Ungrounded Conductors From Same Circuit on Same Breaker?
- Thread starter ArcNSpark
- Start date
- Status
CopperTone
Senior Member
- Location
- MetroWest, MA
I think that is a stupid waste of time to run a loop through feeding circuits from both ends from the same breaker. I would be confused as hell at first if I came across this set up.
what about over filling the panel with too many wires?
what about over filling the panel with too many wires?
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
310.4 explains all requirements to run conductors in parallel. It does not define what is in parallel.
The situation in the OP does not meet requirements or 310.4 but still has conductors installed in parallel to each other.
If this were a control circuit 310.4(A) would allow smaller than 1/0AWG to be connected in parallel. This happens very frequently with controls where a "OR" logic function is needed.
The situation in the OP does not meet requirements or 310.4 but still has conductors installed in parallel to each other.
If this were a control circuit 310.4(A) would allow smaller than 1/0AWG to be connected in parallel. This happens very frequently with controls where a "OR" logic function is needed.
Last edited:
- Location
- Tennessee NEC:2017
- Occupation
- Semi-Retired Electrician
The whole house is a parallel circuit.:thumbsup:
John120/240
Senior Member
- Location
- Olathe, Kansas
O K you wouldn't hesitate to wire your house with a ring circuit, but I would
venture a guess that you haven't done it. It's just a waste of wire & effort IMO.
It would be a unique solution to some problems, but I just can't imagine a
whole house wired in ring circuits. I'll put up a burrito
If you inspected this what would the violation be? Aside from two wires in one breaker I don't see any.
That said, I agree that this is a ridiculus waste of time and wire. BTW, why just the 15a circuits? There might be a voltage drop when the toster and blender are in use?
That said, I agree that this is a ridiculus waste of time and wire. BTW, why just the 15a circuits? There might be a voltage drop when the toster and blender are in use?
hurk27
Senior Member
- Location
- Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
First to say I don't have a problem with this circuit as long as the OCPD is rated for just one set of the conductors unlike Europe where they will protect the ring circuit at the rating of both sets of conductors, but we also must realize that they use OCPD at each outlet to prevent over loading of the ring.
Now for the question of if it is a parallel circuit or not?
At each device/load connected on the ring circuit will have two hots and two neutrals providing two paths back to source, they are effectively connected together at each load and at each supply, 310.4 does not say anything in the definition of parallel conductors taking different paths back to source but it does say:
But again the above is not a problem since the OCPD can protect just one of the runs unlike a normal parallel installation where the OCPD is sized for all the conductors in parallel.
I don't know how far back on the forum it was but we discussed this at great length, and most agreed this is a parallel circuit in the context of the NEC.
Now for the question of if it is a parallel circuit or not?
At each device/load connected on the ring circuit will have two hots and two neutrals providing two paths back to source, they are effectively connected together at each load and at each supply, 310.4 does not say anything in the definition of parallel conductors taking different paths back to source but it does say:
But again the above is not a problem since the OCPD can protect just one of the runs unlike a normal parallel installation where the OCPD is sized for all the conductors in parallel.
I don't know how far back on the forum it was but we discussed this at great length, and most agreed this is a parallel circuit in the context of the NEC.
hurk27
Senior Member
- Location
- Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
I did find a 2003 thread on the subject, but there was an older thread in the old forum whare we did agree it was a parallel circuit.
Heres the 2003 thread: http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php/62180-Ring-Mains-or-Ring-Circuits
Heres the 2003 thread: http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php/62180-Ring-Mains-or-Ring-Circuits
John, I have already said I have used ring circuits in landscape lighting.
So you can't see how it would solve VD problems in long or heavy loaded circuits?
It would not neccessarily be a "unique" solution.
What danger would there be in doing so?
Now, imagine a ring circuit with #12 supplied by two 20 amp breakers feeding a 40 amp load in the center of the circuit.
Roger
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
Well you are still wrong. :lol:
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
How do you figure?
Roger
Well I was joking but I do thin it is parallel. I mentioned why earlier as did others. At every device the circuit is parallel-- I know this is an accepted practice in England and was often done with phones in this country but I still see it as parallel.
Plug a device in one receptacle and tell me what happens. Granted the wires are not the same length but that does not mean they are not parallel, IMO.
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
Any time you have more than one possible route to get to a specific destination you have a parallel path.
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
Each circuit is parallel to other circuits. Individual loads are connected in parallel to each other. But there is not parallel conductors supplying a load, until you get into higher capacity situation where it is done according to 310.4.
There are two types of current paths. Series and parallel. The 'ring' circuit is a parallel current path from overcurrent device to each load. As well as return path back to neutral bus.
The loads are all parallel to each other with respect to ther location between grounded and ungrounded, even in a non 'ring' circuit.
There are parallel paths everywhere. The problem is when you connect multiple conductors supplying the same load you have to follow the requirements of 310.4. The conductors in the OP are supplying the same load(s) but do not comply with 310.4
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
Violation is not complying with requirements in 310.4 for conductors connected in parallel.
Two conductors is allowed on many breakers smaller than 35 amps but not all of them. See breaker instructions.
I know you were and do.
I stand by my argument in post #18 of the 2003 thread linked to by Hurk.
If a ring or loop is considered parallel conductors why wouldn't the NFPA refer to a Class A fire alarm circuit as conductors in parallel?
Roger
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
That would be allowed by exception 1 to 310.4(A).
And I agree that if we are considering it conductors in parallel the exception is applicable, but that is not the point, the point is the NFPA in NFPA 72 does not use the word parallel anywhere in the definition of a Class A circuit which is nothing but a ring or a loop.
If they were using the exception to conductors in parallel it would seem as though they would use the word parallel somewhere in the definition and maybe even refer to NFPA 70 as they do through out NFPA documents and standards.
I just find it curious that there is no code section that I know of refers to conductors in a loop as conductors in parallel
Roger
- Location
- Lockport, IL
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Engineer
I see this discussion continues unabated, and it still revolves around an irrelevant concept. Pick any two wires in the entire circuit. Then ask if those two wires are attached to each other at one end. If yes, then ask if those two wires are also attached to each other at the other end. If yes, then and only then do you have two wires in parallel with each other. That is not the case for any two wires in this circuit. In all cases, two wires may be attached to each other at one end, but one wire will continue downstream to the next outlet, and the other wire continues upstream to the previous outlet. That is not, Not, NOT a parallel circuit. All discussions about the rules for parallel conductors are meaningless in this circuit.
- Status