Ungrounded Conductors From Same Circuit on Same Breaker?

[ArcNSpark]

Here's a new one for me.

Buddy is a carpenter, doing a resi remodel. HO brought in his own "electrician." My buddy noticed that when the guy was wiring up the panel, he did something odd on the 15A circuits.

Started at the panel, ran 14-2 to first receptacle, then next, then lights, and so on...but instead of ending it at the last outlet box, he then ran 14-2 back to the panel, put both neutrals and grounds on the appropriate bar, then put BOTH hot wires on to the SAME CIRCUIT BREAKER.

My buddy asked me what the advantage of this strategy would be, and for the life of me, I couldn't possibly think of one. After a couple of weeks he finally ran in to that same "electrician" and got an answer. Anyone want to guess what the answer was before I tell you all?

 

[kwired]

The only reason I can come up with that makes some sense is to help with voltage drop. But I also don't see this as complying with rules for parallel conductors which effectively has been created by the situation.

 

[chris kennedy]

But I also don't see this as complying with rules for parallel conductors which effectively has been created by the situation.

I don't believe the OP's described install meets the def.

310.4 Conductors in Parallel.

(A) General. Aluminum, copper-clad aluminum, or copper conductors of size 1/0 AWG and larger, comprising each phase, polarity, neutral, or grounded circuit conductor shall be permitted to be connected in parallel (electrically joined at both ends).

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I believe the reason is if a wire gets damaged then all you need to do is disconnect the section that is damaged but IMO it is a clear violation.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I don't believe the OP's described install meets the def.

I disagree. They are electrically joined at both end. The circuit is a loop.

 

[ufer]

He worked for the phone company. That is how they used to wire a house.
Complete loop in case a wire failed.

 

[kwired]

I don't believe the OP's described install meets the def.

why are they not electrically joined at each end, in both conductors one end attached to the source, and the other end is connected to the outlet.

True there are other splices along the way and possibly differents condctor lengths, but this just further violates rules for paralleled conductors but does not change the fact that there is a parallel path.

NEC has rules for parallel conductors. Conductors can still be "paralleled" without meeting these rules, they are just not NEC compliant parallels.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

This a very common wiring method in Europe. I believe it is call a "ring circuit".

 

[ArcNSpark]

Kwired gets the prize. The guy's explanation was, "So that the last light on the circuit is the same brightness as the first one." I laughed and said something like that's not how voltage drop works...even though the circuit would work.

In this situation though, would an AFCI breaker hold? I might get the call from the bullpen if the breakers don't hold and we need a professional to put this job to bed...just wondering.

 

[ptonsparky]

There is no reason an AFCI will not work, other than their normal shortcomings, on this circuit. Must have been one heck of a long circuit to worry about VD to a lamp.

 

[kwired]

Kwired gets the prize. The guy's explanation was, "So that the last light on the circuit is the same brightness as the first one." I laughed and said something like that's not how voltage drop works...even though the circuit would work.

In this situation though, would an AFCI breaker hold? I might get the call from the bullpen if the breakers don't hold and we need a professional to put this job to bed...just wondering.

The amount of difference in brightness between the first and last lamp is likely not even going to be noticeable. If it were a 12 volt lighting circuit that would be different, it does not take nearly as much voltage drop to make a difference in a low voltage circuit.

 

[roger]

Kwired gets the prize. The guy's explanation was, "So that the last light on the circuit is the same brightness as the first one." I laughed and said something like that's not how voltage drop works...even though the circuit would work.

Actually the guy is right, it would keep everthing equal as far as VD through out the circuit.

Personally I have always liked the simplified ring circuit (modified from the Europe version mentioned by Don) and have used it for LV landscape lighting.

Roger

 

[kwired]

Actually the guy is right, it would keep everthing equal as far as VD through out the circuit.

Personally I have always liked the simplified ring circuit (modified from the Europe version mentioned by Don) and have used it for LV landscape lighting.

Roger

But what is required to not call it improperly installed parallel conductors?

If a person were to run a feeder circuit out to a production area make several taps to equipment and loop the feeder back to the source many would be talking about how wrong that is.

Back to the OP if there was only one outlet being served and two cables feeding it you would have the same thing but everyone would then call it improper parallel cables if not 1/0 awg or larger.

 

[ptonsparky]

What happened to Charlies post that went like this:

***************
This is not a "parallel wire" situation. You do not have two (or more) wires connected to each other at both ends.

Let us call the attachment point (for the ungrounded conductor) on the breaker "Point 1." The point of attachment on the first outlet (a receptacle, according to the OP) will be "Point 2." The point of attachment on the next outlet (a light) is "Point 3." Let's say the point of attachment on the last outlet is "Point 7."
? I have a wire whose two points of attachment are Point 1 and Point 2. I do not have any other wires connected to _both of_ those two points.
? I have a wire whose two points of attachment are Point 2 and Point 3. I do not have any other wires connected to _both of_ those two points.
? I have a wire whose two points of attachment are Point 3 and Point 4. I do not have any other wires connected to _both of_ those two points.
? I have a wire whose two points of attachment are Point 7 and Point 1. I do not have any other wires connected to _both of_ those two points.
? In no case do I have two or more wires that have the same left-hand attachment point and the same right hand attachment point.
? Therefore, no two wires are in parallel.

It is his post, I just had to copy it from an email.

I also tend to agree with him FWIW. The ring circuit as described does not meet the qualifications of a parallel circuit.

 

[ggunn]

What happened to Charlies post that went like this:

***************
This is not a "parallel wire" situation...

The site went down and they restored from a backup from night before last.

 

[wchild1520]

One question , was the breaker rated for two conducters?

 

[S'mise]

One question , was the breaker rated for two conducters?

Likely not. If he used a jumper from the breaker and a wirenut to the two branch circuits the rest is fine in my opinion. (not a paralell circuit)

I will add the caveat that its a dangerous way to do things because some diy person will probably get zaped trying to change out a duplex hot. (hot wires from both directions)

 

[roger]

Likely not. If he used a jumper from the breaker and a wirenut to the two branch circuits the rest is fine in my opinion. (not a paralell circuit)

I will add the caveat that its a dangerous way to do things because some diy person will probably get zaped trying to change out a duplex hot. (hot wires from both directions)

Yes but if they turned off the breaker as they should both sides would be off.

Roger

 

[chris kennedy]

Call me cooky, but is still fail to see how these conductors are in parallel.

 

[John120/240]

In my opinion it is not a parallel circuit. I would not wire my house this way.

How many members of this fine Forum would wire a home in this manner ?