#14 and #12 not to be in same box ???????????

Merry Christmas
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

speedypetey

Senior Member
Location
Hudson Valley, NY
I'll give the same reply as from another site this is posted on:

calibayelectric said:
Idon't see anything wrong with installation I've been doing that for years
Click to expand...
Are you serious? How about one of the most basic codes we have.
It's not that they are in the same box, it is that they are on the same circuit.
1) Do NOT mix wire sizes on the same circuit.
2) If for some strange reason you do (other than for voltage drop) you MUST breaker the circuit for the smallest wire on the circuit.

You are an electrician? And you do not know not to do this?




*Edit- Coming back and reading this it seems a bit harsh. I am going to leave it anyway as I think it is a serious thing that a seasoned electrician does not know this.
Let's call it serious instead of harsh.*
 
Last edited:
#14 and #12 not to be in same box ???????????

This question was asked at the end of an unrelated thread so I have moved it here.

calibayelectric said:
Ifailed an inspection on a residential job because the in inspector (in the city of san jose CA) claims that #14 wire and #12 wire are not supposed to be in the same box; #12 romex on 20a breaker with #12 going in and out of switch boxes I used #14 romex as switchlegs Idon't see anything wrong with installation I've been doing that for years I need help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Click to expand...
 
speedypetey said:
I'll give the same reply as from another site this is posted on:


Are you serious? How about one of the most basic codes we have.
It's not that they are in the same box, it is that they are on the same circuit.
1) Do NOT mix wire sizes on the same circuit.
2) If for some strange reason you do (other than for voltage drop) you MUST breaker the circuit for the smallest wire on the circuit.

You are an electrician? And you do not know not to do this?




*Edit- Coming back and reading this it seems a bit harsh. I am going to leave it anyway as I think it is a serious thing that a seasoned electrician does not know this.
Let's call it serious instead of harsh.*
Click to expand...

Sometimes i question guys that call themselfs electricians.Yes bit harsh but scarry that this guy has just got caught after who knows how many times.With the differant color jackets (yellow=12) how did this get missed so long ?
 
Last edited:
Well, at least someone finally caught it.

Hopefully, the guy doesn't treat it as a "they call this here but I can get away with it there" kind of situation.
 
I have heard about smaller sized switch legs but never seen it used im my area. How did this practice get started??? What was being acomplished???
 
This is clearly a code violation, so it shouldn't surprise anyone (including the original poster) that this did not pass.

But it isn't such an unreasonable installation practise. I can think of safety reasons as to why it shouldn't fly, and I agree with current code on this issue, but the discussion of 'is the cost of improved safety worth the benefit of the safety improvement' is a regular theme on this board.

Current code permits switches to be sized for the load, not for the OCPD. This means that you could have a 15A (or even a 5A) switch feeding a 500W lamp on a 20A circuit.

Current code (combined with UL standards) permit the use of conductors that are sized for the load on the actual lamps themselves or on some wiring devices (eg. dimmers).

It is entirely code compliant to run 12ga conductors to the 16 ga conductors built on to dimmer (I am guessing at the size; they are stranded conductors clearly smaller than 12ga), then again as 12ga conductors to the lamp, where 16ga or 18ga conductors feed the actual sockets built into the lamp. This circuit is then protected by a 20A breaker, and no-one screams about the protection of the smaller conductors.

Given this, it is quite reasonable to imagine that conductors sized to fit the load might be used on switch loops or lamp runs, and it is current code that says that the cost savings of such an installation do not warrant the increased safety hazard. (An example of increased safety hazard: the now undersized conductors would be safe from overload, because they are essentially taps protected by the load. But the OCPD would also be oversized in terms of protecting the conductors from damage in the event of a short circuit. While this might be acceptable in an accessible junction box, this is less acceptable buried in the wall. Just a guess here.)

-Jon
 
FWIW Remember, the AHJ has the last say on this.
For example, here in zip 77401 for years it was code to have all branch circuits on min 20 amp wiring and it was allowed to use 14-2 just for switch legs of lighting circuits which included 3way travelers.
It has now since changed & no 14-2 is allowed in new installations. I think it changed about the time 12-2 became yellow.
We also require sprinkler systems in all new residential 2 story.
 
77401 said:
FWIW Remember, the AHJ has the last say on this.
For example, here in zip 77401 for years it was code to have all branch circuits on min 20 amp wiring and it was allowed to use 14-2 just for switch legs of lighting circuits which included 3way travelers.
It has now since changed & no 14-2 is allowed in new installations. I think it changed about the time 12-2 became yellow.
We also require sprinkler systems in all new residential 2 story.
Click to expand...

Was there a formal amendment locally to the NEC to allow the #14 or was it that the AHJ or inspectors simply didn't know it was a violation of the NEC?

If they were blindly but outwardly allowing a violation to an adopted (assuming the NEC was) code, they were on thin ice as well as the contractor who should know the code.

Just because some unknowing inspector allows it does not relieve the Contractor of liability.

Roger
 
Could it be that someone forgot the 18" limitation on taps, and that's how people using #14 on 20A circuits got started?
 
tallgirl said:
Could it be that someone forgot the 18" limitation on taps, and that's how people using #14 on 20A circuits got started?
Click to expand...

Do tell, what 18" limitation? Please cite the article and section you are refering to that would be the source of this confussion.

Roger
 
Last edited:
roger said:
Do tell, what 18" limitation? Please cite the article and section you are refering to that would be the source of this confussion.

Roger
Click to expand...

Article 210.19 (A) (4).
 
First of all welcome to the forum. Why would you think 210.19(A)(4) would cause the confusion the OP was having?

He was talking about switch legs not taps.

Roger
 
roger said:
First of all welcome to the forum. Why would you think 210.19(A)(4) would cause the confusion the OP was having?

He was talking about switch legs not taps.

Roger
Click to expand...

Because it had a familiar ring to it and I'd just gotten finished telling someone last week they couldn't do what the OP had done. I'm not saying 210.19(A)(4) is right, or applicable, or anything else, but that's the only place I could think of that might have given the OP the idea. That and table 210.24.

And thanks for the welcome.
 
Tallgirl, you are welcome for the welcome ;) and I owe you an appology.

Not that I had a right to, but I was testing you to see if you could back up my question with a code reference.

You did and I appologize for putting you on a spot.

Roger
 
roger said:
Tallgirl, you are welcome for the welcome ;) and I owe you an appology.

Not that I had a right to, but I was testing you to see if you could back up my question with a code reference.

You did and I appologize for putting you on a spot.

Roger
Click to expand...

Hey, no problem at all. Especially since I knew that's what you were doing.

I might be asking a small favor of you as payback, tho ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top