wire size

[daniel nantell]

I know you cannot under size wire to circuit breaker but does it hurt to oversize the wire say put a no. 12 wire on a 15 amp circuit.

[Dan Harris]

I know you cannot under size wire to circuit breaker but does it hurt to oversize the wire say put a no. 12 wire on a 15 amp circuit.

No problem

[Jerry Peck]

Not only is it no problem, it may also be a good thing as it will reduce voltage drop.

[Gunnar Alquist]

As both Dan and Jerry said. I have seen larger wires on circuit breakers when there are long distances, to decrease the voltage drop. You are more likely to see this on commercial inspections than residential.

[Damon McCarty]

On long runs wires stay cooler.
Breakers stay cooler with less strain on them.
On a large house with lots of long runs it can also save a little electric.
That is, if you use a lot of electric.

[Tim Spanos]

as stated above over sizing wire will reduce voltage drop and you may save on your electric bill especially for long runs, the only thing to keep in mind when over sizing wire is that depending on the breaker manufacture every breaker is marked with the maximum size wire permitted to terminate on breaker and most breakers may have torque requirements marked on breaker based on the size of wire.

[Gunnar Alquist]

Another reason to not oversize wires in general use is the habit of homeowners and general contractors to do electrical work themselves. These folks are more likely to see an oversized wire and install a higher amperage breaker thinking "hey, this should be on a bigger breaker".

On a related note, say you have a 15 amp breaker with a #12 wire at the breaker. Could you connect a #14 wire downstream? The #14 would not be undersized for the breaker, but would not match the #12.

[Charles Smith]

Check your local code exceptions and additions

New Mexico now requires 12AWG on 15 amp general purpose outlets.

...to prevent excessive voltage drop

(And wiring errors... i.e. 14 must be bigger than 12!!!)



(2) Section 210.19 Conductors – Minimum ampacity and size. See this section of the NEC and add the following to subsection (A) Branch circuits not more than 600 volts. (1) General: see this section of the NEC and add: conductors for branch circuits shall be sized to prevent excessive voltage drop. Conductors of 15 ampere 120V branch circuits supplying general-purpose receptacle outlets shall be not less than 12 AWG.

from NM CID
14.10.4.2 SCOPE: This rule applies to all contracting work performed in New Mexico on or after July 1,2008, that is subject to the jurisdiction of CID, unless performed pursuant to a permit for which an application was received by CID before that date. [14.10.4.2 NMAC - Rp, 14.10.4.2 NMAC, 7-1-08]

[Rollie Meyers]

Here is something from the 2008 NEC section 250.122(B)

"(B) Increased in Size. Where ungrounded conductors are
increased in size, equipment grounding conductors, where
installed, shall be increased in size proportionately according
to the circular mil area of the ungrounded conductors."

This is unchanged from the 2002 & 2005 editions.

This is a big issue when over sizing conductors, & in some cases would disallow the use of NM & UF cables.

[Jerry Peck]

Here is something from the 2008 NEC section 250.122(B)

"(B) Increased in Size. Where ungrounded conductors are
increased in size, equipment grounding conductors, where
installed, shall be increased in size proportionately according
to the circular mil area of the ungrounded conductors."

This is unchanged from the 2002 & 2005 editions.

This is a big issue when over sizing conductors, & in some cases would disallow the use of NM & UF cables.


Rollie,

Except ... the grounding conductor IS increased in size along with the increase in size of the ungrounded and grounded conductors in NM cable.

[Rollie Meyers]

Rollie,

Except ... the grounding conductor IS increased in size along with the increase in size of the ungrounded and grounded conductors in NM cable.

Not when you go over 10 AWG, 6 & 8 AWG NM & UF cables use a 10 AWG, EGC.

[Jerry Peck]

Not when you go over 10 AWG, 6 & 8 AWG NM & UF cables use a 10 AWG, EGC.

Except that we were talking about 15 and 20 amp circuits, which would mean up-sizing to 20 amp and 30 amp conductors (14 AWG to 12 AWG and 12 AWG to 10 AWG).

[Rollie Meyers]

Except that we were talking about 15 and 20 amp circuits, which would mean up-sizing to 20 amp and 30 amp conductors (14 AWG to 12 AWG and 12 AWG to 10 AWG).

There are cases w/ long runs of residential outdoor lighting that 6 AWG would be used for voltage drop issues......

[Jerry Peck]

Rollie,

I forgot to add:

(bold and underlining is mine)
- 250.122 Size of Equipment Grounding Conductors.
- (A) General. Copper, aluminum, or copper-clad aluminum equipment grounding conductors of the wire type shall not be smaller than shown in Table 250.122, but in no case shall they be required to be larger than the circuit conductors supplying the equipment. Where a cable tray, a raceway, or a cable armor or sheath is used as the equipment grounding conductor, as provided in 250.118 and 250.134(A), it shall comply with 250.4(A)(5) or (B)(4).

Being as Table 250.122 ALLOWS for the #10 equipment ground with 30 amp overcurrent device, 40 amp overcurrent device, and up to a 60 amp overcurrent device, the #10 ground would STILL be suitable for use with the NM cable the equipment ground conductor came in.

As those combinations are ALLOWED.

Now, once you get above 60 amp overcurrent device, all bets are off.

[Rollie Meyers]

Rollie,

I forgot to add:

(bold and underlining is mine)
- 250.122 Size of Equipment Grounding Conductors.
- (A) General. Copper, aluminum, or copper-clad aluminum equipment grounding conductors of the wire type shall not be smaller than shown in Table 250.122, but in no case shall they be required to be larger than the circuit conductors supplying the equipment. Where a cable tray, a raceway, or a cable armor or sheath is used as the equipment grounding conductor, as provided in 250.118 and 250.134(A), it shall comply with 250.4(A)(5) or (B)(4).

Being as Table 250.122 ALLOWS for the #10 equipment ground with 30 amp overcurrent device, 40 amp overcurrent device, and up to a 60 amp overcurrent device, the #10 ground would STILL be suitable for use with the NM cable the equipment ground conductor came in.

As those combinations are ALLOWED.

If you upsize the ungrounded, you must upsize the grounding......

[Jerry Peck]

If you upsize the ungrounded, you must upsize the grounding......


... proportionally ... and the proportional up-size is ALLOWED to remain at a 10 AWG for the equipment grounding conductor for NM cable with up to 60 amp overcurrent protection.

[Rollie Meyers]

I , disagree if you upsizing for VD issues you must increase the size, if you are using in a "normal" sense such as a 40A circuit w/ 8 AWG ungrounded conductors & a 10 AWG grounding is fine, but if you use those same 8 AWG on a 15A circuit because of voltage drop issues then the EGC will need to be increased.

[Jerry Peck]

Rollie,

Here is the reason and the logic for that, directly from the NEC Handbook.
- "Equipment grounding conductors on the load side of the service disconnecting means and overcurrent devices ARE SIZED BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE FEEDER OR BRANCH-CIRCUIT OVERCURRENT DEVICES ahead of them."

Thus, when you up-size the ungrounded conductor you need to up-size the grounding conductor to a compatible and suitable size for the overcurrent protection rating, however, in the 30 amp to 60 amp overcurrent protection rating range, ... the size of the grounding conductor remains the same ... so the up-sizing is built in to match the size of the feeder or branch-circuit overcurrent device, which is what the grounding conductor size is sized on.

[Bill Kriegh]

Good design dictates that the grounding conductor provide a low impedence path for fault current. If larger wire is installed to prevent voltage drop in the circuit it is required that the grounding conductor size be increased to keep that same voltage drop from preventing a ground fault from tripping the breaker.

250.122(B) requires that if you (for example) double the size of the ungrounded conductors you must apply a proportional size increase to the grounding conductor.

Note that this has NOTHING to do with the required size of a grounding conductor based on the overcurrent protection.

If you install #10 NM-B cable on a 30 AMP circuit a #10 grounding conductor is acceptable

If you install a #6 NM-B cable on a 55 AMP circuit a #10 grounding conductor is acceptable

If you install a #6 NM-B cable on a 30 AMP circuit the #10 grounding conductor is no longer large enough.

The assumption is that if the wire size must be increased to prevent voltage drop that the grounding conductor size has to be increased to provide a low impedence fault path. This rule applies even though the up-sized wire size has been installed to take care of derating issues and not because of voltage drop issues. In the case of #6 wire, when upsizing the grounding conductor you have to use #6 as the grouding conductor as the grounding conductor size increase has to be proportional to the ungrounded conductor size increase. In this case you are up-sizing from #10 to #6, and as #10 is the size of the required grounding conductor the proportional size increase matches the ungrounded conductor size increase.

The mistake most people make here is that while the #10 will provide a low impedence fault path for maximum loads on a #6 or #8 wire, once the #6 or #8 is used to limit voltage drop (because of length) because of its' size on a smaller circuit, then the impedence(because of increased length) of the #10 becomes an issue.

Rollie has it nailed.

[A.D. Miller]

On a similar note, I have seen circuits with both 12 and 14 ga. wiring. Does that pass muster?

[Bill Kriegh]

On a similar note, I have seen circuits with both 12 and 14 ga. wiring. Does that pass muster?

It does if the wire is NM-B or some other type cable where the grounded and ungrounded conductors are the same size. Given the rules in place otherwise, a circuit that starts with a #12 cable and has a #14 spliced on would need a #12 grounding conductor all the way. But 250.122(B) says the grounding conductor doesn't have to be larger than the ungrounded conductor. So, when the ungrounded conductor reduces to #14 the ungrounded conductor can too.

This configuration, if at the end of a long run, does defeat the intent of the NEC, but not the wording. It is poor practice but is often found in DIY projects where thankfully distance from the overcurrent device isn't an issue most of the time. The wording needs attention at some point.

[A.D. Miller]

It does if the wire is NM-B or some other type cable where the grounded and ungrounded conductors are the same size. Given the rules in place otherwise, a circuit that starts with a #12 cable and has a #14 spliced on would need a #12 grounding conductor all the way. But 250.122(B) says the grounding conductor doesn't have to be larger than the ungrounded conductor. So, when the ungrounded conductor reduces to #14 the ungrounded conductor can too.

This configuration, if at the end of a long run, does defeat the intent of the NEC, but not the wording. It is poor practice but is often found in DIY projects where thankfully distance from the overcurrent device isn't an issue most of the time. The wording needs attention at some point.

BK: Thanks.

[Bill Kriegh]

BK: Thanks.

My pleasure.

[Jerry Peck]

If you install #10 NM-B cable on a 30 AMP circuit a #10 grounding conductor is acceptable

If you install a #6 NM-B cable on a 55 AMP circuit a #10 grounding conductor is acceptable

If you install a #6 NM-B cable on a 30 AMP circuit the #10 grounding conductor is no longer large enough.

Bill,

Your first two are correct, your last one is incorrect as stated.

The MAXIMUM overcurrent protection for #6 NM-B is given, not a "minimum" overcurrent protection, thus you can install a 15 amp overcurrent protection breaker on #6 NM-B and still use the #10 grounding conductor in it as the ground.

One needs to use logic and understand the reason for the logic in what the code is requiring.

Let's say that I want to run a #6 NM-B to a remote panel across my attic to where my office is, and from there I will keep my 15 amp circuits with #14 NM cable (wired before NM-B came out). There is nothing in the code which requires me to install a grounding conductor which is any larger than the approved #10 in that #6 NM-B with the #10 grounding conductor ... AND I can still protect it with a 15 amp breaker and not incur any problems.

[Bill Kriegh]

Sorry Jerry. I disagree. 250.122(B) specifically says that if you increase the size of the ungrounded conductor the grounding conductor has to be increased proportionally.

What the code is after is an up sized grounding conductor if the ungrounded conductor is up sized. This is specifically to provide a low impedance path to ground.

If a larger ungrounded conductor is used to limit voltage drop the grounding conductor needs to be proportionally up sized as well. That's what 250.122(B) says. It does not make exceptions for how the up sized wire is actually used.

So, again, if you feed the NM-B with a 55 AMP breaker, a #10 grounding conductor is fine. If you feed it with a 30 AMP breaker you have up sized the ungrounded conductors as #10 is what you'd use for 30 AMPs normally. And, that means you have to up size the grounding conductor as well.

I agree there are circumstances where this makes absolutely no sense, but there aren't any exceptions I can find that say it's OK not to increase the size of the grounding conductor. No argument on my part that a #10 is good for a grounding conductor at 55 AMPs. Its also good at 30 AMPs - unless youre using larger ungrounded conductors.

All this has to do with larger wire used to limit voltage drop and nothing to do with the size of the required grounding conductor for a given overcurrent device as given in table 250.122, which is just the starting point if you're upsizing conductors. Without 250.122(B) there wouldn't be any adjusting necessary. With it it's required.

[Jerry Peck]

Sorry Jerry. I disagree. 250.122(B) specifically says that if you increase the size of the ungrounded conductor the grounding conductor has to be increased proportionally.

Not quite correct.

The code does not say anything about REDUCING the size of the conductors. (Other than maximum allowable overcurrent protection being based based on the smaller conductor size.)

You need to step outside the box you are building high around yourself and think a minute or two.

[Bill Kriegh]

I'm not building any boxes. I'm quoting a very unambiguous paragraph in the NEC. You can choose to ignore it if you wish. I can't - I've got bonified inspectors that apply it to every job that has upsized conductors present.

As to how much sense it makes in some circumstances, I'll agree it doesn't make much, sometimes any. However, one thing that seems to run through the NEC is that in order to uncomplecate things a bit, rules like this apply to most circumstances. So, wire up sized to take care of voltage drop will need a grounding conductor up sized. The rule is the same when the ungrounded conductor is upsized due to derating issues. The issue here is that the NEC doesn't care if the wire was up sized because of voltage drop, derating issues, or because it's what was kicking around in the leftover wire bin and available for the job.

Try as you might, running a #6 NM-B at 55 AMPs with a #10 ground is not the same thing as running #6 NM-B at 30 AMPs with a #10 ground. 250.122(B) says so, or at least what has to happen if you do. If you can show language that says 250.122(B) doesn't apply I'm all eyes.

[Jerry Peck]

I've got bonified inspectors that apply it to every job that has upsized conductors present.

And apparently even apply it when the conductors are downsized too.

[ken horak]

I've been watching this thread , to see if it sorts itself out.

According to the 2008 NEC article 250.122 ( B) "where ungrounded conductors are increased in size , equipment grounding conductors, where installed, shall be increased in size proportionately according to the circular mil area of the ungrounded conductors"

The key phrase in that paragragh is " increased in size proportionately according to the circular mil area of the ungrounded conductor.

This increase has nothing to do with table 250.122, but rather it has to be calculated using the circular mil area of the conductors in question. One must refer to chapter 9 table 8 to find the circular mil area of a conductor.

Example:
15 amp circuit using #14 copper. One decides to increase the size of the conductors for what ever reason to a # 6 copper.
circular mil area of #14 copper = 4110
Circular mil area of # 6 = 26240

Step 1 is calculate the ratio of the new conductors to the existing conductors.
#14 circular mils divided into #6 circular mils
26240/4110 = 6.38

Step 2 calculate the circular mils of the new equipment ground conductor.
To find the new ground size multiply the original ground size circular mils by the ratio calculated in step 1.
Original ground size #14 = 4110 circular mils.
Ratio of increase from step 1 = 6.38
4110 * 6.38 = 26221.8 ( round up to 26222 )

Step 3 Go to Chapter 9 Table 8 to find the ground size
Chapter 9 Table 8:
# 8 = 16510 circular mils -(Too small as the ground conductor must be AT LEAST 26,222 circular mils according to step 2)
# 6 = 26,240 circular mils.
You would need to use a #6 ground, when increasing from a #14 to a # 6 on a 15 amp circuit.

You MUST do the calculation when you increase the size of the circuit conductors for any reason ( and keeping the same amperage circuit)
You use Table 250.122 to determine the size of an equipment grounding conductor to start with, BUT if you increase the circuit conductor size you no longer use table 250.122 but must do the calculation.

I also did the calculation going from a #10 to a # 6:

# 10 = 10380 circular mils, #6 = 26240 circular mils

26240 / 10380 = 2.527 ( rounded up to 2.53 -This is the ratio of increase)
Original ground size #10 10380 circular mils * 2.53 = 26261

Chapter 9 Table 8
# 10 = 10380 ,#8 = 16510 #6 = 26240, # 4 =41740
We need a ground conductor of at least 26261 circular mils.

According to Chapter 9 Table 8 -Thats a # 4 BUT .........
According to 250.122 ( A) " in no case shall the grounding conductor be larger then the circuit conductors"
So our circuit conductors are # 6 so we need to use a # 6 for the ground.

The NEC handbook has a nice explanation of this following 250.122 (B)
Welcome to the world of Electrcity and the National Electrical Code.
Theres more to it the just twisting some wire together;)

[Jerry Peck]

Let me get this straight here:

You are saying that I can run a #8 NM-B with a #10 ground to a remote panel, but I cannot install a 15 amp breaker and CONTINUE to run that same #8 NM-B to a receptacle "because I already have that wire" where I splice on #14 to the receptacle, that I have to run a #8 grounding conductor from the receptacle to the remote panel, where I can now attach that to the #10 grounding conductor of the feeder to that remote panel.

Is that what you are saying?

Is so, why?

You are getting confused about the increasing the size by adding "for any reason", when the reason is simply "because I want to" and there is NO COMPELLING reason to do so, and thus NO COMPELLING reason to say that the wire was "upsized". Instead, as I am saying, the wire was actually "downsized" and there is no requirement for that.

[ken horak]

Yep you got it ;)
The code does not give an exception to this.
It says you increase the ungrounded in size, you must increase the ground accordingly. Cut and Dry - Makes not difference why you increase the conductor size.

[Jerry Peck]

Yep you got it ;)
The code does not give an exception to this.
It says you increase the ungrounded in size, you must increase the ground accordingly. Cut and Dry - Makes not difference why you increase the conductor size.

Yep, cut and dried, you got that part right, but ...

The code DOES NOT require upsizing the grounding conductor to the larger size for downsizing the wiring size ... which is the part you and Bill are not getting.

As you said ... the code is cut and dry on that upsizing ... and says absolutely nothing about it on downsizing ... ;) :p

Which gets back to where I started at: NOT being required to upsize the grounding conductor when you downsize the wiring.

Like you said - the code is cut and dry on that. :cool:

[Bill Kriegh]

Exactly what are you talking about down sizing? If you put a #8 wire on a 15 AMP breaker you are up sizing - no matter how you twist things around. It's already been stated that when you down size the current carrying conductors the grounding conductor can be reduced - and that's NOT what we're beating to death here.

What is being discussed (as your presented example) is that you can run a #8 or #6 NM-B cable to a non service equipment panel (that's a sub panel to all but a few folks) and it can contain a #10 grounding conductor AS LONG AS you feed it with a breaker at the maximum rating of the cable. Once you get to the panel and install a 15 AMP breaker to feed that same size cable to an outlet then you are required to increase the grounding conductor size proportionally, and in the case of #6 or #8 that requires the ground be the same size as the ungrounded current carrying conductors. It's that da** simple. The wire size at the 15 AMP breaker is what determines the grounding conductor size to the outlet in this case.

Doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense at first, them's the rules.

[Rollie Meyers]

Yep, cut and dried, you got that part right, but ...

The code DOES NOT require upsizing the grounding conductor to the larger size for downsizing the wiring size ... which is the part you and Bill are not getting.

As you said ... the code is cut and dry on that upsizing ... and says absolutely nothing about it on downsizing ... ;) :p

Which gets back to where I started at: NOT being required to upsize the grounding conductor when you downsize the wiring.

Like you said - the code is cut and dry on that. :cool:


But you are required to upsize the grounding conductor when upsizing the ungrounded for voltage drop, the code is quite clear there, I would say if someone used some larger sized wire because that was on the truck not for voltage drop issues, it would just fine to use as -is we don't get to ignore a pretty clear rule just 'cause we don't like it......

Here is a refresher.
2008 NEC section 250.122(B)

"(B) Increased in Size. Where ungrounded conductors are
increased in size, equipment grounding conductors, where
installed, shall be increased in size proportionately according
to the circular mil area of the ungrounded conductors."

Bold by me.

[Jerry Peck]

(underlined red text and bold blue text is mine)

But you are required to upsize the grounding conductor when upsizing the ungrounded for voltage drop, the code is quite clear there, I would say if someone used some larger sized wire because that was on the truck not for voltage drop issues, it would just fine to use as -is we don't get to ignore a pretty clear rule just 'cause we don't like it......

Rollie,

Precisely what I have been saying.

Bill and Ken do not get that part of it.

There is no "upsizing", there is a "downsizing", which is not addressed in the code.

[Bill Kriegh]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Kriegh http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/images/ca_evo/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/electrical-systems-home-inspection-commercial-inspection/16649-wire-size-post110029.html#post110029)
If you install #10 NM-B cable on a 30 AMP circuit a #10 grounding conductor is acceptable

If you install a #6 NM-B cable on a 55 AMP circuit a #10 grounding conductor is acceptable

If you install a #6 NM-B cable on a 30 AMP circuit the #10 grounding conductor is no longer large enough.


"Bill,
Your first two are correct, your last one is incorrect as stated."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Thus, when you up-size the ungrounded conductor you need to up-size the grounding conductor to a compatible and suitable size for the overcurrent protection rating, however, in the 30 amp to 60 amp overcurrent protection rating range, ... the size of the grounding conductor remains the same ... so the up-sizing is built in to match the size of the feeder or branch-circuit overcurrent device, which is what the grounding conductor size is sized on."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry, the above incorrect statements by you is what the discussion is about.
They directly contradict 250.122(B). Nobody ever said that if you run the #6 cable to a panel that the #10 or #6 ground had to continue to an outlet if it was fed with a #15 wire. In fact the NEC specifically says the grounding conductor doesn't have to be larger than the ungrounded conductor.

Just accept the fact you learned something and move on.

[Jerry Peck]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Kriegh
If you install #10 NM-B cable on a 30 AMP circuit a #10 grounding conductor is acceptable

If you install a #6 NM-B cable on a 55 AMP circuit a #10 grounding conductor is acceptable

If you install a #6 NM-B cable on a 30 AMP circuit the #10 grounding conductor is no longer large enough.

"Bill,
Your first two are correct, your last one is incorrect as stated."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Thus, when you up-size the ungrounded conductor you need to up-size the grounding conductor to a compatible and suitable size for the overcurrent protection rating, however, in the 30 amp to 60 amp overcurrent protection rating range, ... the size of the grounding conductor remains the same ... so the up-sizing is built in to match the size of the feeder or branch-circuit overcurrent device, which is what the grounding conductor size is sized on."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry, the above incorrect statements by you is what the discussion is about.
They directly contradict 250.122(B). Nobody ever said that if you run the #6 cable to a panel that the #10 or #6 ground had to continue to an outlet if it was fed with a #15 wire. In fact the NEC specifically says the grounding conductor doesn't have to be larger than the ungrounded conductor.

Just accept the fact you learned something and move on.

Bill,

Let's clarify what *I* said, and then you can just accept the fact that you learned something and move on.

Below is from the posts you are referencing - you will want to re-read them to understand what is being stated:

If you install #10 NM-B cable on a 30 AMP circuit a #10 grounding conductor is acceptable

If you install a #6 NM-B cable on a 55 AMP circuit a #10 grounding conductor is acceptable

If you install a #6 NM-B cable on a 30 AMP circuit the #10 grounding conductor is no longer large enough.


Bill,

Your first two are correct, your last one is incorrect as stated.

The MAXIMUM overcurrent protection for #6 NM-B is given, not a "minimum" overcurrent protection, thus you can install a 15 amp overcurrent protection breaker on #6 NM-B and still use the #10 grounding conductor in it as the ground.

One needs to use logic and understand the reason for the logic in what the code is requiring.

Let's say that I want to run a #6 NM-B to a remote panel across my attic to where my office is, and from there I will keep my 15 amp circuits with #14 NM cable (wired before NM-B came out). There is nothing in the code which requires me to install a grounding conductor which is any larger than the approved #10 in that #6 NM-B with the #10 grounding conductor ... AND I can still protect it with a 15 amp breaker and not incur any problems.

In your same post above, you also said:

Rollie has it nailed.

In a recent post above I agreed that Rollie has it down.
(underlined red text and bold blue text is mine)

But you are required to upsize the grounding conductor when upsizing the ungrounded for voltage drop, the code is quite clear there, I would say if someone used some larger sized wire because that was on the truck not for voltage drop issues, it would just fine to use as -is we don't get to ignore a pretty clear rule just 'cause we don't like it......



Rollie,

Precisely what I have been saying.

Bill and Ken do not get that part of it.

There is no "upsizing", there is a "downsizing", which is not addressed in the code.

And now you don't even like it when I am agreeing with your that ...

Rollie has it nailed.

[ken horak]

Jerry-
Please explain , with out going into a cut and paste rant or twisting, how is using a larger conductor for any reason downsizing?

If I were sell my house and purchase a larger house even though I do not need the extra rooms, would this also be considered downsizing ?

[Bill Kriegh]

All we have here is an ego that can't deal with either

(A) Not knowing it all
or
(B) being wrong

And, it's not my ego we're having trouble with.

Jerry, I agreed with Rollie when he said the grounding conductor had to be increased in size. I DID NOT agree with him when he said it MIGHT be OK to use the smaller grounding conductor because the larger ungrounded conductor was used for reasons other than voltage drop. The NEC DOES NOT give you that option. And as a guy that gets on the board and whines and cries about the deficiencies of people in the trade because they don't do things to code you ought to know better. Can't admit you're wrong - OK, I don't really care.

Cut and paste the stuffing out of yourself. Doesn't change a thing. I'm on to the next issue.

Go ahead, get in that last word while you're at it

[Jerry Peck]

Ken and Bill,

Did you even bother reading what Rollie said?

And what he said it about?

[Rob Omstead]

In BC Canada you are permitted to have a larger size breaker for the wire size on space heating loads(under certain circumstances), sounds wrong but our code allows it.

[ken horak]

Quoted from Rollies post:
But you are required to upsize the grounding conductor when upsizing the ungrounded for voltage drop, the code is quite clear there, I would say if someone used some larger sized wire because that was on the truck not for voltage drop issues, it would just fine to use as -is we don't get to ignore a pretty clear rule just 'cause we don't like it......

The part in RED may be incorrect if he isa saying what I think he is saying.
If he is saying you can use a larger conductor for the ungrounded with out up sizing the grounding conductor, just because you have it laying around as opposed to needing it due to voltage drop. Then he is incorrect.

Why is that incorrect ?

Also from Rollies post:

Here is a refresher.
2008 NEC section 250.122(B)

"(B) Increased in Size. Where ungrounded conductors are
increased in size, equipment grounding conductors, where
installed, shall be increased in size proportionately according
to the circular mil area of the ungrounded conductors."

Where in that code article does it state the rule is only required when using larger conductors due to voltage drop and not when just using larger conductors just for the hell of it??

Like I said in my first post - You increase the ungrounded -you must increase the grounding proportionately.This is done by calculating the ratio of increase in circular mils. NOT by using table 250.122

[John Steinke]

Let's watch the language here ... I think we're confusing different code references to 'grounded' and 'grounding.'

Also note that the grounding conductor is sized according to different rules, (and different tables), which might very well result in the grounding conductor remaining the same size, though the other wires are increased a size or two.

I think we're getting into a technical area well beyond the scope, and competence, of a home inspection.

[Jerry Peck]

Ken, Bill,

Jeez guys, I know you guys are smarter than needing Electricity 101, but here goes ...

(underlining and bold are mine)
From the 2008 NEC:
- 250.122 Size of Equipment Grounding Conductors.
(A) General. Copper, aluminum, or copper-clad aluminum equipment grounding conductors of the wire type shall not be smaller than shown in Table 250.122, but in no case shall they be required to be larger than the circuit conductors supplying the equipment. Where a cable tray, a raceway, or a cable armor or sheath is used as the equipment grounding conductor, as provided in 250.118 and 250.134(A), it shall comply with 250.4(A)(5) or (B)(4).
(B) Increased in Size. Where ungrounded conductors are increased in size, equipment grounding conductors, where installed, shall be increased in size proportionately according to the circular mil area of the ungrounded conductors.

Okay, let me try to explain it to you again ...

(A) above specifies how to size the equipment grounding conductors.

(B) above specifies that if THERE IS A NEED to upsize the grounded conductors, then THAT SAME NEED is applied to upsizing the grounding conductors. But do not seem to: a) believe me; b) grasp it; c) or need some greater authority to explain it to you ... so ... I am presuming that you two have the Handbook ... right? ... so, here is that "greater authority":

From the 2008 NEC Handbook:
- Equipment grounding conductors on the load side of the service disconnecting means and overcurrent devices are sized based on the size of the feeder or branch-circuit overcurrent devices ahead of them. Where the ungrounded circuit conductors are increased in size to compensate for voltage drop or for any other reason related to proper circuit operation, the equipment grounding conductor must be increased proportionately.

Understand now?

It is not just me trying to explain that to you, it is the entire NFPA organization behind the approved NFPA NEC Handbook trying to explain it to you, saying ... Hey, guys, THIS IS WHAT WE MEAN by "upsize".

Ken, Bill, I don't just make this stuff up, I have back up support for it. READ IT. THINK ABOUT IT. I am sure you will understand it and the reason for it.

It is not just me, and it is not just Rollie and me, it is the way it is, based on the authority behind the NEC.

Instead of trying to convince me that I am wrong and that I should just roll over and accept your wrong interpretation, you guys NEED TO READ THE BACK UP SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FIRST.

Now, though, it is your turn to do as you were telling me to do ... admit you were wrong, accept it, then move on.

Jeez. :rolleyes:

[Jim Port]

OK, so where does the downsizing come into play? I only see it mentioned in Jerry's posts.

[Jerry Peck]

OK, so where does the downsizing come into play? I only see it mentioned in Jerry's posts.

Jim,

That's what I keep pointing out ... that no "upsizing" has occurred, only "downsizing" and "downsizing" is not even addressed in the NEC ... which I am sure you also read in my posts.

One can run a #8 to a receptacle, and because the terminals are not rated for accepting a #8, one can "downsize" the conductor by connecting to a #14 with a wire nut (or other approved wire connector) so that the #14 will fit into the terminal of the receptacle.

Ken and Bill are trying to say that the #14 'has been upsized' to a #8 when in fact the the #8 'has been downsized' to a #14.

I keep pointing out that the code does not address the above (does not address "downsizing"), other than to state that the #14 is to be protected by a 15 amp rated overcurrent protective device or smaller, which means the #8 is also protected by that same 15 amp overcurrent device.

[Jim Port]

After reading that view it still seems clear, as others have said, that the EGC would need to be upsized to correlate with the increased size of the ungrounded conductors.

The only point of ambiguity that I could see was if a larger conductor size were run and it was not for voltage drop issues, but as a matter of using what was on hand. Since this would not fit either the condition of for proper circuit operation, nor for VD, I could see how someone could take the stance that there is no need to upsize the EGC in this instance. I believe it was Ken that takes the opposing opinion.

[Jerry Peck]

After reading that view it still seems clear, as others have said, that the EGC would need to be upsized to correlate with the increased size of the ungrounded conductors.

The only point of ambiguity that I could see was if a larger conductor size were run and it was not for voltage drop issues, but as a matter of using what was on hand. Since this would not fit either the condition of for proper circuit operation, nor for VD, I could see how someone could take the stance that there is no need to upsize the EGC in this instance.

Jim,

You do realize that if both paragraphs are responding to what I posted that they are contradictory, don't you?

The first saying that, if that is the case, the EGC would need to be upsized, while the second saying that, it that is the case the EGC would not need to be upsized.


I believe it was Ken that takes the opposing opinion.

Ken and Bill both have staked out and taken that opposing opinion.

The NEC Handbook, myself, Rollie, and now possibly you (not sure based you your two contradictory paragraphs) have taken the position that it was not done for any "need" (such as voltage drop or some other reason to make the circuit work properly) then upsizing the EGC is not necessary.

Still waiting to hear from Ken and Bill after they have read what the Handbook said on it.

[Rollie Meyers]

I have to retract my statement about upsizing, there does seem to be no exception to upsizing the grounding conductor when upsizing the ungrounded, my mistake, will not be my 1st & will not be my last mistake.:(

Thank you, Ken.

[ken horak]

JP
I see you now have a handbook.
I also see you fail to acknowledge the fact that when one increases the size of the circuit conductors one must calculate the size based on circular mils NOT by table 250.122, as explained in the commentary you quoted 1/2 of.
This goes to your first argument of using a # 10 grounding conductor on a 60 amp circuit.
Which is wrong.

Then you realize you are incorrect and in true Peck fashion you just twist off the original topic and come up with some off the wall twist , that I don't think you even believe, but can not admit your incorrect.
Lets get real here your saying thqat if I run #8 conductors from 15 ampere circuit breaker then splice 14 at the receptacle , you can use a 14 grounding conductor the ENTIRE way because you " downsized"?
WRONG!
The circuit conductors are # 8 which are considered increased in size. Thus one must do the calculation to determine the "Proportionately sized" grounding conductor, which turns out to be a # 8.

When you "downsize" the conductors by splicing #14 conductors to them at the receptacle. You also use a # 14 grounding conductor. You have taken the increased circuit conductors back to the normal allowable size thus you would also take the ground back to a 14, as the grounding conductor does not need to be larger then the circuit conductors( which are now #14 ).

You size your grounding conductors according to 250.122 by using either table 250.122 ( when you have not increased the ungrounded conductors in size) or by calculating the size ( when increase in size of grounded conductors occur)

When you wish to discuss this as a professional let me know until then ........

[ken horak]

I have to retract my statement about upsizing, there does seem to be no exception to upsizing the grounding conductor when upsizing the ungrounded, my mistake, will not be my 1st & will not be my last mistake.:(

Thank you, Ken.

No foul - No harm :)

[Bill Kriegh]

Once upon a time in these very forums, there was a lengthy discussion about tape being a permanent marking on wire. Although the code handbook specifically lists tape as an option, we have a "master" inspector type that preaches that tape isn't permanent and since the NEC doesn't specifically list tape as an option you can't use it. This in spite of the fact it is a common and accepted practice.

Now comes this same inspector type grabbing verbage from the same handbook, which by the way has no force of law anyplace I'm aware of, and is attempting to use it as a way to "prove" that a statement taken directly from the code book doesn't mean what it says. This in spite of the fact the NEC code language is a common, accepted, and enforced practice.

My opinion is simple. The code language is unambiguous. The rule has NO exceptions listed in the NEC. The code language is trade practice. The code language is law where the NEC is adopted. The handbook language partially contradicts what the code says. That makes it wrong - wouldn't be the first or will it be the last time. And, Jerry doesn't get to cherry pick what he's willing to accept or not as the rule of law from the handbook depending on whether or not he's on the loosing side of an argument.

Some of us are here to learn, others appear to be here simply to let us know they already know it all.

[Jim Port]

Jim,

That's what I keep pointing out ... that no "upsizing" has occurred, only "downsizing" and "downsizing" is not even addressed in the NEC ... which I am sure you also read in my posts.

One can run a #8 to a receptacle, and because the terminals are not rated for accepting a #8, one can "downsize" the conductor by connecting to a #14 with a wire nut (or other approved wire connector) so that the #14 will fit into the terminal of the receptacle.

Ken and Bill are trying to say that the #14 'has been upsized' to a #8 when in fact the the #8 'has been downsized' to a #14.

I keep pointing out that the code does not address the above (does not address "downsizing"), other than to state that the #14 is to be protected by a 15 amp rated overcurrent protective device or smaller, which means the #8 is also protected by that same 15 amp overcurrent device.

Using your example I agree that the wire is upsized as the load is only 15 amps. Not considering the voltage drop issue, since a #14 conductor is sufficient for the OCPD and you have run a larger conductor I don't see how this could be considered anything but upsizing.

Jerry, if you are saying 250.122 A nd B contradict each other I will have to disagree. The conditions stated are an OR condition. You would use (A) to size your EGC unless you have upsized for VD or proper circuit operation. If upsized for VD than (B) would have to be used as the sizing criteria. Logic conditions like AND and OR are commonly used and well understood. We probably make decisions like this every day at dinner. We are having roast beef AND mashed potatoes. Would you like peas or string beans? The fact of the vegetable choice does not affect that the meal is roast beef and potatoes. They are an additional condition.

[Jerry Peck]

Once upon a time in these very forums, there was a lengthy discussion about tape being a permanent marking on wire. Although the code handbook specifically lists tape as an option, we have a "master" inspector type that preaches that tape isn't permanent and since the NEC doesn't specifically list tape as an option you can't use it. This in spite of the fact it is a common and accepted practice.

Now comes this same inspector type grabbing verbage from the same handbook, which by the way has no force of law anyplace I'm aware of, and is attempting to use it as a way to "prove" that a statement taken directly from the code book doesn't mean what it says. This in spite of the fact the NEC code language is a common, accepted, and enforced practice.


And we now have that same other person, who swore by what the Handbook was allowing and disregarding what the code stated and who is not disregarding what the Handbook is saying and trying to now stick to the code.

*IF* you have noticed recently, *I* have stopped calling tape not suitable for permanent re-identification as the 2011 NEC will likely include that as a stated option.

On the other hand, we have Bill and Ken who flip-flop back and forth between the code, depending on which one supports their point of view.

The Handbook, in most places, are not adopted as enforceable code, in some place it is, however, in the places where the NEC is adopted and the Handbook is not - knowledgeable inspector are FIRST going to the Handbook to see what the INTENT of the NEC is.

And the INTENT of the NEC on this issue is as the Handbook states:
From the 2008 NEC Handbook:
- Equipment grounding conductors on the load side of the service disconnecting means and overcurrent devices are sized based on the size of the feeder or branch-circuit overcurrent devices ahead of them. Where the ungrounded circuit conductors are increased in size to compensate for voltage drop or for any other reason related to proper circuit operation, the equipment grounding conductor must be increased proportionately.

Bill, Ken, and sometimes Rollie,

Say what you want to, but the Handbook is used to find the INTENT of the NEC by knowledgeable inspectors and experts, heck, WHEN CONVENIENT FOR YOU ... you guys have also tried to use the Handbook to make the code support you ... and now you are trying to degrade the Handbook because IT DOES NOT support your opinion.

Note to Bill, Ken, Rollie: You will never again be able to trot out the Handbook as supporting you when it does not say exactly the same thing as the code as you have now just shot it down in your opinion in front of all of us. Beware of trying to use the Handbook to back you in the future.

[Jim Port]

The Handbook, in most places, are not adopted as enforceable code, in some place it is, however, in the places where the NEC is adopted and the Handbook is not - knowledgeable inspector are FIRST going to the Handbook to see what the INTENT of the NEC is.

Regardless of the intent, the only thing enforceable is what is written in the black and white.


And the INTENT of the NEC on this issue is as the Handbook states:
From the 2008 NEC Handbook:
- Equipment grounding conductors on the load side of the service disconnecting means and overcurrent devices are sized based on the size of the feeder or branch-circuit overcurrent devices ahead of them. Where the ungrounded circuit conductors are increased in size to compensate for voltage drop or for any other reason related to proper circuit operation, the equipment grounding conductor must be increased proportionately.

Could you please post where anyone has said anything contradictory to this except yourself in post #16?


... proportionally ... and the proportional up-size is ALLOWED to remain at a 10 AWG for the equipment grounding conductor for NM cable with up to 60 amp overcurrent protection.

Or in post #18


Rollie,

Here is the reason and the logic for that, directly from the NEC Handbook.
- "Equipment grounding conductors on the load side of the service disconnecting means and overcurrent devices ARE SIZED BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE FEEDER OR BRANCH-CIRCUIT OVERCURRENT DEVICES ahead of them."

Thus, when you up-size the ungrounded conductor you need to up-size the grounding conductor to a compatible and suitable size for the overcurrent protection rating, however, in the 30 amp to 60 amp overcurrent protection rating range, ... the size of the grounding conductor remains the same ... so the up-sizing is built in to match the size of the feeder or branch-circuit overcurrent device, which is what the grounding conductor size is sized on.

[Bill Kriegh]

Gee, Bill never dragged out the handbook in the tape argument. Seems to me like it was a certain inspector reading things into the code language that weren't there - namely a prohibition on tape. Code never prohibited tape, Jerry did - to the point you were a jack legged idiot if you used it. I can assure you the quality of the tape didn't change between the language in the 2008 NEC and the draft of the 2011 NEC. What got to be a problem that needed attention was too many guys like Jerry. That same problems exists here - reading stuff into the code that isn't there.

I'm guilty of lots of stuff, and will be of more, but Jerry doesn't get to add to it at will.

[Bill Kriegh]

Bill, Ken, and sometimes Rollie,
Say what you want to, but the Handbook is used to find the INTENT of the NEC by knowledgeable inspectors and experts

Jerry, it occurs to me if you really believed that the tape issue would never have come up in the first place

[Jerry Peck]

Gee, Bill never dragged out the handbook in the tape argument. Seems to me like it was a certain inspector reading things into the code language that weren't there - namely a prohibition on tape. Code never prohibited tape, Jerry did - to the point you were a jack legged idiot if you used it. I can assure you the quality of the tape didn't change between the language in the 2008 NEC and the draft of the 2011 NEC. What got to be a problem that needed attention was too many guys like Jerry. That same problems exists here - reading stuff into the code that isn't there.

I'm guilty of lots of stuff, and will be of more, but Jerry doesn't get to add to it at will.

Bill,

Let me get this straight ...

1) You were against the wording of the code because you had another opinion. (Regarding the tape not being acceptable for permanent marking because tape is not permanent, the tape manufacturers even acknowledged that, and I posted that too.)

2) You are for the wording of the code because you have the same opinion. (Regarding this upsizing issue.)

So ... you are ... or are not ... (I can't keep track of your flip-flopping) ... a supporter of the WORDING of the code, and to heck with the Handbook?

Please think your answer over carefully :rolleyes: as you will be saying that some of your posts were wrong ... which ever answer you give. :eek:

See, with me, I go by the wording of the code, and when the wording changes, as it will be regarding the tape, then I change too.

By the way, the reason the code is changing is, yes, IS changing is because of people like me who actually read the code and go by what it says. And now you are trying to make that into a bad thing? Sheesh. :rolleyes:

By the way, the wording of the code regarding the upsizing issue DOES support what I am saying, and what the Handbook is saying, and, yes, it seems that it will take yet another code change to make it so people like Bill, Ken, and others also understand it. Maybe they will simply put in a definition of "upsizing/upsize" to clarify that it is based on "Gosh, I need to UPSIZE this wire for ... (voltage drop or some other reason to make the circuit operate properly)." and that it is not "upsizing" when one simply chooses to use a larger size wire "just because" and there is no compelling reason to do so for the operation of the circuit.

But, here we are again, back to debating the INTENT of the code, which is some think YOU bring up frequently when the code WORDING does not state what you want it to state, and then out comes the Handbook or something to try to support something other than what the WORDING of the code says.

Bill, it is best if you simply chalk this one up in the 'lost' column and then throw your Handbook away. :D

[Bill Kriegh]

See, with me, I go by the wording of the code, and when the wording changes, as it will be regarding the tape, then I change too.

No Jerry, you go with whatever you think will keep you from looking like a fool and don't always succeed.

No doubt in my mind you know some of your business pretty well. The rest you seem to make up as you go along.

[Jim Port]

See, with me, I go by the wording of the code, and when the wording changes, as it will be regarding the tape, then I change too.

By the way, the reason the code is changing is, yes, IS changing is because of people like me who actually read the code and go by what it says. And now you are trying to make that into a bad thing? Sheesh. :rolleyes:



Regarding the tape issue, this sounds more like what myself and others here have said that tape is "an other effective means" to identify a conductors purpose. This does not seem to support your previous view that tape was not a compliant method since it is now apparently going to be specifically mentioned as an approved means.

Sounds more like an example of needing to spell things out for people that don't or can't understand the nuances of a complex document or without experience in the field. Just another example of dumbing things down instead of the bar being raised through education and competent teaching.

[Jim Port]

The Handbook, in most places, are not adopted as enforceable code, in some place it is, however, in the places where the NEC is adopted and the Handbook is not - knowledgeable inspector are FIRST going to the Handbook to see what the INTENT of the NEC is.

While the Handbook is written by extremely knowledgeable people it is only the authors opinion as to the intent of the CMP's. There is also more than one Handbook. Suppose the opinions expressed differed between authors. Who is now the correct interpretation?

The wide distribution of the Handbook just makes it an easier reference than asking for an opinion from the NFPA and is available in much more timely manner.

[ken horak]

Mr. Peck-
First you are quite incorrect in saying I am troting out the handbook for support of my posts!

I have made 2 yes thats TWO - 2 references to the handbook .

#1 - post number 29 I referenced the handbook by stating The hanbook has a nice example of .......
Now gee thats not using the handbook trying support statements of code, just pointing out there is an example for reference or clarification of what I was posting - the same as commentary

#2 - Post # 50 - I referenced YOUR cutting and pasting of commentary from the code book as a code reference.

As far as me using the handbook and it NOT being the code, might want to look into that closer. I use the 2008 NEC Handbook, Published by the NFPA. It contains the entire text of the NEC, word for word, plus commentary which is clearly identified. (I know the difference between commentary and the code)

Next time you wish to accuse get the facts straight

[Rollie Meyers]

I have never used the NEC Handbook in support of a post, as I do not even own a current or near current edition, & am quite aware that not a bloody thing in the handbook is enforcable, simply a opinion of the author(s).

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

And we now have that same other person, who swore by what the Handbook was allowing and disregarding what the code stated and who is not disregarding what the Handbook is saying and trying to now stick to the code.

*IF* you have noticed recently, *I* have stopped calling tape not suitable for permanent re-identification as the 2011 NEC will likely include that as a stated option (*1)

On the other hand, we have Bill and Ken who flip-flop back and forth between the code, depending on which one supports their point of view.

The Handbook, in most places, are not adopted as enforceable code, in some place it is, however, in the places where the NEC is adopted and the Handbook is not - knowledgeable inspector are FIRST going to the Handbook to see what the INTENT of the NEC is (*2).

And the INTENT of the NEC on this issue is as the Handbook states:
From the 2008 NEC Handbook:
- Equipment grounding conductors on the load side of the service disconnecting means and overcurrent devices are sized based on the size of the feeder or branch-circuit overcurrent devices ahead of them. Where the ungrounded circuit conductors are increased in size to compensate for voltage drop or for any other reason related to proper circuit operation, the equipment grounding conductor must be increased proportionately.

Bill, Ken, and sometimes Rollie,

Say what you want to, but the Handbook is used to find the INTENT of the NEC by knowledgeable inspectors and experts, heck, WHEN CONVENIENT FOR YOU ... you guys have also tried to use the Handbook to make the code support you ... and now you are trying to degrade the Handbook because IT DOES NOT support your opinion.

Note to Bill, Ken, Rollie: You will never again be able to trot out the Handbook as supporting you when it does not say exactly the same thing as the code as you have now just shot it down in your opinion in front of all of us. Beware of trying to use the Handbook to back you in the future.


Once upon a time in these very forums, there was a lengthy discussion about tape being a permanent marking on wire. Although the code handbook specifically lists tape as an option (*3), we have a "master" inspector type that preaches that tape isn't permanent and since the NEC doesn't specifically list tape as an option you can't use it. This in spite of the fact it is a common and accepted practice.

Now comes this same inspector type grabbing verbage from the same handbook, which by the way has no force of law anyplace I'm aware of, and is attempting to use it as a way to "prove" that a statement taken directly from the code book doesn't mean what it says. This in spite of the fact the NEC code language is a common, accepted, and enforced practice.

My opinion is simple. The code language is unambiguous. The rule has NO exceptions listed in the NEC. The code language is trade practice. The code language is law where the NEC is adopted. The handbook language partially contradicts what the code says. That makes it wrong - wouldn't be the first or will it be the last time. And, Jerry doesn't get to cherry pick what he's willing to accept or not as the rule of law from the handbook depending on whether or not he's on the loosing side of an argument.

Some of us are here to learn, others appear to be here simply to let us know they already know it all.

JP: (1) When was this revelation? You were still carring on about this on 8/20/09 continuing to claim that painting was the only effective permanent means! I pointed out to you IN THE NEC (NOT the handbook) where permanent means was defined as taping for identification, using ADHESIVE LABELS, TAGING OR OTHER permanent means.

See: http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/inspectionblues-home-inspectors-commercial-inspectors/13476-few-questions.html#post89241


If you have paid any attention at all to what I have been saying, you would understand that I have been saying, and am still saying ... TAPE "is not permanent".

See: http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/inspectionblues-home-inspectors-commercial-inspectors/13476-few-questions.html#post97486


Oh, and by the way if using tape or adhesive labels weren't a permanent means of identification, the CODE wouldn't provide it as one, which it actually does.

For example 210.5(C) specifically mentions marking TAPE as an approved means for identification by separate color coding.

215.12(C) also specifically mentions means of identification to be by separate color coding, marking TAPE, TAGGING, or other approved means. Paint and markers are not mentioned there.

250.119(B) "at the time of installation, shall be permitted to be permanently identified...at each end and at every point where the conductors are accessible by one of the following means....

...(3) Marking the exposed insulation with green TAPEor green ADHESIVE LABLES[/COLOR]."

Tape is listed for that purpose in electrical installations/equipment. Show me a paint or marker that is.

There is nothing that is less-than permanent regarding the application of aforementioned approved and listed tapes as marking tape or adhesive labels.

JP: (2) The Handbook is NOT consensus developed, is NOT written by the CMPs it is compiled by the editiors and is NOT to be used to determine the INTENT of the NEC. Try reading the introduction, it specifically warns AGAINST what you are now asserting (regarding the use of the Handbook).

BK: (3) We don't have to look to the "handbook", we can find it in the CODE itself AND the LISTINGS for the TAPE itself.

I'm quite tired of these "king of the hill" "last word" and these edicts from the self-proclaimed super duper code inspector/litigation consultant wannabe. You never admit you don't have a leg to stand on, or when you're just plain obviously and outright wrong. Twist warp and be whatever. Those that know, know when you've placed your foot and mouth where the thumb is; most don't BOTHER reading through to see when you totally hang yourself. Sadly those that don't can't tell your head is up your backside or when you're being otherwise creative with a lower orifice.

[Jerry Peck]

I'm quite tired of these "king of the hill" "last word" and these edicts from the self-proclaimed super duper code inspector/litigation consultant wannabe.





H.G.,

So, then, you are quite tired of yourself?

Sounds like the same thing others have been saying about you and your posts recently.

I am delaying responding with additional posts about the "upsizing" issue until I receive a response back from my inquiry to the NFPA about it, which I will post here.

It will either show:
1) That I am correct and you ... along with Bill and Ken are wrong, or
2) That I am wrong and that Bill and Ken are correct.

Either way, I have asked the question of NFPA and will post their response.

While I fully expect the response to be the same as the Handbook, I will post the response WHICHEVER WAY IT COME BACK.

If I am wrong, I am wrong.

If I am not wrong, then you are (as you seem to have chimed in and sided with Bill and Ken).

We shall see who is correct and I will post it here for all to see ... like it or not.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

JP: (1) When was this revelation? You were still carring on about this on 8/20/09 continuing to claim that painting was the only effective permanent means! I pointed out to you IN THE NEC (NOT the handbook) where permanent means was defined as taping for identification, using ADHESIVE LABELS, TAGING OR OTHER permanent means.

See: http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/inspectionblues-home-inspectors-commercial-inspectors/13476-few-questions.html#post89241


See: http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/inspectionblues-home-inspectors-commercial-inspectors/13476-few-questions.html#post97486


JP: (2) The Handbook is NOT consensus developed, is NOT written by the CMPs it is compiled by the editiors and is NOT to be used to determine the INTENT of the NEC. Try reading the introduction, it specifically warns AGAINST what you are now asserting (regarding the use of the Handbook).

BK: (3) We don't have to look to the "handbook", we can find it in the CODE itself AND the LISTINGS for the TAPE itself.

I'm quite tired of these "king of the hill" "last word" and these edicts from the self-proclaimed super duper code inspector/litigation consultant wannabe. You never admit you don't have a leg to stand on, or when you're just plain obviously and outright wrong. Twist warp and be whatever. Those that know, know when you've placed your foot and mouth where the thumb is; most don't BOTHER reading through to see when you totally hang yourself. Sadly those that don't can't tell your head is up your backside or when you're being otherwise creative with a lower orifice.

PROMISES PROMISES. WHEN WAS YOUR REVELATION THAT "MARKING WITH PAINT OR A MARKER WAS THE ONLY EFFECTIVE PERMANENT MEANS" POSITION WAS WRONG JERRY PECK?

WHERE WAS IT TO BE NOTICED THAT YOU CHANGED YOUR POSITION?

Were we to assume this when you didn't take the "last word" on the aforementioned and linked topic string?

I'm not taking any position on this thread except what I have actually stated. You are NOT invited to interpret what I do or say, frankly you aren't QUALIFIED to do so.

[Marc France]

JP.,

I will speak in two langunes here.,

Je l'observation été celui-ci et me laisse vous dire de mon côté français le code suis de l'exchat le même comme le code de NEC exposé pour remarquer les conducteurs et nous utilisons la bande colorée, perament des marqueurs et d'autres moyens pour rencontrer(respecter) le code.

Maintenant parlant d'upsizing le conducteur dû la chute de tension nous faisons avec mal fondé et fondé et des conducteurs de base je allready a traité avec cela dû je travaille(marche) sur quelques parking luminaire et la distance peut aller tout Ã* fait un peu {cela non trop commun pour se lever 1 kilomètre ou plus}

I been watching this one and let me tell you from my French side the code is about the excat the same as the NEC code stated for remarking the conductors and we use color tape , perament markers and other means to meet the code.

Now speaking about upsizing the conductor due the voltage drop we do with ungrounded and grounded and grounding conductors I allready dealt with that due I work on quite few parking lot luminaire and the distance can go quite a bit { it not too common to get up 1 kilometer or more }

Merci,Marc

[Dan Harris]

Did we ever get an answer to this question? :D

Over the past week or so my curiosity has been peaked with the true identity of HG Watson Sr. He or she does not exist outside of this discussion board, I'm starting to think that HG is the alter ego of a troubled person.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Check a profile.

Try PM.

Try ASKING.
SP learned a long time ago with his EW wannabe status. P.E. Ph.D. trumps a nobody.

DH = ?? and head in ...????

Sponsor has a nice graphic, shows up on every page (Head in...)

http://www.costofbusiness.com/

[Jerry Peck]

Now speaking about upsizing the conductor due the voltage drop


Marc,

Yes, that would be "upsizing", but that is not what is being discussed.

I don't know French, but I did post it clearly in English for those who read and understand English, do you?

Your post makes me wonder whether or not you understood English as written in my posts.

Regarding the NEC and re-identifying conductors ... re-identifying a black, red, or other ungrounded conductor color to white for grounded conductor has been allowed to not be "permanent", it was the reverse, re-identifying a white conductor for ungrounded conductor use which required "permanent" re-identification, and specified "by painting" "or other effective means", and even the tape manufacturers stated that tape was not "permanent", however ... the code changes likely to go into effect in the 2011 NEC changes re-identifying white conductors to an ungrounded conductor use color to specifically include "tape", and thus, what that was found out to be virtually a "done deal", then my argument for insisting that "permanent" meant, as the code wording said "painting" has dropped by the wayside because the code will (in the 2011 NEC) accept non-permanent tape re-identification of white conductors.

Currently, though, the requirement and wording STILL specifically specify and state "permanent" and "by painting", although that is on its way out, so I have accepted that.

It seems, however, that Bill and H.G., seem to not have grasped that I have accepted that change here in 2009 when that change WILL NOT BE EFFECTIVE UNTIL 2011. While NOT BEING EFFECTIVE UNTIL 2011, that is the way the code is going, looser with a less stringent requirement, by it own wording change, so if taping *will be* (it is not yet) considered "safe enough" in 2011, then it must therefore be "safe enough" now, even though no allowed by the 2008 NEC. It is simply acknowledging that if it is going to be considered "safe enough" in 2011, then it must be "safe enough" now.

Which is no different than when we inspect older homes where codes have changed and things done "back then" have been deemed "not safe enough" and changed, and thus were not "safe enough" back then, only no on knew it, but we do today, so we address it today and advise our clients of that knowledge today.

"Safety" does not know "time" nor does it read code books to know what is allowed when, if something is no longer considered "safe enough" now, then we can be assured that an OLD INSTALLATION is even less than "safe enough".

Being as it works both ways, determining that something WILL BE CONSIDERED "safe enough" in 2 years is a good indication that it is considered "safe enough" now.

I know I've just stated the same thing in a couple of different ways, but there are a few people here who seem to have a problem with English, so I figured I would try a few different wordings to see if it helps them understand what is being written. Seems that some PhD/PE people have difficulty reading and understanding English ... and it seems that some PhD people think that PhD means something other than Piled Higher and Deeper and that by that Piled Higher and Deeper PhD they are therefore smarter, even though they come across is being less than smart. :rolleyes:

[Marc France]

Marc,

Yes, that would be "upsizing", but that is not what is being discussed.

I don't know French, but I did post it clearly in English for those who read and understand English, do you?

Your post makes me wonder whether or not you understood English as written in my posts.

Je comprends vraiment ce que vous dites ici et je suis assez bon avec l'anglais et très bien parlé en français

I do understand what you are saying here and I am pretty good with engish and very well spoken in French





Regarding the NEC and re-identifying conductors ... re-identifying a black, red, or other ungrounded conductor color to white for grounded conductor has been allowed to not be "permanent", it was the reverse, re-identifying a white conductor for ungrounded conductor use which required "permanent" re-identification, and specified "by painting" "or other effective means", and even the tape manufacturers stated that tape was not "permanent", however ... the code changes likely to go into effect in the 2011 NEC changes re-identifying white conductors to an ungrounded conductor use color to specifically include "tape", and thus, what that was found out to be virtually a "done deal", then my argument for insisting that "permanent" meant, as the code wording said "painting" has dropped by the wayside because the code will (in the 2011 NEC) accept non-permanent tape re-identification of white conductors.

Currently, though, the requirement and wording STILL specifically specify and state "permanent" and "by painting", although that is on its way out, so I have accepted that.

Ok je peux voir votre point de vue cependant si vous êtes conscients combien d'états adopteront le nouveau code tout de suite ? ? IMO non très vite et belive moi les états ont quelques changements le long de la voie. Le plus commencera Ã* l'adopter après 2012 pas avant que l'histoire ne répète comme 2008 NEC le cycle de code.


Ok I can see your point of view however if you are aware how many states will adopt the new code right away ?? IMO not very fast and belive me the states have some changes along the way. most will start adopting it after 2012 not before the history will repeat just like 2008 NEC code cycle.




I know I've just stated the same thing in a couple of different ways, but there are a few people here who seem to have a problem with English, so I figured I would try a few different wordings to see if it helps them understand what is being written. Seems that some PhD/PE people have difficulty reading and understanding English ... and it seems that some PhD people think that PhD means something other than Piled Higher and Deeper and that by that Piled Higher and Deeper PhD they are therefore smarter, even though they come across is being less than smart. :rolleyes:

Je laisserai cette partie ouverte et laisserai d'autres membres répondre ici Ã* celui-ci.

I will leave this part open and let other members here reply this one.

Merci,Marc

[Cobra Cook]

Danelle I hope all of the bull-s--t that has been posted with your question about a 12 wire on a 15 amp circuit has not con"fused" you too much. It is a good question and it is ok to do that, it will not hurt any thing and in most cases it will not help any thing. Just remember that it is still a 15 amp circuit so do not start replacing your 15 amp receptacles with 20 amp receptacles. Most house hold wiring is done in 12 now anyway for the receptacle circuits and the lighting is in 14 but not in all cases. most good electrical contractors just use 12 for both. The problem that could exist in your place is, was part of the circuit in 14? If so just make sure to keep the breaker or fuse at 15 amps only.

[Jerry Peck]

Ok I can see your point of view however if you are aware how many states will adopt the new code right away ?? IMO not very fast and belive me the states have some changes along the way. most will start adopting it after 2012 not before the history will repeat just like 2008 NEC code cycle.

Marc,

I understand what you are saying, but my point is that if the nationally respected association which produces the National Electrical Code reduces a standard to a lower level after determining that the lower level is 'safe enough', then it was inherently 'safe enough' from day one (because 'safety' does not read the code, nor even care what it says). If all those people who are a lot smarter than me say 'Hey, we didn't REALLY MEAN "permanent" when we said "permanent", we were just kidding, non-permanent tape really is okay, really.' ... then I am listening to them.

[Jim Port]

After reading that view it still seems clear, as others have said, that the EGC would need to be upsized to correlate with the increased size of the ungrounded conductors.

The only point of ambiguity that I could see was if a larger conductor size were run and it was not for voltage drop issues, but as a matter of using what was on hand. Since this would not fit either the condition of for proper circuit operation, nor for VD, I could see how someone could take the stance that there is no need to upsize the EGC in this instance. I believe it was Ken that takes the opposing opinion.

I would like to change my view about the ambiguity of the need to upsize the grounding conductor. According to 250.122(B) this is no condition based on voltage drop or for the practical operation of the circuit. It is very clear to me that I should have read Rollies post #9 more closely.


Here is something from the 2008 NEC section 250.122(B)

"(B) Increased in Size. Where ungrounded conductors are
increased in size, equipment grounding conductors, where
installed, shall be increased in size proportionately according
to the circular mil area of the ungrounded conductors."

This is unchanged from the 2002 & 2005 editions.

This is a big issue when over sizing conductors, & in some cases would disallow the use of NM & UF cables.


Instead of being swayed by this.


And the INTENT of the NEC on this issue is as the Handbook states:
From the 2008 NEC Handbook:
- Equipment grounding conductors on the load side of the service disconnecting means and overcurrent devices are sized based on the size of the feeder or branch-circuit overcurrent devices ahead of them. Where the ungrounded circuit conductors are increased in size to compensate for voltage drop or for any other reason related to proper circuit operation, the equipment grounding conductor must be increased proportionately.

Bill, Ken, and sometimes Rollie,

Say what you want to, but the Handbook is used to find the INTENT of the NEC by knowledgeable inspectors and experts, heck, WHEN CONVENIENT FOR YOU ... you guys have also tried to use the Handbook to make the code support you ... and now you are trying to degrade the Handbook because IT DOES NOT support your opinion.

Seems to me the Handbook authors did not read the actual wording of what the Code requires and instead applied artifical conditions that cannot be supported by the Code. Looks like INTENT took us in the wrong direction.

[Jim Port]

I can't believe it, over 24 hours and no replies.

Do I get a prize for getting in the last word? :) What was the previous record?

[ken horak]

word :D

[Jerry Peck]

I'm still waiting on a full reply from NFPA.

So far I have received this: "I have forwarded your question to our electrical code liaison."

Before replying to the musings of others, I will wait to reply with the reply from NFPA.

[Bill Kriegh]

The following is why I expect no formal NFPA response to Jerry's request. This is a partial copy of the NFPA comittee rules governing interpretations. Please note 6.1.2 and 6.1.4 (C)

Note that the following is © NFPA and is used for informational purposes only

Responses to requests for interpretation are provided by NFPA staff on an informal basis. This allows a timely response that in almost all cases adequately addresses the need for information. A request for an interpretation may, however, be processed on a more formal basis if so desired. This involves balloting the responsible NFPA technical committee, and requires an extended processing time and may not result in an answer if consensus cannot be established. This is referred to as a "Formal Interpretation", and it is used in only limited cases. Refer to Section 6 of the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects (http://www.inspectionnews.net/itemDetail.asp?categoryID=164&itemID=18021).


Section 6 Formal Interpretations.
6.1 General. Formal Interpretations are for the purpose of providing
formal explanations of the meaning or intent of the TC on
any specific provision or provisions of any Document.
6.1.1 Limitations. A statement, written or oral, that is not processed
in accordance with Section 6 of these Regulations shall
not be considered the official position of NFPA or any of its TCs
and shall not be considered to be, nor be relied upon as, a Formal
Interpretation.
NOTE: This Formal Interpretation procedure does not prevent
any Chair, Member, or the Staff Liaison from expressing
a personal opinion on the meaning or intent of the TC on any
provision of any such Document, provided that: (a) the person
rendering the opinion orally or in writing clearly states that the
opinion is personal and does not necessarily represent the position
of the TC or the Association and may not be considered to
be or relied upon as such; and (b) written opinions are rendered
only in response to written requests and a copy of the request and
the response is sent to the Staff Liaison.
6.1.2 Nature of Formal Interpretations. Requests for Formal Interpretations
shall be clearly worded so as to solicit a Yes or No
answer from the TC and TCC.
6.1.3 Editions to be Interpreted. Interpretations shall be rendered
only on the text of the current or immediate prior edition
of the Document.
6.1.4 Reasons for Not Processing. A request for an Interpretation
shall not be processed if it:
(a) Involves a determination of compliance of a design, installation,
or product or equivalency of protection
(b) Involves a review of plans or specifications, or requires
judgment or knowledge that can only be acquired as a result of
on-site inspection
(c) Involves text that clearly and decisively provides the requested
information

250.122(B) is one of the most clear and decisive passages in the NEC.

[Jim Port]

Thank you BK. You said what I was thinking.

I was mislead by not reading exactly what was written in the Code book articles as posted. I never delved deeper because the Handbook text seemed to agree with what I remembered from a previous edition of the actual code.

[Jerry Peck]

I am delaying responding with additional posts about the "upsizing" issue until I receive a response back from my inquiry to the NFPA about it, which I will post here.

It will either show:
1) That I am correct and you ... along with Bill and Ken are wrong, or
2) That I am wrong and that Bill and Ken are correct.

Either way, I have asked the question of NFPA and will post their response.

While I fully expect the response to be the same as the Handbook, I will post the response WHICHEVER WAY IT COME BACK.

If I am wrong, I am wrong.

If I am not wrong, then you are (as you seem to have chimed in and sided with Bill and Ken).

We shall see who is correct and I will post it here for all to see ... like it or not.

Here is their response - got it today:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Cloutier, Mark [mailto:mcloutier@NFPA.org]
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 10:19 AM
To: codeman@AskCodeMan.com
Cc: jcarpenter@iaei.org; Johnston, Michael; Henderson, Carol
Subject: RE: NEC 250.122 (Log #29202)MC

To: Jerry Peck
Date: 12/22/09

This is in reply to your email concerning the National Electrical Code®. The NFPA electrical staff cannot approve a particular design or arrangement, comment on workmanship issues, review or perform calculations for compliance. Issues of compliance are the responsibility of the Authority Having Jurisdiction, but I can provide some general remarks.

Section 250.122(B) requires an equipment grounding conductor (EGC) on the load side of an overcurrent device to be increased in size wherever the associated ungrounded conductors are increased in size. The increase in size of the EGC must be done proportionately according to the circular mil area of the ungrounded conductors. Once the ungrounded conductors are increased in size for whatever reason deemed necessary, 250.122(A) is no longer applicable and the requisite requirements of 250.122(B) are required.

Mark Cloutier
NFPA Senior Electrical Engineer

Important notice! This correspondence is not a Formal Interpretation issued pursuant to NFPA Regulations. Any opinion expressed is the personal opinion of the author, and does not necessarily represent the official position of the NFPA or its Technical Committees. In addition, this correspondence is neither intended, nor should be relied upon, to provide professional consultation or services.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The response DOES NOT coincide with the statements in the NEC Handbook, which is what I based my statements on, therefore the Handbook and I are both wrong.

As I said, like it or not, I will post the answer. :cool:

I posted the answer, you will probably like it. :D

[Roger Frazee]

Thought I would reply to see if we can beat mike holts record of 85 posts on this argument of 250.122(b).

But since I replied I'm sorry but I am having a difficult time understanding why "for any reason".. makes sense....as to the intent of the cmp's language. Are we saying if I need to run a 40 amp feeder and I don't have any # 8 nm on the truck that I would not be able to run # 6 nm because it doesn't have a # 8 egc?? Using Kens calculation method I would need an egc equal to 1.59 x 10380cm = 16504cm = # 8 awg egc.

I could swear that in earlier codes prior to 2002 the language was "upsized for reasons like voltage drop" if that is correct why the language change / Or / if a language change why would the intent change ?

The reply from nfpa states "deemed necessary" .. isn't it a stretch to say that means for any reason??

Why would the intent be to say a # 10 awg doesn't cut it for a 40 amp circuit on #6 unless there is a reason to force the egc to be upsized? Otherwise if I later install a 50 amp breaker for more load capacity on the # 6 I can now have a # 10 egc...?????

IMO the language is not reflecting the intent and causing confusion. I would like to think that the intent has to be based on some reason to force an egc upsize. If I need a 40 amp circuit and I can't install it on 8 awg because the distance is too great for Vd reasons then if I have to place a fatter wire on the 40 amp breaker to adjust for VD in the ungrounded conductors then I would likewise have to upsize my egc to insure the low impedance for opening the protective device so it would not burn through on fault.

Am I to think that if I install a 40 amp range branch circuit on 6 awg with 10 awg ground nm-b because I don't have any # 8 on the truck I am in violation of 250.122(B) ? Surely this isn't the intent.....

MY thinking has always been table 250.122 is for sizing the egc when there aren't any reasons or applications deemed necessary to change the size of the egc.

250.122(A) says in no case shall the egc be larger than the ungrounded conductors or words to that effect. Isn't that saying that there must be the possibility of reasons that might require upsizing the egc?

[Roger Frazee]

I dug out my old paper back nec's ... 1999 250.122(b) Adjustment for voltage drop. When conductors are adjusted in size to compensate for voltage drop, equipment grounding conductors, where installed, shall be adjusted proportionately according to circular mil area.

Ok so there was only one reason to upsize the egc in 1999 so new language is now saying ' for any reason' ?? Why would fatter wire on a 40 amp branch circuit that has no reason or purpose 'deemed necessary' require a larger EGC ...?

[ken horak]

JP-
I received the same exact email from the same exact person yesterday also.
I ran into technical difficulties when trying to post it yesterday, hence my deleted post.

[Jerry Peck]

IMO the language is not reflecting the intent and causing confusion. I would like to think that the intent has to be based on some reason to force an egc upsize.


Roger,

I agree, and so does the Handbook, but ... the code and the response do not agree.

[Jerry Peck]

JP-
I received the same exact email from the same exact person yesterday also.
I ran into technical difficulties when trying to post it yesterday, hence my deleted post.


Ken,

I disagree with that response, as does the Handbook, but ... the response does repeat what the code itself says, so ...

... I've got to go with that response.

When I posted it, I had to remove all that extra font garbage which gets put in there, is that what happened when you tried to post it?

[ken horak]

JP-
Yep that was one issue, the other was my laptop was doing some screwy things at the time. I was going to repost it from home with the desktop,but didn't get a chance prior to your posting it.

[Kevin Kayden]

Hello;

As a first post here, hopefully people will be understanding about reigniting the big debate over a probably unheard of technical point (I tried to search), but I did have one more question regarding the Equipment Grounding Conductor.

According to NEC 250.122(A), it states, "equipment grounding conductors ... but in no case shall be required to be larger than the circuit conductors supplying the equipment." Does that mean that since the EGC is not "required" to be larger than the circuit conductor, it could be if somebody decided to do it anyway? As a ridiculous example, say a 2AWG EGC for a 15 amp circuit.

Further, according to 250.122(B), it states, "shall be increased in size proportionately according to the circular mil area of the ungrounded conductors." Since only 250.122(B) would now be considered with oversized current carrying conductors, does that mean that the EGC MUST be oversized in only that ratio, and could not be larger than the circuit conductor under any circumstances? And thus, for that 15 amp circuit, it could not be larger than the circuit conductor, since it must be "proportionately?"

[ken horak]

Keep in mind the NEC is the Minimum requirement allowed.
Thus oversizing your Grounding conductor is not a problem at all. The issue comes when one decides to increase in size the ungrounded conductors ( for what ever reason).


The use of the word Proportionately is the code making panels way of saying increase the size of the grounding conductor by the same proportion you increased the ungrounded conductor.This is the minimum requirement. If you chose to use a larger grounded conductor thats no big deal.
The code is telling you that you do not need to have a larger grounded conductor then the ungrounded conductor, but it can be if you so desire.

[Kevin Kayden]

Keep in mind the NEC is the Minimum requirement allowed.


Yes, sometimes when you're following their rules I forget that. Thanks for the help.

[Robert L. Ayers]

There have been many good responses why using a larger cable is not a good idea, even though it is not an inherent safety risk. The lower voltage drop occurs because larger a larger diameter wire has less resistance than a smaller wire.

On a pedantic note, a larger diameter wire has a larger capacitance than a smaller one. If used in AC applications, the larger wire will incur a power loss from the AC generator needing to drive the increased capacitance. For typical AC installations, the power savings from the lower impedance will be much greater than the loss from driving the increased capacitance; hence larger diameter wires can save power (and therefore money). However, for very long AC runs, the loss due to capacitance can be significant. This is why many long-distance power transmission systems (e.g., underwater power cables) now use HVDC (High Voltage Direct Current).

On the other hand, if the cable is intended for DC applications, capacitance is a non-issue and larger diameter wires can be very desirable. For example, when designing a low voltage DC outdoor lighting network, wire length is severely limited because of voltage drop. Larger diameter wires can extend the effective wire length from the transformer.

[bob smit]

All well said in this thread.
Whenever, as an electrician, I installed larger conductors for such as but not limited to: Volt-drop, #of conductors in a raceway, etc,
I would tag the conductor in the panel stating '20 amp max' for example.
I wish this would become a code requirement....what U fellas think of that idea?
Bob Smit, County Electrical Inspector