Georges Proposals

[tom baker]

Our moderator George has many proposals most he didn't win on. One interesting one is in 310, its very long, and the CMP said, well, we will take a look at it....

 

[jusme123]

Our moderator George has many proposals most he didn't win on. One interesting one is in 310, its very long, and the CMP said, well, we will take a look at it....

are you going to post or link the proposal so we can take a look?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

If you go here and go to "ROP Ballot" you can read or download all of the proposals and the "unofficial" action taken at the panel meetings. There is a file for each of the code making panels.

 

[hurk27]

If you go here and go to "ROP Ballot" you can read or download all of the proposals and the "unofficial" action taken at the panel meetings. There is a file for each of the code making panels.

CMP for 310 is #6 to narrow it down a little bit

 

[hurk27]

are you going to post or link the proposal so we can take a look?

Here is the ROP for panel #6

and he was right it is long, scroll down to the PDF page 13 to 17

George are ya trying to keep them from ever getting it done on time or what :lol:

 

[petersonra]

All ungrounded conductors capable of being energized simultaneously shall be
considered current-carrying.

This makes sense except that many times there are a whole bunch of control conductors that have very little current flowing through them and thus generate no heat. There is no need to derate them.

Maybe it could be rewritten so that it refers to the branch circuits involved. I.e. - you only have to derate for each OCPD.

 

[hurk27]

All ungrounded conductors capable of being energized simultaneously shall be
considered current-carrying.

This makes sense except that many times there are a whole bunch of control conductors that have very little current flowing through them and thus generate no heat. There is no need to derate them.

Maybe it could be rewritten so that it refers to the branch circuits involved. I.e. - you only have to derate for each OCPD.

even multi-wire circuit could have all conductors energized at the same time, of course what is his definition of energized, is it meaning that current is flowing?

 

[petersonra]

even multi-wire circuit could have all conductors energized at the same time, of course what is his definition of energized, is it meaning that current is flowing?

With a MWC you would have more than one OCPD. My suggestion would be just to count the number of OCPD and consider that how many CCC. If you have a 3 phase MWC, you would have 3 CCC, even though there could potentially be hundreds of conductors involved.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

This makes sense except that many times there are a whole bunch of control conductors that have very little current flowing through them and thus generate no heat. There is no need to derate them.

That is already covered in the code rule.
310.15(B)(3)(a) ... Where conductors of different systems, as provided in 300.3, are installed in a common raceway or cable, the adjustment factors shown in Table 310.15(B)(3)(a) shall apply only to the number of power and lighting conductors (Articles 210, 215, 220, and 230).

Control conductors would not be counted as current carrying conductors for the purpose of derating.

Maybe it could be rewritten so that it refers to the branch circuits involved. I.e. - you only have to derate for each OCPD.

That would be a good code change as the use of multiple conductors on a single OCPD will always produce less heat in the cable or raceway than if a single conductor carried the full load.

 

[George Stolz]

If you go here and go to "ROP Ballot" you can read or download all of the proposals and the "unofficial" action taken at the panel meetings. There is a file for each of the code making panels.

I have the ballot knitted together here if anyone is into one-stop reading.

 

[George Stolz]

Our moderator George has many proposals most he didn't win on. One interesting one is in 310, its very long, and the CMP said, well, we will take a look at it....

I shall accept the title of "Prominent Loser" with all due humility.

 

[hurk27]

I shall accept the title of "Prominent Loser" with all due humility.

Well your batting average is better then mine, I'm at 100% rejected.

Well for the only one I ever tried

 

[George Stolz]

Here is the ROP for panel #6

and he was right it is long, scroll down to the PDF page 13 to 17

George are ya trying to keep them from ever getting it done on time or what :lol:

You think that's bad - when the chair emailed me asking for a raw document version to play with, I also sent along a suggestion to spread what I had from 310.14 to 310.60 instead of what I suggested; complete with a conversion table.

 

[tom baker]

This makes sense except that many times there are a whole bunch of control conductors that have very little current flowing through them and thus generate no heat. There is no need to derate them.
Control conductors would not be counted as current carrying conductors for the purpose of derating.

That would be a good code change as the use of multiple conductors on a single OCPD will always produce less heat in the cable or raceway than if a single conductor carried the full load.

There is a similar rule for wireways that control conductors do not have to be derated if under 10% of ampacity