Thank you.Yes if the calculated load is 55 amps
Keep in mind that calculated load will be 125% of continuous load. So you are looking at max continuous load of 44 amps that can be supplied or 55 amps of non continuous load. Or 125% of continuous plus 100% of non continuous can not be more than 55.Thank you.
Perhaps. As long as at least one of these is true:
1. The required circuit ampacity (load) does not exceed 55A. (A 48A EVSE requires a 60A circuit, so in that case, no).
Didn't that end about 1943?They should bring back 5 AWG like a 5/2 NM-B it would be perfect for EV's as it would be about 63 amps, there is 5AWG in the old codes.
I agree 100%.Or just make #6 SE widely available and ditch the #6 NM.
A men brotherI agree 100%.
Actually get rid of NM cable entirely. No reason to have a cable that has unknown conductor insulation, can't be installed in wet locations and is limited 60C.
The only real difference between NM and SE is the paper fillers and the unmarked conductors. Get rid of the paper and use THHN/THWN-2 insulation on the conductors.
I agree 100%.
Actually get rid of NM cable entirely. No reason to have a cable that has unknown conductor insulation, can't be installed in wet locations and is limited 60C.
The only real difference between NM and SE is the paper fillers and the unmarked conductors. Get rid of the paper and use THHN/THWN-2 insulation on the conductors.
A men brother
UL 719 requires that the conductors in NM-B have the properties required for THHN conductors.and use THHN/THWN-2 insulation on the conductors.
But they're not required to BE thhn, so that results in all sorts of problems and hassles. Why not just make them actually THHN and make everything simpler for everybody?UL 719 requires that the conductors in NM-B have the properties required for THHN conductors.
Now why would you apply logic to this stupidity?But they're not required to BE thhn, so that results in all sorts of problems and hassles. Why not just make them actually THHN and make everything simpler for everybody?
We all know the cable manufactures are not making a special conductor insulation just for NM cables that has the same properties as THHN.
They are using the exact same wire they sell us on reals marked THHN/THWN, they just don't run it through the marking machine.
Conductors having the properties of TW are permitted, but not for NM-B as they are not 90°C conductors, and 90°C conductors are required for NM-B. The stranding in the conductor has nothing to do with the insulation of the conductor.To me #6 and #8 NM more closely resemble TW, it has those thicker strands that TW has.
It has no resemblance to THWN-2 to me other than the nylon jacket.
They do make a #6 SEU cable with 2 hots and a wrapping stranded grounding conductor. This is rated as a 75 C. conductor and if all of your connected terminations are listed for 75C your ampacity is higher.Or just make #6 SE widely available and ditch the #6 NM.
I was responding to the comment that "They are using the exact same wire they sell us on reals marked THHN/THWN," if they were just using the same #6 THWN/THHN at the factory to make #6NM I'd expect the stranding to be the same.The stranding in the conductor has nothing to do with the insulation of the conductor.