Parallel circuit feed with different raceways

[jeremy.zinkofsky]

Do cable armor and EMT have the same electrical characteristics?

I do not believe that question is up for interpretation I believe that the answer is a clear no.

I would argue that it is not clear if the person who is reading 310.10(H)(3) is not clear on what "electrical characteristics" entails. There should be a reference to further information to remove any assumptions or guesswork out of making a comparison between raceways. I don't think it is a good idea to assume that what is obvious to some should be obvious to others. After all, isn't that an underlying purpose of the NEC? To eliminate assumptions and provide clarification on how to install an electrical system in a safe manner?

 

[Carultch]

I would argue that it is not clear if the person who is reading 310.10(H)(3) is not clear on what "electrical characteristics" entails. There should be a reference to further information to remove any assumptions or guesswork out of making a comparison between raceways. I don't think it is a good idea to assume that what is obvious to some should be obvious to others. After all, isn't that an underlying purpose of the NEC? To eliminate assumptions and provide clarification on how to install an electrical system in a safe manner?

310.10(H)(3) has eliminated that guesswork. It specifically says paralleled raceways need to be the same type.

 

[jeremy.zinkofsky]

310.10(H)(3) has eliminated that guesswork. It specifically says paralleled raceways need to be the same type.

310.10(H)(3) does not state "type" anywhere. Do "type" and "electrical characteristics" always mean the same thing?

I'm not trying to be a pain, I absolutley agree with everyone on this post. But it is often that semantics cause confusion when interpretting the NEC.

 

[Coastalguy1]

Thanks for all the replies!
I was looking for the most cost effective way to achieve my MCA. However, I agree that the raceway should be the same types. EMT it is.

 

[iwire]

I would argue that it is not clear if the person who is reading 310.10(H)(3) is not clear on what "electrical characteristics" entails.

Few things in the NEC are clear to the untrained, it is not an instruction manual.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Few things in the NEC are clear to the untrained, it is not an instruction manual.

But since the conductors themselves are well covered in the rule, is my opinion that the previous wording was much clearer. You don't even have to think to understand that "physical" would require the same type of raceways....the waters were muddied when they changed from "physical" to "electrical".

 

[jumper]

But since the conductors themselves are well covered in the rule, is my opinion that the previous wording was much clearer. You don't even have to think to understand that "physical" would require the same type of raceways....the waters were muddied when they changed from "physical" to "electrical".

It threw me off. I saw "electrical" and mistakenly only applied it to the conductors. Ooops.