14 tied to 12 on 20 amp breaker

[jxofaltrds]

Huh?!?!?:-? Article 210 is titled "BRANCH CIRCUITS."

210.19, which I quoted in my last post is titled "Branch-Circuit Ratings: 210.19 - Conductors - Minimum Ampacity and Size"

I think I'm talking about Branch Circuits. I'm not sure what you are talking about.





I see it in Article 240.4(E) - Tap Conductors. It's in my code book. Check to see if its in yours also.

Yes tap conductors in there.

You still can not cite where the code (in 210.19) allowes this in a branch circuit. You give opinions but no facts.

That sound's very bad the circuit is not in code
Per article 240.4 (D) (3) 14 AWG copper. 15 amperes
But per Table 316 14 AWG NM Cable can withstand 20A. I personally would change the #14 conductors out and install #12 AWG

Eric

Yes it is that simple.
Table 316 does not come in to play here.

To others:

Let me try it this way.

You are my kid. I tell you that it is OK to go to the mall if your mother says that it is OK.

You go to the mall then come home and I tell you that you are in trouble.

You say that Billie's mom said that it was OK. So that must mean the same thing as your own mother saying that it is OK.

Bet you got in trouble as a kid.

 

[david luchini]

Yes tap conductors in there.

You still can not cite where the code (in 210.19) allowes this in a branch circuit. You give opinions but no facts.

Yes, BRANCH-CIRCUIT tap conductors. From Article 210 - BRANCH CIRCUITS.

Article 210.19 is talking about BRANCH CIRCUITS, and permits #14 to be protected at greater than 15A by meeting the requirements of the exceptions in 210.19. This is a (simple) fact (not opinion), from the Code.

I must not be understanding what you are asking. I took your question to be... 'where does the code allow #14 to be connected to a branch circuit rated at 20A or higher."

I have provided you the code section that allows this, and examples of circuits that would have this arrangement. (See post #116)

If I do not understand your question correctly, could you please rephrase it, or re-explain what you are asking?

 

[jxofaltrds]

Yes, BRANCH-CIRCUIT tap conductors. From Article 210 - BRANCH CIRCUITS.

Article 210.19 is talking about BRANCH CIRCUITS, and permits #14 to be protected at greater than 15A by meeting the requirements of the exceptions in 210.19. This is a (simple) fact (not opinion), from the Code.

I must not be understanding what you are asking. I took your question to be... 'where does the code allow #14 to be connected to a branch circuit rated at 20A or higher."

I have provided you the code section that allows this, and examples of circuits that would have this arrangement. (See post #116)

If I do not understand your question correctly, could you please rephrase it, or re-explain what you are asking?

Again I see your reference. It does not allow the branch circuit to have a 14 AWG tapped off of a 12 AWG (20 AMP circuit or greater) for more than 18".

NO. 210.19 does not allow this.

Still no wording that says that a 14 AWG is 'allowed' to be protected by a larger than 15 AMP breaker on a general lighting circuit. A general lighting branch circuit is NEVER allowed to have a 14 AWG breakered higher than 15 AMPS.

You are reading what you want it to say rather than what is actually says.

 

[david luchini]

Again I see your reference. It does not allow the branch circuit to have a 14 AWG tapped off of a 12 AWG (20 AMP circuit or greater) for more than 18".

I only see an 18" limitation for 210.19(A)(4)Ex.No.1(c). There is no limitation of length of the tap for (a), (b), (d) or (e).

210.19(A)(4)Ex.No.1(d) would allow you to tap off of a #12AWG (20A branch-circuit) to supply an infrared lamp industrial heating appliance with no limitation on length of the tap conductors.

Article 210.19 is talking about BRANCH CIRCUITS, and permits #14 to be protected at greater than 15A by meeting the requirements of the exceptions in 210.19. This is a (simple) fact (not opinion), from the Code.

NO. 210.19 does not allow this.

What do you mean no? That is exactly what the exceptions in 210.19 allow:

........210.19(A)(4)Ex.No.1: ...they shall have an ampacity of not less than 15 for circuits rated less than 40 amperes....

What do you think the exceptions allow, if not tapping #14 to a branch circuit rated 20A or higher?

Still no wording that says that a 14 AWG is 'allowed' to be protected by a larger than 15 AMP breaker on a general lighting circuit. A general lighting branch circuit is NEVER allowed to have a 14 AWG breakered higher than 15 AMPS.

Of course "still no wording" that says 14AWG is "allowed" to be protected by a larger than 15A breaker on a "general lighting circuit." That is because it is NOT allowed by code. Of course, I haven't argued anywhere in this thread that it is allowed. I have argued that #14AWG is "allowed" to be protected by a larger than 15A breaker for branch-circuit taps in accordance with Ex.No.1 in Article 210.19.

This is probably why I've been having a hard time understanding your points. You are providing counter-arguments against an argument that I haven't made. :-?

You are reading what you want it to say rather than what is actually says.

I am reading exactly what the code says, not what I want it to say. You seem to be reading 'what you want' the code to say with regards to 18" taps, however.

 

[Smart $]

...

Your code book must be different than mine. I see nothing in 240.4 that allows a 14 AWG to be protected by a 20 AMP OCPD.

Can you quote an article? NO dubs, no opinions, just facts!

EDIT 240.4(E)(1) does not apply. (3) does.

How can you say 240.4(E)(1) does not apply?

It specifically permits tap conductors to be protected against overcurrent in accordance with 210.19(A)(3) and (A)(4). It does not say in accordance with their Exceptions.




Anyway....

Let's examine compliance per 240.4(E)(3), as specifically permitting a #14 tap conductor to be protected against overcurrent in excess of the 240.4(D)(3) restriction of 15A...

240.21 Location in Circuit... (A) though (H) specify conditions where ocp does not have to be located where an ungrounded circuit conductor receives its supply. It goes on to say conductors meeting the conditions shall not supply another conductor except through an ocpd.

For this discussion, only (A) applies: 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.

Note there is no reference to exceptions where the term "tap" is used as being the only applicable requirements. 210.19 and 210.20 are referenced in their entirety. Being we already know our #14 is compliant with 210.19 (i.e. sufficiently sized for its load), ocp is determined under 210.20. So we go to 210.20 to see if a 20A branch-circuit ocpd is compliant.

Verifying compliance with 210.20(A)... good to go because we have already determined the load served by our #14, calculated non-continuous plus 125% continuous, is 20A or less.

Next we verify compliance with 210.20(B). Because 210.20(B) sends us back to where we started (240.4), it is rendered moot the second time around because we'd just end up back here at 210.20(B) again anyway.

Verifying 210.20(C) involves equipment listed in Table 240.3. So far, our discussion is not about connecting to such equipment, so (C) does not apply.

Verifying 210.20(D), it says the ocp rating or setting shall not exceed values specified in 210.21 for outlet devices. 210.21 has no requirements for conductor size or ampacity.

So it looks like as long as we do not supply another conductor, no load-end ocpd is required for the #14 tap conductor.

We continue to be compliant with all requirements having a #14 on a branch circuit protected with a 20A ocpd, even by way of 240.4(E)(3)!!!

EDIT TO ADD: I used the word compliant above. Keep in mind I am only using the word compliant in regards to the literal interpretation of Code, not the consensus nor intent nor what I actually practice in the real world.

 

[jxofaltrds]

Let me ask something. We maybe arguing a moot point.

The OP was using 14 AWG on a 20 AMP general lighting circuit.

Does that changing what we are discussing?

 

[david luchini]

Let me ask something. We maybe arguing a moot point.

The OP was using 14 AWG on a 20 AMP general lighting circuit.

Does that changing what we are discussing?

Yes, I think so. At some point, the discussion seemed to move into when would #14 be acceptable on a 20A or higher branch circuit, and whether these taps conductors would still be 'branch circuit conductors.' I thought you picked up that theme in post #42.

No wonder we were confusing each other. :roll:

 

[jxofaltrds]

Yes, I think so. At some point, the discussion seemed to move into when would #14 be acceptable on a 20A or higher branch circuit, and whether these taps conductors would still be 'branch circuit conductors.' I thought you picked up that theme in post #42.

No wonder we were confusing each other. :roll:

Since we may not be clear on what we are discussing let us drop this one and see if it comes back in another form (question)?

Fair?

 

[david luchini]

Since we may not be clear on what we are discussing let us drop this one and see if it comes back in another form (question)?

Fair?

Sounds good. I think, since we weren't arguing the same point, that we probably agree on what the codes allows anyway.

 

[Smart $]

Let me ask something. We maybe arguing a moot point.

The OP was using 14 AWG on a 20 AMP general lighting circuit.

Does that changing what we are discussing?

Yes, I think so. At some point, the discussion seemed to move into when would #14 be acceptable on a 20A or higher branch circuit, and whether these taps conductors would still be 'branch circuit conductors.' I thought you picked up that theme in post #42.

No wonder we were confusing each other. :roll:

Since we may not be clear on what we are discussing let us drop this one and see if it comes back in another form (question)?

Fair?

:roll::roll::roll:

Focus of discussion:

General lighting circuits. 20A OCPD. #12 NM to JB in area served. Multiple switches and lighting loads, multiple luminaires per switch. #14 NM from JB to switches and loads served, all conductors longer than 18".

General receptacles. 20A OCPD. #12 NM to JB in area served. Multiple receptacles (15A-rated, but include 20A-rated in discussion). #14 NM from JB to each receptacle outlet, all conductors longer than 18".

 

[david luchini]

Focus of discussion:

General lighting circuits. 20A OCPD. #12 NM to JB in area served. Multiple switches and lighting loads, multiple luminaires per switch. #14 NM from JB to switches and loads served, all conductors longer than 18".

General receptacles. 20A OCPD. #12 NM to JB in area served. Multiple receptacles (15A-rated, but include 20A-rated in discussion). #14 NM from JB to each receptacle outlet, all conductors longer than 18".

I would say:

Not allowed,

and

Not allowed.

 

[LarryFine]

I would say:

Not allowed,

and

Not allowed.

Agreed, and agreed.

 

[jwelectric]

Focus of discussion:

General lighting circuits. 20A OCPD. #12 NM to JB in area served. Multiple switches and lighting loads, multiple luminaires per switch. #14 NM from JB to switches and loads served, all conductors longer than 18".

General receptacles. 20A OCPD. #12 NM to JB in area served. Multiple receptacles (15A-rated, but include 20A-rated in discussion). #14 NM from JB to each receptacle outlet, all conductors longer than 18".

I would say:

Not allowed,

and

Not allowed.

But wasn?t it you that did say

Mike,

Lets assume a 40A branch circuit with #8AWG branch circuit conductors.

Per 210.19(A)(4)Ex.No.1(a), you could tap the #8 with #14 and run (without a limit on length) to an Individual Luminaire (lets say the luminaire load is 1 Amp.)

What is the difference between the two?

One is just as right or wrong as the other

 

[david luchini]

But wasn?t it you that did say

Lets assume a 40A branch circuit with #8AWG branch circuit conductors.

Per 210.19(A)(4)Ex.No.1(a), you could tap the #8 with #14 and run (without a limit on length) to an Individual Luminaire (lets say the luminaire load is 1 Amp.)

Focus of discussion:

General lighting circuits. 20A OCPD. #12 NM to JB in area served. Multiple switches and lighting loads, multiple luminaires per switch. #14 NM from JB to switches and loads served, all conductors longer than 18".

General receptacles. 20A OCPD. #12 NM to JB in area served. Multiple receptacles (15A-rated, but include 20A-rated in discussion). #14 NM from JB to each receptacle outlet, all conductors longer than 18".

What is the difference between the two?

One is just as right or wrong as the other

Are you being serious?:-?

210.19(A)(4)Ex.No.1(a) permits one to use tap conductors with an ampacity of not less than 15 from a branch-circuit rated less than 40A (or tap conductors with an ampacity of not less than 20 from a branch-circuit rated 40A or 50A) to supply an INDIVIDUAL luminaire.

Nothing in 210.19(A)(4) permits tapping a branch-circuit to supply MULTIPLE luminaires or receptacle outlets.

The difference between the two is as plain as day.

 

[jxofaltrds]

I was looking for another graphic when I found this one:
http://www.mikeholt.com/reprint_request.php?url=http://mikeholt.com/graphics/210-19dx1c.gif

 

[jwelectric]

Are you being serious?:-? Nothing in 210.19(A)(4) permits tapping a branch-circuit to supply MULTIPLE luminaires or receptacle outlets. The difference between the two is as plain as day.

(a) Individual lampholders or luminaires with taps extending not longer than 450 mm (18 in.) beyond any portion of the lampholder or luminaire.

Is that an "s" on the end of "lampholders"?

Does that "s" mean more than one?

Look! There is one of them "s" things on luminaires, Does this mean more than one?

 

[LarryFine]

Does that "s" mean more than one?

No, it means "Look at that S car go!"

 

[david luchini]

(a) Individual lampholders or luminaires with taps extending not longer than 450 mm (18 in.) beyond any portion of the lampholder or luminaire.

Is that an "s" on the end of "lampholders"?

Does that "s" mean more than one?

Look! There is one of them "s" things on luminaires, Does this mean more than one?

Gee, the last time I checked "individual" meant single, not "multiple."

From Dictionary.com:

'Individual: Adjective - single; particular; separate: to number individual copies of a limited edition.'

Interesting, the example says "individual copies," but isn't "copies" more than one, like 'individual luminaires?'

From the NEC Art.100: Branch-Circuit, Individual. A branch-circuit that supplies only one utilization equipment.

From 210.19(A)(4)Ex.No.1 (a): Individual lampholders or luminaires with taps exceeding not longer than 18" beyond any portion of the luminaire or lampholder. (Note "the luminaire or lamp holder" meaning only one.)

 

[tallgirl]

(a) Individual lampholders or luminaires with taps extending not longer than 450 mm (18 in.) beyond any portion of the lampholder or luminaire.

Is that an "s" on the end of "lampholders"?

Does that "s" mean more than one?

Look! There is one of them "s" things on luminaires, Does this mean more than one?

Because the alternative wording would have been equally subject to debate --

"(a) An individual lampholder or luminaire with a tap extending not longer than 450mm (18 in.) beyond any port of the lampholder or luminarie".

Can you do this more than once? For example, Smart$'s example of a #12 feeding a JB with 5 1A fixtures all fed from #14's?

Wait! It says "An individual"!, you can't have 5 of them!

 

[Smart $]

Because the alternative wording would have been equally subject to debate --

"(a) An individual lampholder or luminaire with a tap extending not longer than 450mm (18 in.) beyond any port of the lampholder or luminarie".

Can you do this more than once? For example, Smart$'s example of a #12 feeding a JB with 5 1A fixtures all fed from #14's?

Wait! It says "An individual"!, you can't have 5 of them!

Each one is an individual lampholder or luminaire. That is, you can run a tap conductor to each individual fixture. You just can't supply two or more through one set of tap conductors. The down side would be that all 5 fixtures would have to be within 18" of the JB (if you limit your interpretation to the exceptions only ).