multi-pole breaker used for single wire

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

michael mckague

Member
Location
connectitcut
Is it legal to use a 2 or even 3 pole breaker to protect a circuit that does not use all the breakers poles, for example if changing a 240v circuit to a 120v can you still use the 2 pole breaker with one of the two hots remarked and moved to the neutral?
 
michael mckague said:
Is it legal to use a 2 or even 3 pole breaker to protect a circuit that does not use all the breakers poles, for example if changing a 240v circuit to a 120v can you still use the 2 pole breaker with one of the two hots remarked and moved to the neutral?
Click to expand...

Yes to the breaker.

No to the remarking a hot as a neutral if smaller than #4. It is BS, but code.
 
2 wire or 3 wire cable

2 wire or 3 wire cable

If the wires in question are from a cable assembly (ie 14/2 14/3 12/2 12/3 NM, MC, etc) and not pulled through conduit then at least one of the wires should already be white or natural grey and would either be attached to the neutral bar already or being used as one of the ungrounded conductors of a 240V breaker thus yeah it'd be fine to move it off the breaker to the neutral bus. If it's not a cable assembly and is a wire pulled through conduit that is not white or natural gray then as stated no, neutral conductors must be white or natural gray.
 
No to the remarking a hot as a neutral if smaller than #4. It is BS, but code.


I could of sworn i remember #6 and larger coulld be remarker due to the fact its not easy to find multiple colors in these sizes

my mind can be going thoe
 
socalelect said:
No to the remarking a hot as a neutral if smaller than #4. It is BS, but code.


I could of sworn i remember #6 and larger coulld be remarker due to the fact its not easy to find multiple colors in these sizes

my mind can be going thoe
Click to expand...

Read it again, you basically said the same thing.
 
socalelect said:
No to the remarking a hot as a neutral if smaller than #4. It is BS, but code.

He is quoting Jumper here.


I could of sworn i remember #6 and larger coulld be remarker due to the fact its not easy to find multiple colors in these sizes

my mind can be going thoe
Click to expand...

kwired said:
Read it again, you basically said the same thing.
Click to expand...

Not the same, #6 can't be remarked. Code says sizes larger than #6.
 
jumper said:
Now that we settled this, anyone want to argue the BS involved with this section?

A remarked #4 is safe, but a #6 is not?:?:rant:
Click to expand...

Sure Let's go!
The code folks felt that White #6 was easy to aquire and stock?:?


The tape won't stay on wire #6 and smaller!

too easy to mistake a hot #6 with a neutral #6 when they are marked with tape.

....................................................................
 
Sierrasparky said:
Sure Let's go!
The code folks felt that White #6 was easy to aquire and stock?:?


The tape won't stay on wire #6 and smaller!

too easy to mistake a hot #6 with a neutral #6 when they are marked with tape.

....................................................................
Click to expand...

A fat "sharpie" is too big for 6 and smaller.:dunce:
 
#4s are the smallest singles we can re color , but yet i belive it is ok to re color the white in NM as we see fit for the need


i know a guy;) who has occasionaly re-colored # 8 and ten singles due to the darn supply house only stocking black red and green apparently they felt no one runs circuits with a grounded conductor in the smaller sizes

i think if i think back i have only ever purchased black red and green # 6 ive never had a inspector ( knock on wood) say anything about it .
 
Last edited:
jumper said:
Now that we settled this, anyone want to argue the BS involved with this section?

A remarked #4 is safe, but a #6 is not?:?:rant:
Click to expand...
No argument from me, as I agree. This section is one of the largest crates of cargo labeled store high in transport I have ever seen.

I will go further and say that I have ignored it more than once. Only because I had to though.
 
It's a conspiracy. The wire and device manufacturers propose amendments to the code (along with a healthy bribe) that make us use the more expensive products. ;)
 
Little Bill said:
Not the same, #6 can't be remarked. Code says sizes larger than #6.
Click to expand...


OK lets look at this again.
No to the remarking a hot as a neutral if smaller than #4. It is BS, but code.

I could of sworn i remember #6 and larger coulld be remarker
Click to expand...
You can not re identify it if smaller than 4. You can re identify it if larger than 6.

Is there something between #4 and #6 that is new?

Otherwise both statements have same requirement.
 
jumper said:
Now that we settled this, anyone want to argue the BS involved with this section?

A remarked #4 is safe, but a #6 is not?:?:rant:
Click to expand...

I see no BS, I see that the CMP at some point in time remembered this part of article 90

90.1 Purpose.
(A) Practical Safeguarding. The purpose of this Code is
the practical safeguarding of persons and property from
hazards arising from the use of electricity.
Click to expand...

Would it have been practical to require insulation colors that were not available at the time the section was written?

Also the people working with 6 and larger are much more often qualified than all those that are working with 8 and smaller. (DIYs I mean)


But now we can get all colors so maybe a code proposal is needed to eliminate remarking all together?
 
socalelect said:
No to the remarking a hot as a neutral if smaller than #4. It is BS, but code.


I could of sworn i remember #6 and larger coulld be remarker due to the fact its not easy to find multiple colors in these sizes

my mind can be going thoe
Click to expand...

kwired said:
Read it again, you basically said the same thing.
Click to expand...

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Little Bill

Not the same, #6 can't be remarked. Code says sizes larger than #6.
Click to expand...

kwired said:
OK lets look at this again.

You can not re identify it if smaller than 4. You can re identify it if larger than 6.

Is there something between #4 and #6 that is new?

Otherwise both statements have same requirement.
Click to expand...

I think you need to read it again, and slower this time. :p

He said he thought #6 and larger. You can't re-identify #6. So the statements aren't the same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top