14 ga. on 20 or 30 a circuit

[ryan_618]

I was sent a PM asking to post a thought on this issue. I think this branch circuit tap is allowed, although I wish it weren't. The only rule that one could argue is being violated is 240.4(D), which is modified by 240.4(E). 240.4(E) points me to 240.21, and 240.21(A) tells me that I just have to follow 210.19. 210.19(A)(2) requires the conductors to have the correct ampacity, which 14AWG does.

Thinking out loud here...could I use 14AWG for the entire circuit and call it a tap? It meets the definition...

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I was sent a PM asking to post a thought on this issue. I think this branch circuit tap is allowed, although I wish it weren't. The only rule that one could argue is being violated is 240.4(D), which is modified by 240.4(E). 240.4(E) points me to 240.21, and 240.21(A) tells me that I just have to follow 210.19. 210.19(A)(2) requires the conductors to have the correct ampacity, which 14AWG does.

Thinking out loud here...could I use 14AWG for the entire circuit and call it a tap? It meets the definition...

But nothing in 210.19 can change the required overcurrent protection of the conductor. Per the title of the section, "Minimum Ampacity and Size", that section of the code only can tell us how to size the conductor, it can't change the overcurrent protection requirements.

 

[ryan_618]

Don, I agree that 210.19 doesn't provide OCP requirements. 210.20 and 240.4 do that. 240.4 allows taps in accordance with 240.21(A), which allows taps as long as the conductors have sufficient ampacity.

 

[Smart $]

I was sent a PM asking to post a thought on this issue. I think this branch circuit tap is allowed, although I wish it weren't. The only rule that one could argue is being violated is 240.4(D), which is modified by 240.4(E). 240.4(E) points me to 240.21, and 240.21(A) tells me that I just have to follow 210.19. 210.19(A)(2) requires the conductors to have the correct ampacity, which 14AWG does.

That reasoning makes it seem pretty clear cut.

Thinking out loud here...could I use 14AWG for the entire circuit and call it a tap? It meets the definition...

It may meet the definition of a tap conductor, but I don't think it meets the compound definition of a branch-circuit tap conductor. A branch circuit is, in short, defined as the circuit conductors between the last ocpd and the load. A branch circuit has to be established in order for it to be tapped.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Ryan,
I still have a problem with 240.21(A).

(A) Branch-Circuit Conductors Branch-circuit tap conductors meeting the requirements specified in 210.19 shall be permitted to have overcurrent protection located as specified in that section.

There is no specified overcurrent protection in 210.19 and there can't be per the section title. As a matter of fact, even if there were overcurrent rules in 210.19, it wouldn't change the permitted size as 240.21(A) only refers you to 210.19 for the location of the OCPD, not its size. This whole area needs a lot of work. It really doesn't say what we all "know" it says.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

That reasoning makes it seem pretty clear cut.


It may meet the definition of a tap conductor, but I don't think it meets the compound definition of a branch-circuit tap conductor. A branch circuit is, in short, defined as the circuit conductors between the last ocpd and the load. A branch circuit has to be established in order for it to be tapped.

This reasoning would only hold up if your definition of a branch circuit conductor excluded a tap conductor which it of course it can't. A tap conductor is still a conductor between the OCPC and the outlet...to me that means it meets the defintion.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

Ryan,
I still have a problem with 240.21(A).

There is no specified overcurrent protection in 210.19 and there can't be per the section title. As a matter of fact, even if there were overcurrent rules in 210.19, it wouldn't change the permitted size as 240.21(A) only refers you to 210.19 for the location of the OCPD, not its size. This whole area needs a lot of work. It really doesn't say what we all "know" it says.

It actually says the OCPD specified in 210.20

(A) Branch-Circuit Conductors. ​

​

​

​

​

Branch-circuit tap conductors
meeting the requirements specified in 210.19 shall
be permitted to have overcurrent protection as specified in​

210.20.

 

[Smart $]

This reasoning would only hold up if your definition of a branch circuit conductor excluded a tap conductor which it of course it can't. A tap conductor is still a conductor between the OCPC and the outlet...to me that means it meets the defintion.

Point taken :smile:

So what about this...

The defintion of a tap conductor says it "... has overcurrent protection ahead of its point of supply..."

This implies the overcurrent protection is not at the tap conductor's point of supply.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

It actually says the OCPD specified in 210.20


(A) Branch-Circuit Conductors.

Branch-circuit tap conductors

meeting the requirements specified in 210.19 shall
be permitted to have overcurrent protection as specified in​

210.20.
​

Sorry, my quote was from the 2005 code. I don't see anything in 210.20 that helps with the issue of using #14 with a 20 amp OCPD.
​

 

[Smart $]

Ryan,
I still have a problem with 240.21(A).

There is no specified overcurrent protection in 210.19 and there can't be per the section title. As a matter of fact, even if there were overcurrent rules in 210.19, it wouldn't change the permitted size as 240.21(A) only refers you to 210.19 for the location of the OCPD, not its size. This whole area needs a lot of work. It really doesn't say what we all "know" it says.

Aye... but 240.4(E)(1) takes you to 210.19(A)(4) directly without going to 240.21(A). All we have to do to qualify a #14 on a 20A circuit is meet the requirements of 210.19(A)(4). The location of the OCPD is automatically assumed to be ahead of the tap conductor, protecting the branch-circuit conductor.

 

[M. D.]

Larry,. is a contact device a load???

 

[M. D.]

I would never be able to explain it better ,..so I'll just say that this is what I have been taught and it is how it reads to me .

http://books.google.com/books?id=Zl...&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#PPA152,M1

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Aye... but 240.4(E)(1) takes you to 210.19(A)(4) directly without going to 240.21(A). All we have to do to qualify a #14 on a 20A circuit is meet the requirements of 210.19(A)(4). The location of the OCPD is automatically assumed to be ahead of the tap conductor, protecting the branch-circuit conductor.

I don't see the "tap" to a duplex receptacle as being covered by 210.19(A)(4). It is covered by 210.19(A)(2) and there is nothing about the size of the OCPD in that section, only the size of the conductor.

 

[Smart $]

I don't see the "tap" to a duplex receptacle as being covered by 210.19(A)(4). It is covered by 210.19(A)(2) and there is nothing about the size of the OCPD in that section, only the size of the conductor.

The NEC would have to limit a general-purpose duplex receptacle's load to only cord-and-plug-connected portable loads before 210.19(A)(4) would not apply, because 210.19(A)(4) relinquishes only branch circuit loads of 210.2 and 210.19(A)(3) from its requirement. It does not mention loads of 210.19(A)(2).

As for overcurrent protection, and as stated elsewhere, the 2008 NEC changed the location wording of 240.21(A), directing one to 210.20. Aside from that, I'll let you guys still on the 2005 cycle quabble about its absurdities

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The NEC would have to limit a general-purpose duplex receptacle's load to only cord-and-plug-connected portable loads before 210.19(A)(4) would not apply, because 210.19(A)(4) relinquishes only branch circuit loads of 210.2 and 210.19(A)(3) from its requirement. It does not mention loads of 210.19(A)(2).

What other type of loads are connected to a receptacle? They have to be cord and plug connected to use the receptacle and if they have a cord they are portable loads.

 

[Smart $]

...if they have a cord they are portable loads.

Where in the NEC does it say that?

I have a 50" TV plugged in to a GP duplex. It's connected by a cord Is it portable? It's not fastened in place but I certainly don't consider it to be portable.

What about a surround-sound system? It's powered through a cord w/plug and plugged in to a GP duplex. Again, it's not fastened in place but I certainly don't consider it to be portable.

Same with my desktop computer system...


...but I do consider my laptop as portable :grin:


Heck, in some cases, I think it would be easier to move some so-called fastened-in-place equipment.

Portable loads does not equate exactly to cord-and-plug-connected, not-fastened-in-place loads.

Merriam-Webster Collegiate? Dictionary

1por?ta?ble
Pronunciation: 'pȯr-tə-bəl
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin portabilis, from Latin portare to carry ― more at FARE
Date: 15th century

1 a : capable of being carried or moved about <a portable TV> b : characterized by portability <a portable pension> c : usable on many computers with little or no modification <portable software>
2 archaic : BEARABLE
–por?ta?bly \'pȯr-tə-blē\ adverb

x
2portable
Function: noun
Date: 1883

: something that is portable

? 2005 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated


Merriam-Webster Collegiate? Thesaurus

portable
Function: adjective

capable of being carried or moved about ＜a portable TV＞
Synonyms: carriageable, portative, transportable
Related Words: convenient, handy, manageable, wieldy
Contrasted Words: fixed, stationary

? 2005 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated


Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Portable
(a.)
Possible to be endured; supportable.

x
(a.)
Capable of being borne or carried; easily transported; conveyed without difficulty; as, a portable bed, desk, engine.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913), edited by Noah Porter.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

What other type of loads are connected to a receptacle? They have to be cord and plug connected to use the receptacle and if they have a cord they are portable loads.

Whaa? You consider garbase disposal, dishwasher, pool pumps, various motors....etc...etc...portable?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Portable is a subjective term. In general if it has a cord, I see it as portable.

 

[Smart $]

Portable is a subjective term. In general if it has a cord, I see it as portable.

Don't get me wrong... just because I don't agree with your rationale 100% does not mean I don't understand how you see it.

So getting back to the main subject, I don't see how it affects the outcome.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

So getting back to the main subject, I don't see how it affects the outcome.

Because then 210.19(A)(4) does not apply
I guess I just have to say that any part of 210.19 that changes the maximum permitted overcurrent protection of any conductor is not valid because of the title of the section.