Number of NM cables through hole

[ceb58]

[/B]

that conductor IS REQUIRED to be covered by OCP whether it is used or not.

No it is not. I can have conductors in a panel and not hook them up. So where is the requirement? The traveler will have over current protection when it is used and why would it need protection when not?
See I can make the same asinine argument that you can.

 

[Gac66610]

take a look at 220.60 '08
noncoincident loads

I agree with that 220.60 in the 2011 hasn't changed, what I was indicating are a couple of "ifs"
Heat pumps are good to about 20 degrees F
IF HVAC uses electric heat with different stage heating and
IF they use an outdoor thermometer to regulate the number of stages the electric heat uses
When the outdoor temp drops below 20 degrees F, it can use the electric back up heat (in stages) at the same time as the heat pump is also being used
A lot a variables but it is conceivable both needed (running) at the same time
and I also know that when the outdoor temp drops real low the heat pump will turn off and let the resistance heat take over
sometimes under some circumstances you cannot derate using 220.60

 

[jusme123]

..... while I don't agree with the wording, I stand corrected, and I am wrong on my assertion of all travelers being counted as CCC. The submission to the NEC-CMP is below.


(310.15(B)(2)(a),

Exception No. 6 (New))

Submitter: George Stolz, II, Pierce, CO

Recommendation: Add an Exception to read:

Exception No. 6: Of those conductors that are switched cable or raceway
installations, only the maximum number of conductors capable of being
simultaneously energized need to be derated.

Substantiation: In most threeway and fourway switching methods, the load is
alternated between travelers, eliminating the need to include both travelers in
derating.

Panel Meeting Action: Reject

Panel Statement: The proposed exception is not necessary. The present
language of 310.15(B)(2) already permits what the submitter is proposing.

Number Eligible to Vote: 11

Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11

 

[acrwc10]

Deleted, mute point now.

 

[infinity]

..... while I don't agree with the wording, I stand corrected, and I am wrong on my assertion of all travelers being counted as CCC. The submission to the NEC-CMP is below.


(310.15(B)(2)(a),

Exception No. 6 (New))

Submitter: George Stolz, II, Pierce, CO

Recommendation: Add an Exception to read:

Exception No. 6: Of those conductors that are switched cable or raceway
installations, only the maximum number of conductors capable of being
simultaneously energized need to be derated.

Substantiation: In most threeway and fourway switching methods, the load is
alternated between travelers, eliminating the need to include both travelers in
derating.

Panel Meeting Action: Reject

Panel Statement: The proposed exception is not necessary. The present
language of 310.15(B)(2) already permits what the submitter is proposing.

Number Eligible to Vote: 11

Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11

That's one of the good things about proposals like this one. It gets the CMP to make a written judgement about something that is seemingly unclear in the code even if some believed that the point was already moot.

 

[acrwc10]

That's one of the good things about proposals like this one. It gets the CMP to make a written judgement about something that is seemingly unclear in the code even if some believed that the point was already moot.

Are you picking on my choice of "mute vs. Moot"? :happyno:

I agree the CMP judgements are VERY helpful, The problem is in the field, when an inspector is sayiing "no" to an install we don't have ready access to them and are left with the choice of change it or wait for a reinspection.

 

[skd76]

Are you picking on my choice of "mute vs. Moot"? :happyno:

I agree the CMP judgements are VERY helpful, The problem is in the field, when an inspector is sayiing "no" to an install we don't have ready access to them and are left with the choice of change it or wait for a reinspection.

That is one of the very best features of a subscription to the online Code tool at www.NECPlus.org. Not the only good reason to scrape together the $ for it, but a REAL good one. ROPs & ROCs are available with just a mouse click away when you are at that NEC section. Waaayyy cool.

 

[Strife]

Jusme,
A three way switch has the load on EITHER one of the wires, OR the other wire. IT CAN NOT BE ON BOTH TRAVELERS.

I've been in the circus long enough to know how 3 and 4 way switches work. The code states that they are counted as CCC, it does not, however, state instanstances in which they do not count.

 

[acrwc10]

Jusme,
A three way switch has the load on EITHER one of the wires, OR the other wire. IT CAN NOT BE ON BOTH TRAVELERS.

see post #43 :angel: