On most feeder taps, yes...doesnt a tap conductor have to have a breaker at the end of the run to limit the load. ?:-?
...but we are talking branch circuit taps here.
On most feeder taps, yes...doesnt a tap conductor have to have a breaker at the end of the run to limit the load. ?:-?
I recall many discussions on whether a #14 is allowed on a 20A breaker'd circuit, with the consensus always being "no"... but I don't recall anyone bringing up the aspect of #14 as a branch-circuit tap conductor.Nope. We've been down this road a gazillion times.
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...Here's an old thread I really enjoyed on the matter
http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=114360
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...???
For years all the ahj around here allowed us to run the #14 switch leg down to a switch and back on a 20 a # 12 circuit , that has been stoped years ago , if it is not a violation why was it ever stoped ? ......... .
.....The only place I know you can run a #14 on a 20 amp breaker is on a motor load .
I had a similar situation with the AHJ. He failed it stating "If and when the panel needs to get replaced the person doing the work will slam a 20 Amp breaker into the panel cause he sees 12 AWG wire." I can't say I blame him.
I will say I 'blame him'. That is foolish thinking on his part.
No competent electrician should be changing the size of a breaker or fuse without knowing about the circuit. Once you remove competent from the scenario all bets are off, no amount of labels or thinking ahead will stop the hack from hacking.
No competent electrician
I had an inspection in a county south of here last week and asked the inspector to get his code book. He told me he doesn't carry one because he doesn't deal with 'Real' electricians!!!:-?Unqualified Person. A person who is not a qualified person.
Are we all competent?
General consensus with some Code intent thrown in... has to be, because current (and past) Code wording does not fully support this interpretation.For years all the ahj around here allowed us to run the #14 switch leg down to a switch and back on a 20 a # 12 circuit , that has been stoped years ago , if it is not a violation why was it ever stoped ? ...
General consensus with some Code intent thrown in... has to be, because current (and past) Code wording does not fully support this interpretation.
Well I certainly can't say I'm suprisedAnd there you have why no one has jumped in here.
I've made up my mind that the Code wording does not fully support the consensus or intent. As for real life situations, I do not run any #14 on general purpose 20A branch circuits. Even recently told a friend he needed to change some 20A breakers to 15A breakers because the hack that rewire his house has #14 on general purpose 20A branch circuits.You have clearly made up your mind...
My mindset and opinions are based on facts and authoritative opinions. Others are weighed accordinglyI don't recall a time where you mind has been changed by others opinions so arguing with you is like arguing with Mike W.
But FWIW, even Mike W. backed out of the last argument
I've made up my mind that the Code wording does not fully support the consensus or intent.
I'm glad you see it my way :roll::roll:So there is no point at all in discussing it any further.
I'm glad you see it my way :roll::roll:
Are we all competent? Wonder why the following was added to the 09 70E.:roll:
I had an inspection in a county south of here last week and asked the inspector to get his code book. He told me he doesn't carry one because he doesn't deal with 'Real' electricians!!!:-?