BRANCH CIRCIUT SIZING TO AVOID VOLTAGE DROP

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: BRANCH CIRCIUT SIZING TO AVOID VOLTAGE DROP

Chicar, just because somebody is not familiar with a wiring method is not just cause to have it judged a violation. There are homes that rival commercial buildings in size and would have the same needs as far as voltage drop considerations.

A person who would use an argument such as "show me where it is allowed" when he can not provide back up to his call, simply has no business acting as an inspector.

If I wanted to have a more energy efficient house wired with large conductors, but reduced to allowed ampacity at the devices, I would like for an inspector tell me why I couldn't do it.

Roger

[ April 25, 2004, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: roger ]
 
Re: BRANCH CIRCIUT SIZING TO AVOID VOLTAGE DROP

To All Concerned,

RE: Table 210.24 & Receptacles

Scenario: 20-amp branch circuit feeding (x10) 15-amp receptacles, pig tailing off the #12's with #14's to each 15-amp receptacle. I discussed the matter with our local inspector whom agreed that it was permitted but, questioned why would I want to pigtail (not a multiwire circuit) when I could go directly to each receptacle with the #12's avoiding all those additional connections? He is of course correct, & I do agree that would be foolish although it is permitted. I trust that this clears things up.

Respectfully Submitted,
SBE :D
 
Re: BRANCH CIRCIUT SIZING TO AVOID VOLTAGE DROP

SBE,

What you just described is a violation. See Article 210.19(A)(2). Table 210.24 is a minimum requirement summary expect for the specific requirements like 210.19(A)(2). :mad:
 
Re: BRANCH CIRCIUT SIZING TO AVOID VOLTAGE DROP

Howard, all due respect to your local inspector but he is wrong. I also agree with Bryan on 210.19 being the correct article for this argument.

Here is a good graphic explaining it

210-19dx1c.gif


Please note that 210-19(d) is now 210.19(A)(4)

Roger
 
Re: BRANCH CIRCIUT SIZING TO AVOID VOLTAGE DROP

Hello Roger & et al,

I guess it's true, a picture is worth a thousand words, thank you for that wonderful graphic. Perhaps the 'receptacle rating' referred to in Table 210.24 should be changed to 'outlet rating'. I carefully re-read all the associated articles and have to admit that most of the verbiage therein agrees with the illustration you have attached. Thanks for all the input.

Regards,
SBE ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top