For all you "20 ampers"
- Thread starter bikeindy
- Start date
- Status
brantmacga
Señor Member
- Location
- Georgia
- Occupation
- Former Child
so. . . out of curiosity, where does the other switch go? are we giving freebies now?? 
mivey
Senior Member
I incorporated it into the design. It was not the way I laid out in the 1st draft but so what? The best I recall I was able to switch some spotlights from that location. If that would not have worked out, I would have done something else with the circuit layout. It is all part of the process.brantmacga said:so. . . out of curiosity, where does the other switch go? are we giving freebies now??
tryinghard
Senior Member
- Location
- California
mivey said:Then make your point and quit insisting that someone else run calculations to support your position.
Don't worry, I'm not offended
[edit: typo]
This topic is most often residential related and if you use all 12-2 NM (the devices, switch leg cables and EGC are calculated at their respective required quantities multiplied by 2.25) leaving the remaining volume available as follows:
2G switch box @ 32 CI = 2 2W cables (1 hot in & 1 hot out), any more than this is an NEC violation.
3G switch box @ 42 CI = 2 2W cables (1 hot in & 1 hot out), any more than this is an NEC violation.
3G switch box @ 44 CI = 3 2W cables (1 hot in & 2 hot's out), any more than this is an NEC violation.
These applicatioins are often overfilled - violating NEC - which is hazardous for heat dissipation at a minimum and cumbersome to work with. The general lighting load can include the receptacles safely but either way it is a projected load, wire it either way as the application warrants but to draw a hard line for a projected load is wasteful and often code violating.
I suggest you work on softening your tones you are offensive.
mivey
Senior Member
OK based on "tryinghard" taking offense, I am going to conclude I was being moody tonight.
I thought iwire, in jest, was being sarcastic when he said this:
Therefore, I thought I would jest with him by saying:
Maybe I was completely out of line so, iwire, if you weren't joking:
[edit: on the other hand, if you were joking:
I thought iwire, in jest, was being sarcastic when he said this:
because I just see that as basic, common electrical knowledge.iwire said:
Therefore, I thought I would jest with him by saying:
mivey said:
Maybe I was completely out of line so, iwire, if you weren't joking:
[edit: on the other hand, if you were joking:
Last edited:
bikeindy
Senior Member
- Location
- Indianapolis IN
mivey said:
My OP had a poll built in I just didn't want to run a poll i think only 2 people ever answered any of the 3 questions. but the thread is about people who just won't use #14, most of whom I see are in one way or another comming around to see the light. and the light is wired with #14. so are the receptacles.
bikeindy
Senior Member
- Location
- Indianapolis IN
quogueelectric said:
AAHHHHH!!!
how many times did you say you were running #12 so the breaker wouldn't trip? Now you are going to tell us you put #12 on a 15 Amp breaker. or maybe you put it on a 30 so the breaker won't trip. I think you are playing with us.
bikeindy
Senior Member
- Location
- Indianapolis IN
mivey said:
Why not? give me a good reason convince me that you can plan a better design with #12. remember we are not running one 15 amp receptacle for all the general use receptacles (which code would allow). so we are not talking about code minimum even though that keeps being mentioned by someone with 4 stomacs.
e57
Senior Member
- Location
- San Francisco, CA
OK lets just end all this non-sense right here:
BIGGER = BETTER
:wink:
BIGGER = BETTER
:wink:
e57
Senior Member
- Location
- San Francisco, CA
mivey said:
I'll back that up with some....
- Bigger costs more = bigger = better mark up
- Bigger carries more current = better right there = more crap per circuit = better
- Bigger means less voltage drop = [grunt]MORE VOLTAGE[/grunt] = better
- Bigger is harder on the hands = Bigger stronger hands = better
More = Better
boboelectric
Senior Member
- Location
- Eighty Four,Pa.15330
Looking at the hot side of the receptacle,it could of been a bad connection at the device plug(heater,?)BryanMD said:
- Location
- Massachusetts
mivey said:
Why is it you always seem to go that route?
How does that help?
Last edited:
- Location
- Massachusetts
mivey said:
I was not and it is, but your posts seemed to indicate you did not consider it as an issue.
So code wise how many CI does a single 14 take up?
mivey
Senior Member
Let's assume all of the wires are the same size. If the wire is passing through unbroken and doesn't have too big of a loop, it gets one volume allowance. If it has a splice or termination, it gets two. If it is part of a set of grounding conductors, it is counted with the allowance for that set (the IGs can be another set). So let's just say it is not the grounding conductor, it does not originate in the box, and let's also assume it is not a luminaire exception, and let's assume we are talking about a conductor that is "cut" in our box: for a #14 it takes up 2 cu in and for a #12 it takes up 2.25 cu in.iwire said:
Since we also mentioned devices, each yolk gets a double allowance for each gang required for mounting.
As for the clamps with internal mechanisms: one allowance. As for support fittings, one allowance each.
I'm assuming your point is that, essentially, the #14 uses 2 cu in per count and the #12 uses 2.25 cu in per count. I understand that point.
There seemed to be a case trying to be made that you could unknowingly create a fill violation by using #12 instead of #14. I did not see that as a legitimate case. If you don't know the box fill calculations, you can get in trouble with #12 OR #14. I was unwilling to go down the "#14 only" path because my stance was that a legitimate method of installation is to use the proper box for the job. You could also use smaller wire but I saw no reason to stand only on that side of the argument.
[edit: kept relavent part of iwire quote]
Last edited:
- Status