2011 ? about 310.15(B)(3)(a)

[1793]

I just noticed as I was looking over Table 310.15(B)(3)(a) that a Note at the bottom of the Table appears to state that ALL conductors are counted for Derating issues.

I'm I understanding this correctly?

 

[infinity]

I just noticed as I was looking over Table 310.15(B)(3)(a) that a Note at the bottom of the Table appears to state that ALL conductors are counted for Derating issues.

I'm I understanding this correctly?

It references 310.15(B)(5) which tells you when the neutral counts as a CCC and (b)(6) which tells you that the EGC's do not count as CCC's.

 

[raider1]

The change to Table 310.15(B)(3)(a) now requires spare conductors or travelers to count as current carrying conductors unless they meet 310.15(B)(5) and (6).

Chris

 

[infinity]

The change to Table 310.15(B)(3)(a) now requires spare conductors or travelers to count as current carrying conductors unless they meet 310.15(B)(5) and (6).

Chris

Wouldn't have been easier for the NEC just to say that. :roll:

 

[1793]

It references 310.15(B)(5) which tells you when the neutral counts as a CCC and (b)(6) which tells you that the EGC's do not count as CCC's.

That is what I was thinking but not really sure.

Wouldn't have been easier for the NEC just to say that. :roll:

Yes, but then we would not be having this disscusion.

 

[raider1]

Wouldn't have been easier for the NEC just to say that. :roll:

Yes, but then if the NEC were easy to understand then there would be no need for this forum.

Chris

 

[suemarkp]

Why should a traveler be counted? Isn't it guaranteed to have mutual exclusion with the other traveler? The spare I can see counting.

 

[ActionDave]

Why should a traveler be counted? Isn't it guaranteed to have mutual exclusion with the other traveler? The spare I can see counting.

I don't get it either. Seems just plain silly to me. Maybe it is just to make inspections easier.