Speaking of colors...

Status
Not open for further replies.
davedottcom

davedottcom

Senior Member
They should make 10/2 & 8/2 & 6/2 NM with Black & (Red or Blue) instead of a white conductor.
I think more often than not people are using these cables for 240 volts.
(Much less identifying)

or do they already make this?

Dave
 
Re: Speaking of colors...

Dave, the code allows us to reidentify the white conductor in a cable assembly, so I don't see the point. It's just another item to keep track of and take up space.
 
Re: Speaking of colors...

I recall someone saying that one of the big box stores was selling "240 v" cable (red/black conductors).

I don't see the point or the need.
 
Re: Speaking of colors...

Peter, 200.6 allows us to identify the grounded conductor also. My point is, it would mean Much less identifying since those cables are almost always used for 240 volt circuits.

Why should I identify the ungrounded conductor 98% of the time when I could just identify the grounded conductor 2% of the time that these cables are actually used for 120 Volts?
I wouldn't need to stock two types of cable, and it would be much less identifying. :)

Dave
 
Re: Speaking of colors...

Lack of proper reidentification when white conductors are used as ungrounded conductors is one of the most common violations I find on a daily basis. Two conductor wiring methods, primarily NM cable are typically used to supply loads such as the water heater and well equipment. This often means several points of reidentification including the panelboard where the branch circuits originate, the disconnecting means, conduit bodies, other enclosures, etc.
 
Re: Speaking of colors...

Originally posted by bphgravity:
Lack of proper reidentification when white conductors are used as ungrounded conductors is one of the most common violations I find on a daily basis.
Click to expand...
Here where I am they changed the rules, at least for switch legs. :)

200.7(C)(2). Revise the last sentence to read as follows:

In these applications reidentification of the conductor with white or gray insulation or with three continuous white stripes shall not be required.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Speaking of colors...

Originally posted by davedottcom:
Peter, 200.6 allows us to identify the grounded conductor also. My point is, it would mean Much less identifying since those cables are almost always used for 240 volt circuits.
Click to expand...
I guess my proximity to Massachusetts and the fact that not many inspectors here take the reidentification issue seriously gives me a "So what?" attitude about it.
 
Re: Speaking of colors...

Why would an electrician need the re-identification, it seems as though it was a change in the code solely for the DIYer.

(I do realize an inspector should call it if there is not an amendment to the NEC)

IMO, it's a waste of energy.

Anyone that would not recognize a switch leg or any leg of of a circuit as being hot is not an electrician or is being careless.

What electrician would open or cut a white or gray conductor in a condulet or box with out investigating the circuit first?

Roger
 
Re: Speaking of colors...

I always found that a white connected to the load side of a multi pole breaker self explanatory. ;)
 
Re: Speaking of colors...

The problem is that as an inspector, I can't pick or choose what or what not to enforce, even if it is in favor of the contractor. This is especially true if it stems from a personal belief. I too agree that logic and common sense is all that is needed for this situation, but the code is code. I happen to think most grounding requirements are a big waste of time, however I have to enforce what is written. Don't I?

A while back, I questioned if it would be wrong to not allow FMC in wet locations because I didn't feel installations could ever meet the provisions of the section that permitted FMC outdoors. Many responses where in the order of "don't inspect based on your opinions" or "if you don't like the code, submit a proposal and get rid of the allowance the proper way".

Doesn't this work both ways as Roger has alluded to? So bascially, no matter how insignificant a code requirement may be, shouldn't the inspector enforce it with no bias?
 
Re: Speaking of colors...

Originally posted by bphgravity:
The problem is that as an inspector, I can't pick or choose what or what not to enforce, even if it is in favor of the contractor.
Click to expand...
Byran you are of course correct. ;)
 
Re: Speaking of colors...

Bryan, I agree. We can't pick and choose what code we like and don't like. Yes, I admit to violating the code many times for not reidentifying.

Indeed, I almost made a major mistake once when I connected some new branch circuits to a box above a ceiling that contained a 12/3 AC cable, thinking it was an abandoned multiwire circuit. It turns out it was connected to a 3 pole breaker, and the white was not reidentified. After I realized the mistake, I quickly ran to the electrical room and pulled the white wire off the breaker and put it on the neutral bar before anything got smoked.

But ultimately it was my fault, and not the person before me, because I assumed wire color meant something and I didn't use my tester. :eek:

I have to ask if there are any dead bodies behind this code rule?
 
Re: Speaking of colors...

I guess my proximity to Massachusetts and the fact that not many inspectors here take the reidentification issue seriously gives me a "So what?" attitude about it.
Click to expand...
:D but then...
Lack of proper reidentification when white conductors are used as ungrounded conductors is one of the most common violations I find on a daily basis.
Click to expand...
:D Wow, bphgravity hears what I'm saying! He must be in that "Elite" 10% I've been hearing about!

It was just a simple suggestion guys! Perhaps ya'll are a little defensive because you aren't Identifying Your White wires?!!! :p

Listen, I'm just saying it would make more sense.
At least it does in my world! :cool:

[ October 10, 2005, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: davedottcom ]
 
Re: Speaking of colors...

laughabove.gif
 
Re: Speaking of colors...

Dave your right, you found an spot of the NEC that I may not follow 100% I often do not re identify my white wires at the load side of a breaker, I never re identify them at a conduit body.

As I said MA outright changed the rules and has a don't ask don't tell attitude about it.

I would say anyone that relies on the color of a wire to determine it's function will end up getting a nasty surprise.

I am sure you have found greens used as hots, bares as neutrals etc.

I never trust the color.

Bob
 
Re: Speaking of colors...

I think it's the DIY issue that cause the change.
Because if was because electricians were getting hurt or frying equipment, then the trade is worse off than ever :eek:
 
Re: Speaking of colors...

I'm guilty myself!

But if the NM didn't have a white in it I wouldn't be! :D

It's weird, many of us will hook up the white NM wire to a breaker and not give it much thought. But no one would pull a white through a conduit and use it the same way.

It's like..."That's Dangerous" all of a sudden! :D
 
Re: Speaking of colors...

Dave

It's weird, many of us will hook up the white NM wire to a breaker and not give it much thought. But no one would pull a white through a conduit and use it the same way.
Click to expand...
We think alike. :cool:
 
Re: Speaking of colors...

I alway's carry a blue sharpie in my pouch. I use it to re-identify white wires mostly. It is really easy to slide the thing up and down a longer white wire at the panel when using it for a 240 volt hot conductor. It takes very little time to re-identify the wires.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top