Ungrounded Conductors From Same Circuit on Same Breaker?

[Rick Christopherson]

I definately say the "ring" circuit contains parallel elements in it. I can't understand why some do not want to see it that way. Current only flows in two types of paths, series or parallel. I don't think NEC allows this per 310.4

In my opinion, you are arguing for the sake of arguing. There are two ways of looking at NEC code: Absolute Wording or Intended Meaning. However, you are attempting to mix these two methods in an inappropriate manner in order to make an invalid point. :happysad:

Under Absolute Wording, this is not a parallel circuit and 310.4 does not apply (see Charlie's several postings as to why this is true).

Under Intended Meaning, neither conductor can ever be subjected to an amperage greater than its rating, so the purpose of 310.4 does not apply.

In your arguing for the sake of argument, argument, you are taking the non-absolute-wording approach in your definition of parallel conductors, but applying that to the absolute-wording of 310.4.

 

[ggunn]

...see Charlie's several postings as to why this is true.

What am I, chopped liver?

 

[Rick Christopherson]

What am I, chopped liver?

Well yes, yes you are....but I am a meat snob, and nothing crosses my palate short of Ribeye or Tenderloin!

 

[kwired]

In my opinion, you are arguing for the sake of arguing. There are two ways of looking at NEC code: Absolute Wording or Intended Meaning. However, you are attempting to mix these two methods in an inappropriate manner in order to make an invalid point. :happysad:

Under Absolute Wording, this is not a parallel circuit and 310.4 does not apply (see Charlie's several postings as to why this is true).

Under Intended Meaning, neither conductor can ever be subjected to an amperage greater than its rating, so the purpose of 310.4 does not apply.

In your arguing for the sake of argument, argument, you are taking the non-absolute-wording approach in your definition of parallel conductors, but applying that to the absolute-wording of 310.4.

So in your opinion can you run 2 14AWG conductors from a 15 amp breaker to a receptacle? (most will say no you are paralleling the conductors). Yet many say add a second or even more receptacles and now this is not parallel conductors. What if you just added one receptacle and it happens to be in same enclosure as first (like a 2 gang box) and there is only 3 inches of conductor between the two receptacles. You have almost exactly the same thing.

Nobody is going to convince me that the two home runs are not parallel to each other. I agree they are not necessarily identical parallels but they are indeed parallel paths.

310.4 does not mention overcurrent protection. It just says conductors 1/0 and larger shall be permitted to be connected in parallel. Then parts B and C explain that they need to have same characteristics such as size, length, termination method, etc.

It is my opinion that the circuit in question does contain conductors that are connected in parallel, they are not the same length, and they are smaller than 1/0 AWG, therefore they are not allowed by 310.4. I also think it would be a better idea to just run a larger conductor in the first place if voltage drop is an issue.

Excepttion to 310.4(A) does allow conductors to be connected in parallel for instruments and control devices. This only makes sense. How can you get an "either/or" function out of dry contacts if you can't connect them in parallel?

Do I think there is a problem with using this setup? No. But I don't think it complies with 310.4.

I am not calling this "parallel conductors" I am calling it "conductors connected in parallel" which is the wording that is also used in 310.4

I totally disagree with the "Absolute Wording or Intended Meaning" theory you mention. The NEC says what it says. Absolute wording is part of the reason why the NEC is updated every three years. Sometimes the absolute wording is not interpreted the way the intended meaning was intended so three years later the absolute wording gets changed again. Intended meaning is simply reading it the way you (or somebody) want it to read. If absolute wording can be interpreted in more than one way than more than one way is what it means even if not intentional by the code making panel that wrote it, they have three more years to get it the way they wanted it.

As far as interpretation of what is written we have definitions in art 100 and we have definitions in some sections that apply to when a term is used in that section. If a word is not defined in either of those places then an english language dictionary is the source of a definition of a word. If there is more than one definition then there can be a problem. There is no definition of conductor in art 100. There also is no definition of parallel conductor there. 310.4 also does not use this terminology as I already mentioned above.

 

[Barndog]

So in your opinion can you run 2 14AWG conductors from a 15 amp breaker to a receptacle? (most will say no you are paralleling the conductors). Yet many say add a second or even more receptacles and now this is not parallel conductors. What if you just added one receptacle and it happens to be in same enclosure as first (like a 2 gang box) and there is only 3 inches of conductor between the two receptacles. You have almost exactly the same thing.

Nobody is going to convince me that the two home runs are not parallel to each other. I agree they are not necessarily identical parallels but they are indeed parallel paths.

310.4 does not mention overcurrent protection. It just says conductors 1/0 and larger shall be permitted to be connected in parallel. Then parts B and C explain that they need to have same characteristics such as size, length, termination method, etc.

It is my opinion that the circuit in question does contain conductors that are connected in parallel, they are not the same length, and they are smaller than 1/0 AWG, therefore they are not allowed by 310.4. I also think it would be a better idea to just run a larger conductor in the first place if voltage drop is an issue.

Excepttion to 310.4(A) does allow conductors to be connected in parallel for instruments and control devices. This only makes sense. How can you get an "either/or" function out of dry contacts if you can't connect them in parallel?

Do I think there is a problem with using this setup? No. But I don't think it complies with 310.4.

I am not calling this "parallel conductors" I am calling it "conductors connected in parallel" which is the wording that is also used in 310.4

I totally disagree with the "Absolute Wording or Intended Meaning" theory you mention. The NEC says what it says. Absolute wording is part of the reason why the NEC is updated every three years. Sometimes the absolute wording is not interpreted the way the intended meaning was intended so three years later the absolute wording gets changed again. Intended meaning is simply reading it the way you (or somebody) want it to read. If absolute wording can be interpreted in more than one way than more than one way is what it means even if not intentional by the code making panel that wrote it, they have three more years to get it the way they wanted it.

As far as interpretation of what is written we have definitions in art 100 and we have definitions in some sections that apply to when a term is used in that section. If a word is not defined in either of those places then an english language dictionary is the source of a definition of a word. If there is more than one definition then there can be a problem. There is no definition of conductor in art 100. There also is no definition of parallel conductor there. 310.4 also does not use this terminology as I already mentioned above.

Thats the way i think as well. :thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Rick Christopherson]

So in your opinion can you run 2 14AWG conductors from a 15 amp breaker to a receptacle? (most will say no you are paralleling the conductors).

Even though that is not what I said earlier, as an EE that is definitely something that I wouldn't hesitate saying. Nevertheless, you are still arguing for the sake of arguing.

As an EC, you are bound by the absolute wording of the NEC, and that includes the absolute wording used to define parallel conductors. In that regard, there is no argument to be made. They are not parallel as per the NEC.

For you to argue otherwise is stepping into the EE world, and doing so, you need to examine all aspects of code, including the intent. You can't alter the wording of one passage of code but still apply it to the wording of another passage without looking at the whole picture.

As per the letter of code, these conductors are not parallel. The rest of this discussion is moot unless your signature affords you the authority to make interpretations of that code.

 

[kwired]

Even though that is not what I said earlier, as an EE that is definitely something that I wouldn't hesitate saying. Nevertheless, you are still arguing for the sake of arguing.

As an EC, you are bound by the absolute wording of the NEC, and that includes the absolute wording used to define parallel conductors. In that regard, there is no argument to be made. They are not parallel as per the NEC.

For you to argue otherwise is stepping into the EE world, and doing so, you need to examine all aspects of code, including the intent. You can't alter the wording of one passage of code but still apply it to the wording of another passage without looking at the whole picture.

As per the letter of code, these conductors are not parallel. The rest of this discussion is moot unless your signature affords you the authority to make interpretations of that code.

Because I am not an EE does not mean I don't understand electrical theory.

Because I am not an EE does not mean I have no right to know any electrical theory.

I don't understand all theory that most EE usually do. Series and parallel circuits are kindergarten topics to the electrical world.

Are these conductors connected parallel to each other or not?

Yes.

Are these conductors connected in parallel in a way that meets the requirements of 310.4?

No.

 

[kwired]

As an EC, you are bound by the absolute wording of the NEC, and that includes the absolute wording used to define parallel conductors. In that regard, there is no argument to be made. They are not parallel as per the NEC.

Where is this definition in the NEC? I have already mentioned that the NEC does not define 'parallel conductors'. It does not have a definition for 'parallel' either. It does tell you conditions of how you must install conductors connected in parallel.

The dictionary definition of parallel basically says that the two paths remain equal distance from each other - never get closer or farther apart. That definition obviously does not strictly apply to an electrical circuit parallel component.

 

[Rick Christopherson]

Because I am not an EE....

Then stop arguing as though you were one!

You keep dancing around this strawman argument as to whether a ring circuit is parallel or not, but in the process ignore the very code you claim to support. The code that you must follow specifically defines parallel conductors as they apply to this situation.

If you want to contradict code, then you need to do so all-in or all-out.

 

[kwired]

The code that you must follow specifically defines parallel conductors as they apply to this situation.

If you want to contradict code, then you need to do so all-in or all-out.

Where is this defintion? It is not in 310.4, it is not in Art 100.

I have not changed my view of this from the start what is the all-in or all-out supposed to mean?

Quit hiding behind your title and give us some proof of what you are claiming.

I have given my reasons for where I stand on this. No one has yet said anything that proves otherwise.

In case you didn't get it yet my position on this is:

conductors connected in parallel - yes.

conductors connected in parallel also meeting the requirements of 310.4 - no.

 

[Little Bill]

In case you didn't get it yet my position on this is:

conductors connected in parallel - yes.

conductors connected in parallel also meeting the requirements of 310.4 - no.

So my question to you is, if you were inspecting this circuit, would you pass it or fail it?

 

[kwired]

So my question to you is, if you were inspecting this circuit, would you pass it or fail it?

I think I already cited somewhere in this thread it would fail with 310.4 being the applicable code section. Then the debate became whether or not 310.4 applies. Most opposing this are stuck on saying this is not a 'parallel conductor'

We need to ask ourselves what is "parallel" when talking electrical circuits?

Basic electricity rules do not require identical conditions for each element in a parallel path.

Can you not have a 10 ohm resistor connected in parallel with a 25 ohm resistor?

Can you not have a 10 foot conductor connected in parallel with a 25 foot conductor?

You can physically have a 10 foot conductor connected in parallel with a 25 foot conductor. 310.4 says you can't use it that way however.

I will not give in unless someone can prove that you can not physically parallel two components of differing qualities.

It is constantly brought up on this forum the fact that grounded neutral current flows back to the source through all possible paths. Are these paths not parallel to one another? The lowest impedance paths carry most of the current, but all other parallel paths are carrying some current.

This is first day or two stuff in a basic electricity class isn't it?

 

[Little Bill]

I think I already cited somewhere in this thread it would fail with 310.4 being the applicable code section. Then the debate became whether or not 310.4 applies. Most opposing this are stuck on saying this is not a 'parallel conductor'

We need to ask ourselves what is "parallel" when talking electrical circuits?

Basic electricity rules do not require identical conditions for each element in a parallel path.

Can you not have a 10 ohm resistor connected in parallel with a 25 ohm resistor?

Can you not have a 10 foot conductor connected in parallel with a 25 foot conductor?

You can physically have a 10 foot conductor connected in parallel with a 25 foot conductor. 310.4 says you can't use it that way however.

I will not give in unless someone can prove that you can not physically parallel two components of differing qualities.

It is constantly brought up on this forum the fact that grounded neutral current flows back to the source through all possible paths. Are these paths not parallel to one another? The lowest impedance paths carry most of the current, but all other parallel paths are carrying some current.

This is first day or two stuff in a basic electricity class isn't it?

I finished with my input on this discussion several posts ago. I just wanted to know if you would pass it or not according to code rules. Not trying to add anything else to the discussion, just curious.

 

[hurk27]

I finished with my input on this discussion several posts ago. I just wanted to know if you would pass it or not according to code rules. Not trying to add anything else to the discussion, just curious.

If I was an inspector I would pass it without thinking twice as I don't see any dangerous thing with it and use 90.4 to do so, I also agree that it is a parallel circuit, but I do not think is was the intent of 310.4 or even in the scope of 310.4 which clearly was put into code where conductors are paralleled but protected at higher amperage then any one individual conductor of the paralleled conductors.

The code is to protect conductors put together to increase capacity (amperage) of a circuit, ring circuits are put together to decrease voltage drop.

IMHO I just don't think this circuit has ever been considered and there are no ROP's to even go by if it was.

 

[kwired]

If I was an inspector I would pass it without thinking twice as I don't see any dangerous thing with it and use 90.4 to do so, I also agree that it is a parallel circuit, but I do not think is was the intent of 310.4 or even in the scope of 310.4 which clearly was put into code where conductors are paralleled but protected at higher amperage then any one individual conductor of the paralleled conductors.

The code is to protect conductors put together to increase capacity (amperage) of a circuit, ring circuits are put together to decrease voltage drop.

IMHO I just don't think this circuit has ever been considered and there are no ROP's to even go by if it was.

If I were an inspector I would probably let it go also. Not without a little discussion with the installer first. I am being stubborn because I feel that knowing the difference between series and parallel are some of the most basic things about electrical theory yet we have some some people that usually have some pretty wise input on some complicated topics that can't agree on what is parallel. The NEC is not an electrical theory manual, you can not determine what is parallel from the NEC, you can determine what conditions the NEC accepts for parallel installations.

I do feel sorry for the guy that someday has to change out the panel in the OP.
Two wires on a breaker often makes one think something was added and there was no space to install more breakers so they just doubled up with another hopefully light loaded circuit. Running larger conductors is a better way to deal with voltage drop.

 

[roger]

I am being stubborn because I feel that knowing the difference between series and parallel are some of the most basic things about electrical theory

You keep bringing parallel and series circuits into the conversation, I think everyone discussing this knows the difference between a series and parallel circuit, the conversation dwells on a drag strip verses an oval track.

yet we have some some people that usually have some pretty wise input on some complicated topics that can't agree on what is parallel.

And you are staying in the conversation so you must fit into your statement as well huh?

The NEC is not an electrical theory manual, you can not determine what is parallel from the NEC,

Correct

you can determine what conditions the NEC accepts for parallel installations.

Only if a misapplication of the code doesn't come into play

I do feel sorry for the guy that someday has to change out the panel in the OP.

Why, if he puts the conductors back as he found them there would be no problem would there?

Two wires on a breaker often makes one think something was added and there was no space to install more breakers so they just doubled up with another hopefully light loaded circuit.

Then he didn't do a proper job. IMO you shouldn't assume anything, what say you?

Running larger conductors is a better way to deal with voltage drop.

No it's not, that is just your personal opinion.

Roger

 

[kwired]

Originally Posted by kwired
I am being stubborn because I feel that knowing the difference between series and parallel are some of the most basic things about electrical theory



You keep bringing parallel and series circuits into the conversation, I think everyone discussing this knows the difference between a series and parallel circuit, the conversation dwells on a drag strip verses an oval track.


Drag strip vs oval track is just another analogy.


Originally Posted by kwired
yet we have some some people that usually have some pretty wise input on some complicated topics that can't agree on what is parallel.



And you are staying in the conversation so you must fit into your statement as well huh?

Yes. I have seen support of both sides of the debate. We can't agree on what most feel is a basic topic.

Originally Posted by kwired
The NEC is not an electrical theory manual, you can not determine what is parallel from the NEC,



Correct
Originally Posted by kwired
you can determine what conditions the NEC accepts for parallel installations.



Only if a misapplication of the code doesn't come into play


Originally Posted by kwired
I do feel sorry for the guy that someday has to change out the panel in the OP.



Why, if he puts the conductors back as he found them there would be no problem would there?

Agree. Also not likely to happen. Would be helpful if original installer somehow indicated why there are multiple conductors on the circuits installed that way. If they get installed across phases you have a short circuit. If they get installed on same phase different breaker you don't even know you left a problem there. Many would call this an improper parallel - and it is, but is still almost the same parallel which many can't agree on.


Originally Posted by kwired
Two wires on a breaker often makes one think something was added and there was no space to install more breakers so they just doubled up with another hopefully light loaded circuit.



Then he didn't do a proper job. IMO you shouldn't assume anything, what say you?

Same answer as previous.

Originally Posted by kwired
Running larger conductors is a better way to deal with voltage drop.



No it's not, that is just your personal opinion.

It is my opinion. I am entitled to my opinion correct?


​

 

[Little Bill]

So my question to you is, if you were inspecting this circuit, would you pass it or fail it?

I ask you if you would pass or fail. (see above in red)

I think I already cited somewhere in this thread it would fail with 310.4 being the applicable code section.

Your answer (see red above)

If I were an inspector I would probably let it go also.

Now you are saying you would pass it (see red above)
I think you need to give your brain a rest on this and let it go.:thumbsup:

 

[John120/240]

operator error

 

[iwire]

Where is this defintion? It is not in 310.4, it is not in Art 100.

I do not know why you say that, in my opinion it is found in 310.4

310.4 Conductors in Parallel.
(A) General. Aluminum, copper-clad aluminum, or copper
conductors of size 1/0 AWG and larger, comprising each
phase, polarity, neutral, or grounded circuit conductor shall
be permitted to be connected in parallel (electrically joined
at both ends).

They chose the word 'electrically' not the word 'physically'. Had they said 'physically' joined at both ends I would clearly agree with many of the others that the conductors in a ring circuit would not be considered parallel conductors by the NEC.

However, IMO the conductors in a ring circuit are 'electrically joined' at both ends and therefore are in fact paralleled conductors under the NEC.

We need to ask ourselves what is "parallel" when talking electrical circuits?

No absolutely not, in this case we have to ask ourselves what the words in the NEC say when we try to apply the rules in the NEC.


As an example the NEC allows us to treat some conductors like they carry no current when they clearly do carry current. We can't let reality interfere with what the code says.