#14 switch legs on 20A OCP

Learn the NEC with Mike Holt now!

#14 switch legs on 20A OCP

  • is ALLOWED.

    Votes: 17 8.4%

  • is NOT ALLOWED.

    Votes: 186 91.6%
  • Total voters
    203
Status
Not open for further replies.
480sparky said:
OK, let's print it out:
Hightlighted in blue: If my installation falls under (E), ~ or (G), then I use the appropriate section that applies. Otherwise, I'm stuck with the small conductor rule of (D)(1)-(7).


240.4(D) starts out with references to (E), ~ (G). It says that if your installation is a tap, a transformer secondary, or anything specifically listed in (G), YOU USE THAT SECTION. If your installation DOES NOT fall under (E), ~ or (G), then it says to use (D)(1) through (7).
Click to expand...
240.4 itself is where this code starts, and says to 'use 310.15, unless permited, or required by A though G....'
  • A is a requirement if applicable - bar none...
  • B is permisive to use the next size up for 800A or less.
  • C is a requirement for 800A or more
  • D is a requirement for "small conductors", and allows exception if "specificaly permited in E or G" - The problem is none of the codes or situations listed in E or G address "small conductors" - specifically....
  • E is permisive for taps - in very specific codes that are listed right there... (However "small conductors" are not addressed in these codes - SPECIFICALLY.)
  • F is permisive to allow protection of conductors on the other side of transformers in very specific conditions...
  • G is permisive for conductors in other applications - and a wide variety of them. (However "small conductors" are not addressed in these codes - SPECIFICALLY.)
The thing is that several of the permisions, and REQUIREMENTS in A through G can apply... Several of them in combination would often be the case like B & E, F, or G... And likewise IMO - D & B & E, F, or G...
mivey said:
Why do you keep including (F) when it only says (E) OR (G) ?
Click to expand...
Yeah.... there is enough confusion...

MarkyMarkNC said:
~~~
But.......for all the freak out, "oh my God, you hacks are going to burn the place to the ground" crowd in this thread, I have to ask, how is a #14 switch leg with 20A OC any more dangerous than a #14 fixture whip or fixture wire on 20A OC?
Click to expand...
The same coud be said for the individuals who feel 28A on #12 for a compressor motor is just fine... While I obviously don't agree with that - the same individuals feel 20A OCP on #14 taps to 600W of lighting is not kosher.... A contradiction to say the very least.

celtic said:
...all this talk of whips and switches......some of you guys need anger management :D
Click to expand...
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:;)

hurk27 said:
Also keep in mind that a #14 can withstand 97.31 amps for 5 seconds before it starts to damage the insulation, much longer than it will take to clear a breaker on a fault.
Click to expand...
And this is my understanding of 240.4(D) - these smaller conductors would be damaged in fault conditions - and that was the reason for limiting the OCP on those.... In recent debate on the topic I found the Bussman litature that they used to justify the use of 'their products' to allow 16 AWG - stating that 'thier products' could clear the fault current before conductor damage. And it is my understanding that the formulas used to create T310.16 ~ T310.18 were developed for underground ducts - and were not suited for "smaller conductors".... Hence the limitations of OCP on them... That's just my take on it....

Jim W in Tampa said:
yes but what does that have to do with an unknown load ? Problem here is you allow the #14 because you see 5 light fixtures NOW. 5 months from now they add 20 more and the electrician looks at breaker size and ballast amps. He will never know about the cheap a-- that used #14 to save $1. He will more times than not even check amps now. I have many times added 1 or 2 more at 277 without asking or checking in factories because it would easily take an extra hour and 1 more man and shut down operations. I must rely on past electrician to not do something as stupid as under size a switch leg. that looks looks like a #12 circuit. I would checks amps at breaker and if close to 16 will walk away. Only hacks do garbage work like changing to #14. If your one of them please don't let me ever know. When we walk in on remodels we MUST assume what is there is correct and safe and only deal with what we add. If your one of them please then please find some job your qualified for , perhaps a garbage truck. Your messing with lves.
Click to expand...
I agree even if you plan to use the correct OCP for the conductors down the line - it is still a bad practice IMO....
 
mivey said:
Fixture wire is not a wiring method. Where between the outlet and fixture do you propose concealing the wire beneath the building finish?
Click to expand...
THHN is not a wiring method either. The conductors would be allowed in a raceway. 402.7.

And not just between the outlet and the fixture, but from the switch to the outlet to then connect to the luminaire.

It is allowed. 240.4(E)(3) > 240.5(B)(2) > 240.5(B)(2)(2) // Article 402.

RB1 said:
What if I considered the switch leg a Class I nonpower limited circuit? It is used for the remote control of the luminaire. There are lighting systems on the market that use the Class III designation between the luminaire fittings.
Click to expand...
30 volt max if a power-limited circuit (725.41(A)), if a higher voltage than classified as "Remote-Control and Signalling Circuits" (725.41(B)).

725.45(C) will allow the AWG and OCPD values, so if the fixture is intended for signalling, sounds ok, if for illumination, the definition of "Signalling" (Article 100) might require or at least imply the need for the fixture to be approved as "signalling equipment" that happens to be bright, and signals the absence or presence of voltage . :grin:
 
Volta said:
THHN is not a wiring method either. The conductors would be allowed in a raceway. 402.7.

And not just between the outlet and the fixture, but from the switch to the outlet to then connect to the luminaire.

It is allowed. 240.4(E)(3) > 240.5(B)(2) > 240.5(B)(2)(2) // Article 402.
Click to expand...

From the NEC Definitions:
Concealed. Rendered inaccessible by the structure or finish of the building. Wires in concealed raceways are considered concealed, even though they may become accessible by withdrawing them.
Click to expand...

400.8 Uses Not Permitted. Unless specifically permitted in 400.7, flexible cords and cables shall not be used for the following:
...
(5) Where concealed by walls, floors, or ceilings or located above suspended or dropped ceilings
Click to expand...
 
Volta said:
...And not just between the outlet and the fixture, but from the switch to the outlet to then connect to the luminaire
Click to expand...
Not quite:
400.8 Uses Not Permitted. Unless specifically permitted in 400.7, flexible cords and cables shall not be used for the following:
(1) As a substitute for the fixed wiring of a structure
...
Click to expand...
 
Volta said:
I'm not talking about flexible cords or cables(400), I'm talking about fixture wires (402).

Different. Not the same.
Click to expand...
Well then, let me start over since I'm off on a tangent somewhere. Not paying attention I guess.
 
Volta said:
And not just between the outlet and the fixture, but from the switch to the outlet to then connect to the luminaire.
Click to expand...
OK. Starting over.

How is what you propose not in conflict with this:
402.11 Uses Not Permitted. Fixture wires shall not be used as branch-circuit conductors except as permitted elsewhere in the Code.
Click to expand...

Branch Circuit. The circuit conductors between the final overcurrent device protecting the circuit and the outlet(s).
Click to expand...
 
Let me add the definition of an lighting outlet box:

Lighting Outlet. An outlet intended for the direct connection of a lampholder, a luminaire (lighting fixture), or a pendant cord terminating in a lampholder.
Click to expand...

Branch circuit conductors stop here and fixture wires start here.
 
What a mishmash of topics.

Suppose you have a metal faceplate on a receptacle, should the ground be up or down? :confused: :grin:



Seriously 9 people voting yes? It's back to school time!
 
mivey said:
OK. Starting over.

How is what you propose not in conflict with this:

402.11 Uses Not Permitted. Fixture wires shall not be used as branch-circuit conductors except as permitted elsewhere in the Code.

Branch Circuit. The circuit conductors between the final overcurrent device protecting the circuit and the outlet(s).
Click to expand...

No conflict, just some page flipping. While 402.10(2) simply says "for connecting luminaires to the branch-circuit conductors" with no respect to location, "elsewhere in the Code" (240.5(B)(2)(2) for instance) allows up to 100 feet of 16 AWG to be tapped to the branch circuit.

So the NEC either allows these conductors, say, in a raceway (402.7) to extend from a "point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply lighting equipment" (Art. 100 / Outlet) to a luminaire(s) some distance away, or they are talking about really big fixtures.:grin:
 
electricmanscott said:
What a mishmash of topics.
Click to expand...

Remind me, what is the full list of topics again?

1. 14 AWG on a 20 amp OCPD.
2. :-?

hurk27 said:
Let me add the definition of an lighting outlet box:

Lighting Outlet. An outlet intended for the direct connection of a lampholder, a luminaire (lighting fixture), or a pendant cord terminating in a lampholder.

Branch circuit conductors stop here and fixture wires start here.
Click to expand...

True. But nothing requires that "outlet" to be the box the utilization equipment is mounted to. It can be some distance away. These fixture wires, in this instance, would be taps. A #14 fixture wire only has an allowable ampacity of 17 amps (T402.5).
 
Volta said:
No conflict, just some page flipping. While 402.10(2) simply says "for connecting luminaires to the branch-circuit conductors" with no respect to location, "elsewhere in the Code" (240.5(B)(2)(2) for instance) allows up to 100 feet of 16 AWG to be tapped to the branch circuit.

So the NEC either allows these conductors, say, in a raceway (402.7) to extend from a "point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply lighting equipment" (Art. 100 / Outlet) to a luminaire(s) some distance away, or they are talking about really big fixtures.:grin:
Click to expand...

Volta, Convincing post, and at times I have wondered myself, however, the "point on the wiring system" is the outlet (or fixture) itself and, IMHO, the conductors to that point would be branch circuit conductors and 402.11 Uses Not Permitted.
Fixture wires shall not be used as branch-circuit conductors except as permitted elsewhere in the Code.

But, admittingly, thats MY point of view, but I think it is also supported by the fact that the conductors listed in 402 all have the "application provision" fixture wiring". Some additional Code clarification might be in order.
 
Volta said:
But what are they?
Click to expand...
mostly comments, like this one, unrelated to the OP, in which the Post-er [me] is spouting off on a subject of humor or some other ancillary issue in order to increase his total post count!!:grin::) have a great day! It's Saturday, I've got one job to go to, and a huge honeydew list. And I wish I could vote "not permitted" again on this poll! ;)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top