook-top with #12 conductor from the range outlet to the cook-top

Again, I don't follow. A range outlet and cook-top installed in an island would still have branch circuit conductors from the branch c/b to the outlets. It is part of the premises wiring system. (The cord&plug from the range outlet to the range is not part of the premises wiring system.)

from a box that has conductors protected at 50 amps I am allowed to tap this outlet with a 20 circuit to supply either an oven or a cook-top that is in the same room. The Range branch circuit is from the breaker to the outlet and is rated at 50 amps. Those conductors from this outlet going to the load being served are taps and are not part of the branch circuit.

The fixture whip that comes with the fixture is a part of the utilization equipment, and is therefore, not part of the premises wiring system. The outlet box where the whip connects would be "outlet" on the premises wiring system.

So if I decided to strap this whip to the fire rated ceiling support wire the inspector could not turn me down. As far as that goes the inspector couldn?t even look at this whip. Is this what you are saying?

I don't think the exceptions refer to things which come after the outlet.

Well okay then. I suppose that I could wire premises wiring with fixture wire after all Exception 2 under 210.19(A)(4) starts off with, Fixture wires and flexible cords shall be permitted.
According to your explanation these conductors (Fixture wires and flexible cords) would be part of the premises wiring and part of the branch circuit. This would also mean that any and all of this wiring would have to fall under the rules of the NEC. Can?t have it both ways.

 

[david luchini]

Good then I am glad that we are agreeing.

Me too

No this is not where either of us are going wrong. I do believe once again we are in agreement with the exception that you think that Table 310.16 is part of 310.15 which does not happen until 2011.

No, I don't believe that, I believe that 240.4 requires that conductors be protected in accordance with their ampacities specified in 310.15, unless otherwise permitted or required in 240.4(A) thru (G).

It is in Table 310.16 that tells us to look at 240.4(D) for the ampacity of a #14 conductor.

I disagree. Table 310.16 tells us that the ampacity of a #14 (cu) conductor is 20, at the 60 and 75 degree temperature rating. Table 310.16 tells us to refer to 240.4(D) which tells us to protect #14 with a 15A max OCPD, UNLESS specifically permitted in 240.4(E) or (G).

Even protected by a 15A OCPD, #14 still has an ampacity of 20.

Wow boy am I surprised. All my life I thought that a definition of something was to tell you what that something was.

Me too. That's why I don't understand why you are trying to say that a conductor which clearly meets the definition of a "branch circuit conductor" is NOT a branch circuit conductor.

Is it not you that keeps saying that the ampacity of#14 is 20 amps?

No, it is not me who says this, it is the NEC who says this (see T310.16.) I am just repeating what the NEC says.

Then how can #14 be a tap on a 20 amp circuit? In order to be a tap it must be a conductor that has overcurrent protection ahead of its point of supply that exceeds the value permitted for similar conductors. If the 14 is a 20 amp conductor then it is not a tap on a 20 amp circuit.

Again, here is where you are getting lost. As you say, a tap must be a conductor that has OCPD ahead of its point of supply that exceeds the value permitted for SIMILAR conductors. A branch circuit using #14 would be protected at 15A per 240.4(D). A branch circuit using #12 would be protected at 20A per 240.4(D). A tap of a 20A branch circuit could use #14 conductors, because the OCPD of the branch circuit (20A) would exceed the value permitted for similar conductors (15A.) But of course, those taps can only supply the loads permitted in 210.19(A)(3)&(A)(4).

Now here is where someone is going astray. As outlined in the exceptions under 210.19(A)(3)&(4) it is very clear that the tap is not the branch circuit not part of any feeder and this is by definition of both branch circuit and tap conductor.

I don't follow. You say that it not the branch circuit and that it is the branch circuit in the same sentence? The definition of a branch circuit is "the circuit conductors between the final OCPD protecting the circuit and the outlets." How does the branch circuit tap conductor NOT meet this definition? The tap conductors meet the definition exactly.

then it is an illegal installation in violation of 210.20

How is what I described a violation of 210.20? I followed 210.20 precisely. See post #104. If I protect my conductors exactly how 210.20 (and 240.4) tell me to, how am I in violation?

Any conductor that is protected above its ampacity is a tap conductor and in no way fits the definition of branch circuit or feeder.

You've lost me again. Where does the definition of a branch circuit or feeder say anything about overcurrent protection or ampacity? They don't! The branch circuit and feeder definitions tell us WHERE the conductors are installed in the premises wiring system, not HOW they are protected. If the definition of a feeder is 'ALL circuit conductors between the service equipment and the final branch-circuit overcurrent device,' then a feeder tap, which IS a circuit conductor between the service equipment and the final branch-circuit OCPD, is, by definition, a feeder. I don't see how it could be any more clear.

The code mandates how all conductors are to be protected. Branch circuits must have a conductor that will carry the load served and be protected accordingly. The same is true for feeders. For conductors under 800 amps the next higher overcurrent protective device can be used as long as the circuit is not supplying a multioutlet branch circuit supplying receptacles for cord-and-plug-connected portable loads.

Where does the code say branch circuit conductors must carry the load and "be protected accordingly?" It doesn't say that. The code says branch-circuit conductors shall be protected by OCPDs that have a rating or setting that 'complies with 210.20(A) thru (D).' See 210.20.

210.20(B) says those conductors shall be protected in accordance with 240.4. 240.4(E) says that conductors are permitted to be protected at lower than their ampacity in accordance with 210.19(A)(3)&(A)(4). Protecting circuit branch circuit conductors at less than their ampacity is ALLOWED by 210.20.

then pray tell us why they would have a definition for Tap Conductors? A tap conductor in no way fits the definition of a feeder.

There is a definition of tap conductors to distinguish conductors that are protected at higher than their ampacity. And because there are rules specific to allowing the installation of these conductors protected at higher than their ampacities. For example: 240.21(B)(1) Taps not over 10' Long.

If the feeder tap conductor is a conductor 'between the service equipment and the final branch-circuit conductor,' then the tap conductor meets the definition of a feeder TO THE LETTER.

and 210.19(A)(3) Exception 1 tells me the criteria that I must follow to install this range outlet tap. It is not in the main body of the text it is in the exception. I can wire this cook-top with #12 conductor from the range outlet to the cook-top

What difference does it make that the allowance is in the exception? The exception exists in the BRANCH CIRCUIT Article, which tells you about 'branch circuits.' 210.1 Scope: This article covers branch circuits except for branch circuits that supply only motor loads... The allowable tap to the cooktop from the range branch-circuit is part of the 'branch circuit' as covered in Art. 210.

from a box that has conductors protected at 50 amps I am allowed to tap this outlet with a 20 circuit to supply either an oven or a cook-top that is in the same room. The Range branch circuit is from the breaker to the outlet and is rated at 50 amps. Those conductors from this outlet going to the load being served are taps and are not part of the branch circuit.

Yes, you are permitted to tap for the oven or cook top from the 50A range branch-circuit, per 210.19(A)(3)Ex.No1. The 20A tap conductors are still between the final OCPD protecting the circuit and the oven (or cooktop) outlet. As such, these conductors ARE a part of the branch circuit, by definition.

So if I decided to strap this whip to the fire rated ceiling support wire the inspector could not turn me down. As far as that goes the inspector couldn?t even look at this whip. Is this what you are saying?

As far as I know, the installation of luminaires falls within Article 410 of the code, so and inspector certainly could and should look at the fixture whip.

Well okay then. I suppose that I could wire premises wiring with fixture wire after all Exception 2 under 210.19(A)(4) starts off with, Fixture wires and flexible cords shall be permitted.
According to your explanation these conductors (Fixture wires and flexible cords) would be part of the premises wiring and part of the branch circuit. This would also mean that any and all of this wiring would have to fall under the rules of the NEC. Can?t have it both ways.

No, you couldn't wire the entire premises wiring with fixture wire. Nothing in 210.19(A)(4)Ex.No.2, permits such a use for fixture wire. See Art. 402 for permitted uses of fixture wire. All the Ex.No.2. does is permit conductors smaller than #14 for branch circuit conductors using flexible cords or fixtures wires in accordance with 240.5. The use of a flexible cord or fixture wire would need to comply with Articles 400 and 402, respectively, and are somewhat limited. However, these conductors would still be part of the branch circuit, and part of the premises wiring system. This is having it both ways, it is having it the Code's way.

 

[jwelectric]

You keep maintaining that a feeder tap is a feeder and a branch tap is a branch circuit which is far from the truth.

You are trying to say that a feeder tap is still feeder although it does not comply with the requirements for feeder, simply because the tap ends in an overcurrent. This is not true. If the feeder or branch circuit does not comply with their perspective articles then the NEC does not recognize them at all so their definition in Article 100 would not apply.

To install a 200 amp breaker and connect #12 to it one could not call the #12 a tap if the #12 ended in a 20 amp breaker and the conductors was less than 10 feet long.

To install a 20 amp breaker and connect #14 to it one could call the #14 a tap.

Neither of the above would comply with the NEC therefore neither could be defined by Article 100 although by your contention both would be a legal installation. After all a feeder tap is still a feeder and a branch circuit tap is still a branch circuit.

It if clear that both feeders and branch circuit taps are permitted by Article 240 thereby is making the tap fall under the definition of that article or 240.2.
once the feeder or the branch circuit is tapped then that conductor is a tap conductor and no longer a feeder or a branch circuit no matter how much you want it to be. It will be either a feeder TAP or a branch circuit TAP.

If a conductor is defined by 240.2 then any definition found in Article 100 is trumped.

I have now finished with this thread and have bigger fish to fry. Just because I don?t respond any more in no way an admission that I think you or anyone else is right or wrong it just means that I need to spend my time doing something more productive.

 

[david luchini]

You keep maintaining that a feeder tap is a feeder and a branch tap is a branch circuit which is far from the truth.

Actually, those statements are 100% true.

You are trying to say that a feeder tap is still feeder although it does not comply with the requirements for feeder, simply because the tap ends in an overcurrent.

I haven't said any such thing. If you replace my arguments with your own interpretations of my arguments, then I can't help you. I have said that a feeder tap is still a feeder because it COMPLIES WITH THE NEC DEFINITION OF A FEEDER. It is that simple.

This is not true. If the feeder or branch circuit does not comply with their perspective articles then the NEC does not recognize them at all so their definition in Article 100 would not apply.

I haven't suggested that the feeder or branch circuit does not comply with their respective articles in the NEC. I have shown repeatedly, that they do comply with their respective NEC articles.

To install a 200 amp breaker and connect #12 to it one could not call the #12 a tap if the #12 ended in a 20 amp breaker and the conductors was less than 10 feet long.

You could call it a tap, as it meets the definition of 'tap conductors' in 240.2, however, it would not be a code compliant tap, as it would not meet the requirements of 240.21(B).

To install a 20 amp breaker and connect #14 to it one could call the #14 a tap.

Again you could call it a tap, but it would not be a code compliant installation per 210.19.

Neither of the above would comply with the NEC therefore neither could be defined by Article 100 although by your contention both would be a legal installation. After all a feeder tap is still a feeder and a branch circuit tap is still a branch circuit.

When, pray tell, did I contend that those would be legal installation? :-? I have said no such thing. In fact, I have said that those would not be legal installations.

It if clear that both feeders and branch circuit taps are permitted by Article 240 thereby is making the tap fall under the definition of that article or 240.2.
once the feeder or the branch circuit is tapped then that conductor is a tap conductor and no longer a feeder or a branch circuit no matter how much you want it to be. It will be either a feeder TAP or a branch circuit TAP.

I'm sorry, but if the TAP conductors still meet the NEC definition of 'feeder' or 'branch circuit' then they are still feeders or branch circuits no matter how much you want them to NOT be.

If a conductor is defined by 240.2 then any definition found in Article 100 is trumped.

And herein lies the crux of the problem. Because your argument does not agree with the definition of 'feeder' and 'branch circuit' in Article 100, you chose to IGNORE the definitions in Art. 100. I do not see where the Code allows you to pick and chose which sections you will follow and which you will ignore. I chose to follow all the sections, you clearly do not.

 

[jxofaltrds]

I'll try again.

Given: 240.4(D)(3)

We all agree that 210.19(A)(4) applys.

It says that no circuit can have a conductor less than 14 AWG. Again we all agree.
It does not discuss overcurrent protection.

So a 14 AWG must be protected by a 15 AMP breaker UNLESS it meets one of the exceptions. Correct?

If yes then show me in the exception where I can protect a 14 AWG more than 15 AMPS in a "branch circuit" other than the 18" allowed in (c).

If no then there is no need to continue debating.

 

[david luchini]

I'll try again.

Given: 240.4(D)(3)

We all agree that 210.19(A)(4) applys.

It says that no circuit can have a conductor less than 14 AWG. Again we all agree.
It does not discuss overcurrent protection.

So a 14 AWG must be protected by a 15 AMP breaker UNLESS it meets one of the exceptions. Correct?

If yes then show me in the exception where I can protect a 14 AWG more than 15 AMPS in a "branch circuit" other than the 18" allowed in (c).

If no then there is no need to continue debating.

Mike,

Lets assume a 40A branch circuit with #8AWG branch circuit conductors.

Per 210.19(A)(4)Ex.No.1(a), you could tap the #8 with #14 and run (without a limit on length) to an Individual Luminaire (lets say the luminaire load is 1 Amp.)

Per 210.19(A)(4)Ex.No.1(d), you could tap the #8 with #14 and run (without a limit on length) to Infrared lamp industrial heating appliances.

Per 210.19(A)(4)Ex.No.1.(e), you could tap the #8 with #14 and run (without a limit on length) to Nonheating leads of deicing and snowmelting cables.

In all of those cases, the #14 is being protected by a 40A OCPD for longer than the 18" allowed in (c).

 

[Smart $]

I'll try again.

Given: 240.4(D)(3)

We all agree that 210.19(A)(4) applys.

It says that no circuit can have a conductor less than 14 AWG. Again we all agree.
It does not discuss overcurrent protection.

So a 14 AWG must be protected by a 15 AMP breaker UNLESS it meets one of the exceptions. Correct?

If yes then show me in the exception where I can protect a 14 AWG more than 15 AMPS in a "branch circuit" other than the 18" allowed in (c).

If no then there is no need to continue debating.

Your ultimatum is steered with conditional limitations. Other possibilities also exist. Therefore, it deserves no explicit response.

Given 210.20(B) makes 240.4 apply in its entirety, in regards to overcurrent protection of all conductors of a branch circuit, it is obvious through 240.4(E)(1) that a #14 is permitted to have overcurrent protection at or ahead of point of supply provided it meets the conditions of 210.19(A)(4), without restriction.

240.4 dubs a #14 protected at 20A a tap conductor per its definition... but the definition of "tap conductor" limits itself to Article 240. That definition does not apply when verifying compliance with any Article 210 branch-circuit conductor. Just because 210.19(A)(4) Exception No. 1 uses the term "tap" does not limit us to tapping only under this Exception. Conductors under Exception No. 2 may also be taps, and it even permits fixture wires and flexible cords to be smaller than #14 per 240.5... but it does not use the term "tap", does it?

 

[jxofaltrds]

Mike,

Lets assume a 40A branch circuit with #8AWG branch circuit conductors.

Per 210.19(A)(4)Ex.No.1(a), you could tap the #8 with #14 and run (without a limit on length) to an Individual Luminaire (lets say the luminaire load is 1 Amp.)

Per 210.19(A)(4)Ex.No.1(d), you could tap the #8 with #14 and run (without a limit on length) to Infrared lamp industrial heating appliances.

Per 210.19(A)(4)Ex.No.1.(e), you could tap the #8 with #14 and run (without a limit on length) to Nonheating leads of deicing and snowmelting cables.

In all of those cases, the #14 is being protected by a 40A OCPD for longer than the 18" allowed in (c).

I do not care about the 'other' exceptions'. We are talking about branch circuits.
Still waiting on the 'permissive rule' for your argument.

Your ultimatum is steered with conditional limitations. Other possibilities also exist. Therefore, it deserves no explicit response.

Given 210.20(B) makes 240.4 apply in its entirety, in regards to overcurrent protection of all conductors of a branch circuit, it is obvious through 240.4(E)(1) that a #14 is permitted to have overcurrent protection at or ahead of point of supply provided it meets the conditions of 210.19(A)(4), without restriction.

240.4 dubs a #14 protected at 20A a tap conductor per its definition... but the definition of "tap conductor" limits itself to Article 240. That definition does not apply when verifying compliance with any Article 210 branch-circuit conductor. Just because 210.19(A)(4) Exception No. 1 uses the term "tap" does not limit us to tapping only under this Exception. Conductors under Exception No. 2 may also be taps, and it even permits fixture wires and flexible cords to be smaller than #14 per 240.5... but it does not use the term "tap", does it?

Your code book must be different than mine. I see nothing in 240.4 that allows a 14 AWG to be protected by a 20 AMP OCPD.

Can you quote an article? NO dubs, no opinions, just facts!

EDIT 240.4(E)(1) does not apply. (3) does.

 

[david luchini]

I do not care about the 'other' exceptions'. We are talking about branch circuits.
Still waiting on the 'permissive rule' for your argument.

Huh?!?!?:-? Article 210 is titled "BRANCH CIRCUITS."

210.19, which I quoted in my last post is titled "Branch-Circuit Ratings: 210.19 - Conductors - Minimum Ampacity and Size"

I think I'm talking about Branch Circuits. I'm not sure what you are talking about.

Your code book must be different than mine. I see nothing in 240.4 that allows a 14 AWG to be protected by a 20 AMP OCPD.

Can you quote an article? NO dubs, no opinions, just facts!

I see it in Article 240.4(E) - Tap Conductors. It's in my code book. Check to see if its in yours also.

 

[Eric R 1973]

That sound's very bad the circuit is not in code
Per article 240.4 (D) (3) 14 AWG copper. 15 amperes
But per Table 316 14 AWG NM Cable can withstand 20A. I personally would change the #14 conductors out and install #12 AWG