Ranges neutral to ground connection

Pedro, let me ask you this:

Given that a 3-wire major-appliance circuit allowed the neutral to do double duty to also ground the appliance (and not the EGC doing double duty as the neutral), and given that a typical 3-wire home service is identical to a 3-wire appliance circuit;

Do you have equal objection to 3-wire services, and believe that there should be a separate EGC?
 
LarryFine said:
Pedro, let me ask you this:

Given that a 3-wire major-appliance circuit allowed the neutral to do double duty to also ground the appliance (and not the EGC doing double duty as the neutral), and given that a typical 3-wire home service is identical to a 3-wire appliance circuit;

Do you have equal objection to 3-wire services, and believe that there should be a separate EGC?
Click to expand...
Now you know thats the same. Not even a little bit you should know better. Just saying. Listen it is what is is .
 
The 14-50 / 4-wire range hysteria has resulted in probably one of the most epic wastes of copper in modern history, by my calculations since 1996 1000 tons of copper per year is wasted on 4-wire range circuits. Miles and miles of #8 installed every year for at most just a light and a clock. Now the madness has spread to EV receptacles, no EVSE uses a neutral so miles and miles of #6 are installed for absolutely no reason.
Ranges could easily have been designed to not need a neutral at all, some new ones dont even contain a neutral wire on the appliance side, the terminal block its just a place to land a unused white wire.
They should have used the 6-50 configuration and kept the 3-wire. Existing 3-wire installations would have a easy upgrade path, simple change the 10-50 to a 6-50.
 
@tortuga makes a good point.

I don't think that separating bonding from the neutral circuit conductor is 'hysteria', and if the neutral is necessary it should be separated from the EGC. So if the appliance requires the neutral then IMHO it should be fed with a 4-wire circuit.

But it would probably make more sense to evolve the ranges and clothes dryers to not actually need the neutral, and running the neutral an EVSE that won't ever use it is pure waste.
 
Pedro, what's your point in all this?

The code changed and allowed existing installations to still be called compliant if they were compliant when installed (this is true for most building-related codes). It's ridiculous to expect/assume/demand that all the existing installations be changed to follow any new code requirement - consider demanding than all existing housing be retrofitted with AFCI breakers (or to get breakers at all) or that cars made pre-1968 have seat-belts installed (good idea does not equal code requirement). Building codes generally don't work that way. They may demand that certain things be updated when specific known triggers occur, like "renovation cost exceeding %25 of assessed value" or "occupancy type is changing", but that's all they can do.

Again, whilst a 3-wire range feed may be "less safe" than a 4-wire feed, unless that's quantifiable there's no road to a retrofit requirement. Might be better off with Winnie's point and push for ranges that don't need a neutral and make the common plug a 6-50.
 
pedro1200 said:
So being that they changed probably means that cases were finally cited which proves my previous point. Just saying . Thanks for the info
Click to expand...
I don't know and they only way to find out is to go back and look at the proposals, substantiations, and panel statements. Those are all available on the NFPA website if you want to look for them, but I have no interest in wasting a couple of hours doing that.
 
pedro1200 said:
manufactures helping to write code , what can go wrong? Lol
Click to expand...

Anyone can submit public inputs to make a code change, but every change requires a 2/3s majority to pass and no one group such as the manufacturers can have more than 1/3 of the total panel membership.

If you don't like how this rule in the code works, why don't you submit a public input to make a change in the 2029 code. The system is open for the submission of public inputs until late April of 2026.
 
LarryFine said:
What is your concern, other than an open-neutral condition?
Click to expand...
Open neutral is definitely a issue that comes up, more an EC education issue as others have stated the AHJ is not typically opening up range outlets and inspecting them after they are replaced.

There was one incident I herd of recently at a apartment building, built in the 1970's, where the apartments were fed from a typical meter pack, 4-wire feeders to each apartment panel - 4 wire range circuit to each range, the old codes (93 and earlier) allowed the 3-wire range receptacles off a sub panel to ground the frame to the neutral, but the neutral had to be insulated. So EC's here typically ran a 4-wire cable and did not use the ground.

The building lost its neutral during a storm and one of the tenants, a disabled person, got a pretty good shock from her range.
I have herd of a few other such incidents over the years, I dont know of a way they are being tracked or recorded as they are not fires.

The existing installation in question was compliant with the code in effect at the time, as there was a 4-wire SE-R cable with a insulated neutral, however,
Under current code 250.140(B) would not apply to a receptacle replacement, as there is a equipment ground present in the box and the receptacle had been replaced.

So my thought is electricians may be unaware of this subtle wording in 250.140(B) and are replacing like with like, when a grounding means is actually present, so I say its more a education issue.
 
pedro1200 said:
So you are working on an old construction you are allowed to install something thats not necessary the best installation as proven by the code changes.
Click to expand...
No, not allowed to install something new that does not meet the current code, but allowed to continue or reuse something that was code complaint when it was installed.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
No, not allowed to install something new that does not meet the current code, but allowed to continue or reuse something that was code complaint when it was installed.
Click to expand...
Where it gets interesting is replacing like for like if an equipment ground is present in the box.
 
tortuga said:
Open neutral is definitely a issue that comes up, more an EC education issue as others have stated the AHJ is not typically opening up range outlets and inspecting them after they are replaced.

There was one incident I herd of recently at a apartment building, built in the 1970's, where the apartments were fed from a typical meter pack, 4-wire feeders to each apartment panel - 4 wire range circuit to each range, the old codes (93 and earlier) allowed the 3-wire range receptacles off a sub panel to ground the frame to the neutral, but the neutral had to be insulated. So EC's here typically ran a 4-wire cable and did not use the ground.

The building lost its neutral during a storm and one of the tenants, a disabled person, got a pretty good shock from her range.
I have herd of a few other such incidents over the years, I dont know of a way they are being tracked or recorded as they are not fires.

The existing installation in question was compliant with the code in effect at the time, as there was a 4-wire SE-R cable with a insulated neutral, however,
Under current code 250.140(B) would not apply to a receptacle replacement, as there is a equipment ground present in the box and the receptacle had been replaced.

So my thought is electricians may be unaware of this subtle wording in 250.140(B) and are replacing like with like, when a grounding means is actually present, so I say its more a education issue.
Click to expand...
If the neutral was lost on the line side of the service disconnect what difference would it make if the range was connected to the EGC instead of the grounded conductor?
 
tortuga said:
Open neutral is definitely a issue that comes up, more an EC education issue as others have stated the AHJ is not typically opening up range outlets and inspecting them after they are replaced.

There was one incident I herd of recently at a apartment building, built in the 1970's, where the apartments were fed from a typical meter pack, 4-wire feeders to each apartment panel - 4 wire range circuit to each range, the old codes (93 and earlier) allowed the 3-wire range receptacles off a sub panel to ground the frame to the neutral, but the neutral had to be insulated. So EC's here typically ran a 4-wire cable and did not use the ground.

The building lost its neutral during a storm and one of the tenants, a disabled person, got a pretty good shock from her range.
I have herd of a few other such incidents over the years, I dont know of a way they are being tracked or recorded as they are not fires.

The existing installation in question was compliant with the code in effect at the time, as there was a 4-wire SE-R cable with a insulated neutral, however,
Under current code 250.140(B) would not apply to a receptacle replacement, as there is a equipment ground present in the box and the receptacle had been replaced.

So my thought is electricians may be unaware of this subtle wording in 250.140(B) and are replacing like with like, when a grounding means is actually present, so I say its more a education issue.
Click to expand...
>the old codes (93 and earlier) allowed the 3-wire range receptacles off a sub panel
The three wire circuit for stoves and dryers could only originate in the main panel, not a subpanal.
 
robertd said:
>the old codes (93 and earlier) allowed the 3-wire range receptacles off a sub panel
The three wire circuit for stoves and dryers could only originate in the main panel, not a subpanal.
Click to expand...
What is a stove?

250.140 covers ranges and clothes dryers.
The grounded conductor could be used to bond the frame if insulated and it could originate from the service panel or downstream panel.
If the grounded conductor was bare (SE cable) it had to originate from the service panel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top