Is this considered a single conductor on a screw terminal?

[SAC]

Ok, I apologize if this is dumb question - is a single conductor that is first "looped" around a screw terminal, and then which continues on and ultimately terminates on some other device considered a single conductor for the screw around which it is "looped"? Presumably this is done to save a pigtail? I've seen it a few times now connecting devices within the same enclosure, or multiple terminals on the same device. I found something that sounded similar in NEC called "loop wiring", but it didn't really say much about it. And is it allowed for such conductors to run between the first and second terminals with the insulation removed?

 

[LarryFine]

Ok, I apologize if this is dumb question - is a single conductor that is first "looped" around a screw terminal, and then which continues on and ultimately terminates on some other device considered a single conductor for the screw around which it is "looped"?

In my opinion, yes.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Ok, I apologize if this is dumb question - is a single conductor that is first "looped" around a screw terminal, and then which continues on and ultimately terminates on some other device considered a single conductor for the screw around which it is "looped"? Presumably this is done to save a pigtail? I've seen it a few times now connecting devices within the same enclosure, or multiple terminals on the same device. I found something that sounded similar in NEC called "loop wiring", but it didn't really say much about it. And is it allowed for such conductors to run between the first and second terminals with the insulation removed?

It is done often and imo it is one conductor that is striped in the middle. the conductor would have to be broken to be 2 conductors.

 

[e57]

I agree and do it often as well.

And is it allowed for such conductors to run between the first and second terminals with the insulation removed?

As to that - I would say no.... Normally I just split the insulation and pull it down the conductor, or split the insulation for the exposed area I want, then knife that section off.

 

[SAC]

Thanks all - it seemed reasonable, but I've been surprised before! :smile:

 

[ptonsparky]

But if you strip the wire bend it in half and put it under a setscrew on a lug is it two wires, one, or a violation anyway?

 

[physis]

But if you strip the wire bend it in half and put it under a setscrew on a lug is it two wires, one, or a violation anyway?

That's an interesting question. Without actually opening the book I think you could get away with two conducters (or sort of two conuctors) on a terminal.

 

[e57]

That's an interesting question. Without actually opening the book I think you could get away with two conducters (or sort of two conuctors) on a terminal.

If we are talking about panels? Not if a grounded conductor - one per only. If a grounded conductor - depends on the listing of the terminal, usually only one. (Some sqD breakers will take 2) Grounding conductors as well depends on the listing of the terminal. (Some CH bars will take 3 equal sized #14-10 - but often just 2)

 

[physis]

If we are talking about panels? Not if a grounded conductor - one per only. If a grounded conductor - depends on the listing of the terminal, usually only one. (Some sqD breakers will take 2) Grounding conductors as well depends on the listing of the terminal. (Some CH bars will take 3 equal sized #14-10 - but often just 2)

That's the thing though, if you bend the conductor in half it's actually only one conductor and I think that might make it work, as far as code I mean. Nott hat I'd do it.

 

[e57]

I used to work with a guy who folded over the end for every conductor in terminals - claiming better contact. True but not necessary. But I'm sure we can surmise that the intent of the code for neutrals is not to have one connection dependant on another - a loop-hole sure, but outside of the intent.

 

[physis]

I used to work with a guy who folded over the end for every conductor in terminals - claiming better contact. True but not necessary. But I'm sure we can surmise that the intent of the code for neutrals is not to have one connection dependant on another - a loop-hole sure, but outside of the intent.

I was thinking about this a bit today. I think the idea's to not loose a neutral on a multicondutor branch circuit. After giving it some thought I think it would hold as good as what seems to be intended.

I've known guys to do the wire folding method too. This was during the days of working on equipment, we had no codes. A lot of times it was done because the wire was too small for the terminal.