Thread: Number of Wires allowed in Wire Nut?

During recent renov of home, they tied all the bathroom and kitchen circuts together using a wire nut and a pigtail so they all could share a single GFCI breaker. Panel is full.

I counted 5 wires in and 1 pigtail out. Picture looks like 4 and 1. Even so, I think 5 wires is too many for a single wire nut. Can anyone confirm or deny my suspiscion of too many wires for a single wire nut?

Yeah, I know having all those circuits on one breaker is not a great idea. Just asking about the wire nut maximum number of wires.

Similar Threads:

• Wires in front of Service Entrance wires
• builders got my number?
• circuit wires in front of main service wires
• re; number of H.I. that bit the dust
• New York Passes Legislation Aimed at Reducing the Number of ... - Business Wire (pres

Is that #14 or #12 wire or is it a mixture of sizes? The packaging from the wirenuts should indicate how many of what size wires it can be used for.

It's good for 5-#12s...

Sorry have to disagree on the wire nut issue. Minor as far as I'm concerned.
The real issue is the full panel.
It already sounds like the panel needs 5 more breakers now. If I saw that I would be asking my client about their plans for the house. Any ideas of remodeling, upgrading the kitchen, having a lot of electronics, etc.
What if your client says 'Yes' to those types of questions and you don't bring up the full panel as an issue. Then what? Your client decides it was Ok for the other guy to tap stuff together, so it'll be ok for them too. Now the house ends up with who knows what type of double tapping, goofy unsafe wiring, etc. Now a not so good situation potentially ends up a really bad or hazardous situation.
Since a panel replacement isn't necessarily cheap, your client may want to know about that.

Originally Posted by Markus Keller

Sorry have to disagree on the wire nut issue. Minor as far as I'm concerned.
The real issue is the full panel.
It already sounds like the panel needs 5 more breakers now. If I saw that I would be asking my client about their plans for the house. Any ideas of remodeling, upgrading the kitchen, having a lot of electronics, etc.
What if your client says 'Yes' to those types of questions and you don't bring up the full panel as an issue. Then what? Your client decides it was Ok for the other guy to tap stuff together, so it'll be ok for them too. Now the house ends up with who knows what type of double tapping, goofy unsafe wiring, etc. Now a not so good situation potentially ends up a really bad or hazardous situation.
Since a panel replacement isn't necessarily cheap, your client may want to know about that.

Good answer. Recent renovation was about 100K on a 750K home. All new kitchen and baths covered in white marble. Basement got all prettied up. Spiffy to look at.

Thanks to the rest regarding number vs. color.

Originally Posted by Bruce Ramsey

Yeah, I know having all those circuits on one breaker is not a great idea. Just asking about the wire nut maximum number of wires.

If they are on one circuit breaker it is only one circuit. Not 4 circuits on one breaker

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Markus Keller

Sorry have to disagree on the wire nut issue. Minor as far as I'm concerned.
The real issue is the full panel.
It already sounds like the panel needs 5 more breakers now. If I saw that I would be asking my client about their plans for the house. Any ideas of remodeling, upgrading the kitchen, having a lot of electronics, etc.
What if your client says 'Yes' to those types of questions and you don't bring up the full panel as an issue. Then what? Your client decides it was Ok for the other guy to tap stuff together, so it'll be ok for them too. Now the house ends up with who knows what type of double tapping, goofy unsafe wiring, etc. Now a not so good situation potentially ends up a really bad or hazardous situation.
Since a panel replacement isn't necessarily cheap, your client may want to know about that.

Before making that assumption one must first determine what is on those 4 conductors. It may be that each conductor feeds one or 2 receptacles or it may be loaded to the hilt. That's why I say you need to determine what each goes to prior to jumping to that conclusion.

Before making that assumption one must first determine what is on those 4 conductors. It may be that each conductor feeds one or 2 receptacles or it may be loaded to the hilt. That's why I say you need to determine what each goes to prior to jumping to that conclusion.

Just so no one is confused by this--The number of receptacles on a circuit in a dwelling has nothing to do with the load. You could put 500 or however many on one circuit as long as you didn't exceed 600 Square Feet for a 15 amp circuit or 800 Square Feet for a 20 amp circuit. OBTW did I mention you could put as much lighting on as you want along with the receptacles?

Originally Posted by Robert Meier

Can you explain that? Doesn't the general lighting load only include the lighting outlets required in 210.70(A) and (B)? Also 210.23 would prohibit a load that exceeded the rating of the circuit.

Sure. In table 220.12 for Dwelling units there is a superscript "a" which says "See 220.14(J)". This says the receptacles are included in the general lighting load calculations and "No additional load calculations shall be required".

As far as 210.23 goes--load diversity in a dwelling unit prevents one from accurately determining what full load is on a general lighting circuit. You just can't add up the light wattage and say "ah hah I have it".

210.70(A) is a general requirement but not the load calculation.

I only have 1/2 of them on at any one time. Or if there is a problem I change out the lamps for 60 watt lamps. I wouldn't say it was a good design and certainly would not follow good common sense but the code doesn't prevent you from installing it this way..

Originally Posted by Robert Meier

I guess it comes down to how you define general illumination and whether or not 220.14(D) would be applicable in my example.

I would say it doesn't apply because the lighting in a dwelling unit is "general illumination".

What I see is - suspect there were 4 circuits in need of independent breakers. The circuits were tied together using the wire nut in question (that nut has a size rating) and a pigtail to connect to the breaker. The real problem is the undersized pig tail wire is now carrying the load of 4 - 15/20 amp circuits.

The pigtail will never see more than what ever amps the breaker is rated at.

In Canada, I say for the benefit of Canadian inspectors who lurk here to learn, the number of receptacles OR light fixtures on a circuit is limited as follows - 15 amp, 12 outlets or 20 amps, 16 outlets. That's the Canadian rule, you guys that learn everything from InterNachi and U-tube.

Originally Posted by Stephen Williams

The real problem is the undersized pig tail wire is now carrying the load of 4 - 15/20 amp circuits.

The pigtail will be carrying the load of the added circuits, but that may or may not be a problem.
If the added circuits are to much of a load then the breaker will trip. The wire used for the pigtail should be sized for the breaker, if so then the wire is not undersized.

Originally Posted by Stephen Williams

What I see is - suspect there were 4 circuits in need of independent breakers. The circuits were tied together using the wire nut in question (that nut has a size rating) and a pigtail to connect to the breaker. The real problem is the undersized pig tail wire is now carrying the load of 4 - 15/20 amp circuits.

While it is true the currents add and will be present on the pigtail, there is not a good way to know what the loads are so you are left (as in the previous post ) with relying on the circuit breaker to limit the current to an allowable level. So the pigtail will probably not be overloaded if the circuit breaker works. IE it must trip with 300% of its rated load within a couple of hours to be UL listed...

This particular type of "pigtailing" is present in almost every junction box in every electrical installation. It is not usually seen in a panel...

I can say that the underlying design by the installing electrician will be similar to the Canadian requirement. But for dwellings (if the NEC is applied) the sky can be the limit...

I would not like the fact that the load center, with those wires pigtailed in the load center, has now become a junction box which is a no no. There would seem to be a difference between using a wire nut to add wire or even to eliminate a double tapped breaker that was not designed for two wires but 4 wires going to other parts of the structure would make it seem like a junction to me.

You are right about the breaker protecting the pigtail and the shared load. pig tailing is done in a junction box and assuming it is done as a branch within one circuit is typical. the breaker panel is not a junction box. (any wire nut with more than one wire used for an extension) The wire nut and multiple wires in the breaker box are indication of improper wiring - DYI electrical - , suggestive of other major electrical issues and potential fire hazards that should be thoroughly diagnosed and identified by certified electrician.

Originally Posted by Bruce Ramsey

During recent renov of home, they tied all the bathroom and kitchen circuts together using a wire nut and a pigtail so they all could share a single GFCI breaker.

Originally Posted by Robert Meier

Combining kitchen and bath circuits which are required to be on separate circuits is a problem, splicing them in a panel enclosure is not a problem.

I've been watching this thread and someone finally got to the problem ... but then messed up the wording of the correct answer :
a) "Combining kitchen and bath circuits which are required to be on separate circuits is a problem" - correct
b) "Combining kitchen and bath circuits which are required to be on separate circuits is a problem" - Huh? Combing those circuits anywhere is a problem.
c) Combing other runs (not "circuits" in the panel may not be a problem as it would depend on what is being supplied by those runs, if whatever is on those runs is allowed to be on the same circuit, then combing then in the panel and going to one breaker is not a problem.

Originally Posted by Robert Meier

Combining kitchen and bath circuits which are required to be on separate circuits is a problem, splicing them in a panel enclosure is not a problem.

Originally Posted by Robert Meier

Sine you only used part of the sentence you have taken the response out of context. The response was a comparison between the combining being incorrect and the splicing in a panel enclosure being permitted. The original statement said that spicing in a panel is a "no no".

To the contrary, I used the correct part of the sentence and acknowledged that part as being correct; then I used the partially correct/partially incorrect part of the sentence and clarified when it would be correct and when it would not be correct - I did that because it was not correct in the context and content in which it was presented at.

Originally Posted by Robert Meier

You're attempting to twist my words so we can just leave it that.

Incorrect again .. I am UNtwisting your words ... instead of complaining that someone is UNtwisting your words it might be better to UNtwist the words before/while typing those words.

Mwahahaha, gotcha on tha one.

Jerry's humor reminds me a lot of the game where you stick your hand in an opening of a container having multiple openings knowing that some poisonous insect resides in one of them. Most of the time you come out OK but you never know..

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

Just so no one is confused by this--The number of receptacles on a circuit in a dwelling has nothing to do with the load. You could put 500 or however many on one circuit as long as you didn't exceed 600 Square Feet for a 15 amp circuit or 800 Square Feet for a 20amp circuit. OBTW did I mention you could put as much lighting on as you want along with the receptacles?

Please post the code & article for what is in bold

Table 220.12. 220.18 Maximum Loads. Annex D for nominal voltage used for calculation. Watts(VA)= E (120volts) X I (rating of branch current Device) and VA/VA per square foot (3 VA)=square feet, and some reverse engineering tells you that a 15 amp circuit breaker is required for the general lighting load in a dwelling unit for every 600 square feet. A 20 amp breaker is required for 800 square feet. If you exceed 600 or 800 square feet respectively you would have to add another OCD and so on until you have the entire square footage of the dwelling unit supplied. The impact is that you cannot exceed 600 sq ft for 15 amp OCD or 800 sq ft for a 20 amp OCD.

That section only tells you the number of general circuits required. It does not mean that one circuit is limited to so many square foot. Example, a 2400 sq ft house would require 4 15 amp or 3 20 general purpose circuits in addition to the mandated circuits for kitchens, bath, laundry etc.

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

Just so no one is confused by this--The number of receptacles on a circuit in a dwelling has nothing to do with the load. You could put 500 or however many on one circuit as long as you didn't exceed 600 Square Feet for a 15 amp circuit or 800 Square Feet for a 20 amp circuit. OBTW did I mention you could put as much lighting on as you want along with the receptacles?

Here, in Ontario (Canada), you can NOT put as many lights or receptacles as you want on a circuit. The maximum number of receptacles OR light fixtures allowed per 15 Amps circuit is 12.

(bold and underlining are mine)

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

Just so no one is confused by this--The number of receptacles on a circuit in a dwelling has nothing to do with the load. You could put 500 or however many on one circuit as long as you didn't exceed 600 Square Feet for a 15 amp circuit or 800 Square Feet for a 20 amp circuit. OBTW did I mention you could put as much lighting on as you want along with the receptacles?

Originally Posted by jack davenport

Please post the code & article for what is in bold

In case a little clarification is needed: "You could put 500 or however many on one circuit", that is correct in and of itself.

Then Roland added additional information which may be confusing the issue and may have been better in a separate sentence: "You could put 500 or however many on one circuit", this really had nothing to do with how many receptacle outlets one is allowed to place on a circuit.

The answer to "How many receptacles is one allowed to have on a 15 amp circuit?" is: How many do you want ... 100 ... 500 ... 1,000 ... 10,000 ... ? There is no limit for residential work.

How many are you allowed? How many do you want?

The other part of Roland's answer was addressing the minimum number of circuits, which has nothing to do with the maximum number of receptacle outlets allowed ... ... the code addresses the number of receptacle outlets based on location, i.e., if the circuit is in the living room, the code tells you where the minimum number of receptacles must be placed, but does not address the fact that you could line the receptacle outlets up side-by-side-by-side all the way around the room - that would meet the minimum requirements of the code ... and there is no maximum requirement.

Originally Posted by Bruce Ramsey

During recent renov of home, they tied all the bathroom and kitchen circuts together using a wire nut and a pigtail so they all could share a single GFCI breaker. Panel is full.

I counted 5 wires in and 1 pigtail out. Picture looks like 4 and 1. Even so, I think 5 wires is too many for a single wire nut. Can anyone confirm or deny my suspiscion of too many wires for a single wire nut?

Yeah, I know having all those circuits on one breaker is not a great idea. Just asking about the wire nut maximum number of wires.

I just wanted to add my two cents on the full electrical panel issue. Rather than having several branch wires connected inside the panel with a wire nut, it would be better to remove one or more of the single pole breakers and replace them with twin circuit breakers ( also known as dual, tandem, piggyback and two-pole thin circuit breakers ). This way each branch wire still has it's own capacity ( 15 amp , 20 amp etc..) and each wire can be connected to it's own breaker. I would always recommend that a licensed electrician do this change out so they can confirm that the panel is rated for these types of breakers etc...

Again, we have to consider the entire code in effect when using calcs.
Even tho we have 3.5 va/sq ft in residential lighting loads which include general use receptacles, we also have the maximum connected load that is not to be exceeded. Lighting fixtures, (lumineers) unless of the plugged in variety, are a connected load and there is no exception as to diversity. Non coincidental loads may be considered where applicable.

bob smit Again, we have to consider the entire code in effect when using calcs.
I would agree we need to apply all sections of the NEC that impact our calculation.

Even tho we have 3.5 va/sq ft in residential lighting loads which include general use receptacles,

My book says different. What book are you using?

we also have the maximum connected load that is not to be exceeded. Lighting fixtures, (lumineers) unless of the plugged in variety, are a connected load

Dwelling unit calculations never take this into consideration. There is absolutely no way, as a plan reviewer/inspector to know what the connected lighting load will be.

and there is no exception as to diversity.

Diversity is the very basis of being able to apply demand factors in any load calculation.

Non coincidental loads may be considered where applicable.

This could be accurate. What is your reference?

"There is absolutely no way, as a plan reviewer/inspector to know what the connected lighting load will be"


To expand on this a little-You show up at a residential dwelling unit for a final NEC inspection. There are no receptacles or luminaries installed and all the outlet points provided for these have a blank cover. In fact you discover there are only the associated switches are installed. Everything else is OK. So what now? Bingo--you have to pass it because there in nothing in the NEC that requires you to install receptacles or luminaries. How's that max. connected load thing going for us now?

You also discover the electric service has not been energized. Again you have to pass it because the NEC does not require anything to be energized. How's this for complications?

IE--in the absence of other standards or regulation we are left with an "unfinished" and unoccupiable residence.

Originally Posted by Robert Meier

Most will disagree with your assertion that you can put blank covers on receptacle outlets and pass a final inspection. Article 210 uses the words receptacle outlet and receptacle in an interchangeable fashion.

Would you please explain this??

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

To expand on this a little-You show up at a residential dwelling unit for a final NEC inspection. There are no receptacles or luminaries installed and all the outlet points provided for these have a blank cover. In fact you discover there are only the associated switches are installed. Everything else is OK. So what now? Bingo--you have to pass it because there in nothing in the NEC that requires you to install receptacles or luminaries.

No way would that get a 'pass' in any of the places I've been, and some try to 'interpret' ... (even when the code is black and white they try to fudge it) ... 'interpret' the code as liberally as possible.

The reason why? The NEC is only applicable because it is referenced by the Florida Building Code, Building and Florida Building Code, Residential.
- FBC-R
- - SECTION E3401 GENERAL
- - - E3401.1 Applicability.
- - - - The provisions of NFPA 70, National Electrical Code Requirements shall establish the general scope of the electrical system and equipment requirements of this code.

- FBC-B
- - SECTION 2701 GENERAL
- - - 2701.1 Scope.
- - - - This chapter governs the electrical components, equipment and systems used in buildings and structures covered by this code. Electrical components, equipment and systems shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the provisions of the NFPA 70, National Electrical Code.

Other than those sections there is not much in either chapter, almost all the other sections are "Reserved".

The Florida Building Commission has statutory authority to make rules, and those rules are what adopts the Florida Building Code, which includes the NEC and the edition of the NEC to be adopted. As such, the NEC is Chapter 27 of the FBC-B and Chapter 34 of the FBC-R, and being Chapters of the Florida Building Code, the Administrative Section Chapter 1 is applicable to the NEC as well as all other Chapters.
- FBC-B 107.2 Construction documents. - - Construction documents shall be in accordance with Sections 107.2.1 through 107.2.5.
- - - (sub-sections 107.2.1 through 107.2.5 follow)
- FBC-B 107.4 Amended construction documents.
- - Work shall be installed in accordance with the approved construction documents, and any changes made during construction that are not in compliance with the approved construction documents shall be resubmitted for approval as an amended set of construction documents.

That work you described would not be "in accordance with the approved construction documents" and therefore would not be approved, the code reference provided for the rejection would be 107.2 and 107.4.

Try to submit that work for approval as an amended construction document and that would not be approved because they would not meet one of the sub-sections in 107.2, specifically 107.2.1:
- 107.2.1 Information on construction documents.
- - Construction documents shall be dimensioned and drawn upon suitable material. Electronic media documents are permitted to be submitted when approved by the building official. Construction documents shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of this code and relevant laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, as determined by the building official. (see also Section 107.3.5).

Try to pull a stunt like that here in Florida and there would not be any more work going on, it would not be approved and may well have a 'Stop Work' order placed on the job.

I am sure that similar provision are present for other states in regulating construction, codes, and that includes the NEC.

The NEC *is only applicable when so stated somewhere*, and from there all other applicable constraints can be traced out just like I did above - contrary to what most electrical contractors in Florida think ... the NEC *is not* 'a stand alone document', neither is the FBC-Mechanical, FBC-Plumbing, FBC-Fuel Gas, etc., as the FBC-Building Administrative Chapter 1 is applicable to each of them, along with all things referenced in the FBC-B and FBC-R (things such as the energy code, the accessibility code, etc.).

I am sure that similar requirements apply to the users of the NEC in other states/areas.

Originally Posted by Robert Meier

Similar to the requirement for lighting outlets I'm assuming that your original statement about not installing receptacle devices and instead installing blank covers hinges upon the argument of providing the required "receptacle outlets" outlined in Article 210? There are parts of Article 210 that actually uses the word receptacle, 210.52(A)(1) specifically uses the word receptacle.

Robert nailed it on the receptacles. Now we have receptacles installed but no luminaries.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

No way would that get a 'pass' in any of the places I've been, and some try to 'interpret' ... (even when the code is black and white they try to fudge it) ... 'interpret' the code as liberally as possible.

The reason why? The NEC is only applicable because it is referenced by the Florida Building Code, Building and Florida Building Code, Residential.
- FBC-R
- - SECTION E3401 GENERAL
- - - E3401.1 Applicability.
- - - - The provisions of NFPA 70, National Electrical Code Requirements shall establish the general scope of the electrical system and equipment requirements of this code.

- FBC-B
- - SECTION 2701 GENERAL
- - - 2701.1 Scope.
- - - - This chapter governs the electrical components, equipment and systems used in buildings and structures covered by this code. Electrical components, equipment and systems shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the provisions of the NFPA 70, National Electrical Code.

Other than those sections there is not much in either chapter, almost all the other sections are "Reserved".

The Florida Building Commission has statutory authority to make rules, and those rules are what adopts the Florida Building Code, which includes the NEC and the edition of the NEC to be adopted. As such, the NEC is Chapter 27 of the FBC-B and Chapter 34 of the FBC-R, and being Chapters of the Florida Building Code, the Administrative Section Chapter 1 is applicable to the NEC as well as all other Chapters.
- FBC-B 107.2 Construction documents. - - Construction documents shall be in accordance with Sections 107.2.1 through 107.2.5.
- - - (sub-sections 107.2.1 through 107.2.5 follow)
- FBC-B 107.4 Amended construction documents.
- - Work shall be installed in accordance with the approved construction documents, and any changes made during construction that are not in compliance with the approved construction documents shall be resubmitted for approval as an amended set of construction documents.

That work you described would not be "in accordance with the approved construction documents" and therefore would not be approved, the code reference provided for the rejection would be 107.2 and 107.4.

Try to submit that work for approval as an amended construction document and that would not be approved because they would not meet one of the sub-sections in 107.2, specifically 107.2.1:
- 107.2.1 Information on construction documents.
- - Construction documents shall be dimensioned and drawn upon suitable material. Electronic media documents are permitted to be submitted when approved by the building official. Construction documents shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of this code and relevant laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, as determined by the building official. (see also Section 107.3.5).

Try to pull a stunt like that here in Florida and there would not be any more work going on, it would not be approved and may well have a 'Stop Work' order placed on the job.

I am sure that similar provision are present for other states in regulating construction, codes, and that includes the NEC.

The NEC *is only applicable when so stated somewhere*, and from there all other applicable constraints can be traced out just like I did above - contrary to what most electrical contractors in Florida think ... the NEC *is not* 'a stand alone document', neither is the FBC-Mechanical, FBC-Plumbing, FBC-Fuel Gas, etc., as the FBC-Building Administrative Chapter 1 is applicable to each of them, along with all things referenced in the FBC-B and FBC-R (things such as the energy code, the accessibility code, etc.).

I am sure that similar requirements apply to the users of the NEC in other states/areas.

And I simply stated in the part you clipped "IE--in the absence of other standards or regulation we are left with an "unfinished" and unoccupiable residence."

OBTW- There are a majority of people and jurisdictions in 49 other states that don't give a RIP about what Florida does with its building codes. I worked in two jurisdictions that used the NEC as a stand alone standard...
Jerry, you also filled in with a lot of your opinion. If you took this out of your post it wouldn't leave many facts. It's the facts that viewers need to take away from this forum..

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

"There is absolutely no way, as a plan reviewer/inspector to know what the connected lighting load will be"


To expand on this a little-You show up at a residential dwelling unit for a final NEC inspection. There are no receptacles or luminaries installed and all the outlet points provided for these have a blank cover. In fact you discover there are only the associated switches are installed. Everything else is OK. So what now? Bingo--you have to pass it because there in nothing in the NEC that requires you to install receptacles or luminaries. How's that max. connected load thing going for us now?

You also discover the electric service has not been energized. Again you have to pass it because the NEC does not require anything to be energized. How's this for complications?

IE--in the absence of other standards or regulation we are left with an "unfinished" and unoccupiable residence.

How could you even consider the need to pass something that is 1) not complete and 2) does not even meet the receptacle spacing or receptacle definitions?

This is a FAIL. Call back when the job is finished.

Originally Posted by Jim Port

How could you even consider the need to pass something that is 1) not complete and 2) does not even meet the receptacle spacing or receptacle definitions?

This is a FAIL. Call back when the job is finished.

Jim, I thought you were still working on clearing up your mistakes--
Originally Posted by Jim Port
The paralleling requirements have not changed, nor have the grouping requirements in the last 20+ years IIRC.




WELL, I will just say you are half correct on this and I will let you figure out why...Have a nice day!

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

"There is absolutely no way, as a plan reviewer/inspector to know what the connected lighting load will be"


To expand on this a little-You show up at a residential dwelling unit for a final NEC inspection. There are no receptacles or luminaries installed and all the outlet points provided for these have a blank cover. In fact you discover there are only the associated switches are installed. Everything else is OK. So what now? Bingo--you have to pass it because there in nothing in the NEC that requires you to install receptacles or luminaries. How's that max. connected load thing going for us now?

You also discover the electric service has not been energized. Again you have to pass it because the NEC does not require anything to be energized. How's this for complications?

IE--in the absence of other standards or regulation we are left with an "unfinished" and unoccupiable residence.

Commenting merely upon the assertion(s) bolded & underlined (emphasis mine) in the quote above, others have already indicated the lack of required receptacles is indeed "un-passable" for an electrical "final" (as is the lack of an installed, functioning, switch-controlled receptacle in lieu of an installed luminaire where the exception might be made).

Untrue. There are several locations which luminaire placement is required. Kitchen, bathroom, stairways, mechanical areas sub-grade or attic, enclosed area under means of egress stairway to a non-habital basement not containing ... to name a few. The IRC has similar requirements, as does the IBC for multi-family "dwelling units" in addition to common area lighting & in certain cases emergency exit lighting w/power failure backup.

The luminaires may be changed out later as desired (for style, but must meet (ALL applicable code requirements), but placement of REQUIRED lighting (and in some cases providing a minimum ft candle rating for the area) IS required for an electrical "final" for new construction.

If the electrical contractor, GC, homeowner, etc. wants to pass an electrical inspection - the NEC required luminaires meeting the requirements set forth in the Code for the conditions & circumstances of the installation, in the locations and circumstances where the NEC (as adopted, amended, by the jurisdiction having authority) requires them, must be present. A 'conditional' (subject to...) final is not "final" until/unless the 'conditions' are met, even if one other than the EI confirms, verifies, inspects, or avers the conditions are/have been met.

H. G. Watson, Sr.-"the NEC required luminaires meeting the requirements set forth in the Code for the conditions & circumstances of the installation, in the locations and circumstances where the NEC (as adopted, amended, by the jurisdiction having authority) requires them, must be present"

The problem is that the NEC doesn't require the luminiares to be installed. Only the lighting outlets must be present in certain locations.

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

H. G. Watson, Sr.-"the NEC required luminaires meeting the requirements set forth in the Code for the conditions & circumstances of the installation, in the locations and circumstances where the NEC (as adopted, amended, by the jurisdiction having authority) requires them, must be present"

The problem is that the NEC doesn't require the luminiares to be installed. Only the lighting outlets must be present in certain locations.

Roland, just save face and abandon this thread. Your way in over your head. Having said that, I do admire your tenacity

Originally Posted by bob smit

Roland, just save face and abandon this thread. Your way in over your head. Having said that, I do admire your tenacity

Do you have an NEC reference for this?

[QUOTE=Roland Miller;228277]And I simply stated in the part you clipped "IE--in the absence of other standards or regulation we are left with an "unfinished" and unoccupiable residence."

OBTW- There are a majority of people and jurisdictions in 49 other states that don't give a RIP about what Florida does with its building codes. I worked in two jurisdictions that used the NEC as a stand alone standard... ,quote.

Which is why, if you actually read what I wrote, I stated:

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

I am sure that similar provision are present for other states in regulating construction, codes, and that includes the NEC.

Just because *you* happen to work in areas which don't give a rip about what goes on with construction does *not* mean that all other areas do not give a rip either.

Jerry, you also filled in with a lot of your opinion. If you took this out of your post it wouldn't leave many facts. It's the facts that viewers need to take away from this forum..

*Very little* "opinion" in there, it is in the Florida Building Code, which is, by the way, whether you give a rip or not, state law here. And, as I said previously "I am sure that similar provision are present for other states in regulating construction, codes, and that includes the NEC." Probably not exactly like here, and maybe not to the same depth as here, and possibly to a greater depth on some things and less on other things, but I suspect that there is more regulation regarding construction and codes than you may think.

Not sure that anyone gives a rip about what you do in your area ...

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

If the electrical contractor, GC, homeowner, etc. wants to pass an electrical inspection - the NEC required luminaires meeting the requirements set forth in the Code for the conditions & circumstances of the installation, in the locations and circumstances where the NEC (as adopted, amended, by the jurisdiction having authority) requires them, must be present.

To add to the above is this that, it seems, many electrical contractor 'forget': (bold and underlining are mine)
- Luminaire. A complete lighting unit consisting of a light source such as a lamp or lamps, together with the parts designed to position the light source and connect it to the power supply. It may also include parts to protect the light source or the ballast or to distribute the light. A lampholder itself is not a luminaire.

Without the appropriate lamp(s) installed it is not a "luminaire", not as defined by the NEC.

Two things have become quit clear:
1. Bob Smit and Jerry Peck cant focus on the issue of the NEC not requiring luminaires to be installed.
2. Bob and Jerry do not know a single thing about me.

Both make a lot of assumptions and put them forth as if they were facts, which can lead to some of the more than 1000 viewers of this thread going away with bad information.

It seems that Bob and Jerry both digress to dishing out negative personal comments about someone when the going gets tough for them.

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

Two things have become quit clear:
1. Bob Smit and Jerry Peck cant focus on the issue of the NEC not requiring luminaires to be installed.
2. Bob and Jerry do not know a single thing about me.

Both make a lot of assumptions and put them forth as if they were facts, which can lead to some of the more than 1000 viewers of this thread going away with bad information.

It seems that Bob and Jerry both digress to dishing out negative personal comments about someone when the going gets tough for them.

What has become clear is that when you are questioned ... you don't like it and want to blame anyone who questions you for your lack of 'whatever it was' which caused you to be questioned.

And that is a shame ... thought you were above that level.

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

Two things have become quit clear:
1. Bob Smit and Jerry Peck cant focus on the issue of the NEC not requiring luminaires to be installed.
2. Bob and Jerry do not know a single thing about me.

Both make a lot of assumptions and put them forth as if they were facts, which can lead to some of the more than 1000 viewers of this thread going away with bad information.

It seems that Bob and Jerry both digress to dishing out negative personal comments about someone when the going gets tough for them.

The NEC expressly requires "illumination" be installed at location of interior service equipment and panels/switchboards.

Your hijack stated a "final" for electrical inspection, its not final until the installations are completed, that includes a means to illuminate. The NEC doesn't stand ALONE, and unammended it actually says so, and your re-hashed '05 debate's references to the CMP further made that clear - the BUILDING CODE (IRC, IBC, UBC, and if applicable to the jurisdiction, the Life Safety Code, the Property Maintence Code, the Energy Code, etc.) An AHJ/B.O. has jurisdiction over the WHOLE not JUST the electrical, and the E. I. is NOT limited to the NEC but to the adopted Code (law, all) of the jurisdiction, and that includes holding the completion bond and NOT releasing or "final-ing" the EC's permit UNTIL the job is COMPLETE, including the required fixtures and working illumination.

You seem determined to hijack threads and rehash seven-year-old debates from other forums. Many don't mind debate, but detest the ad hominem; and most (and the site rules state as much) are agrieved by subject thread hijacks.

Sugest you start your own SUBJECT thread.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

What has become clear is that when you are questioned ... you don't like it and want to blame anyone who questions you for your lack of 'whatever it was' which caused you to be questioned.

And that is a shame ... thought you were above that level.

Thanks Jerry--this is a perfect example of what I am talking about. You need to rise above your desire to step on people.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

The NEC expressly requires "illumination" be installed at location of interior service equipment and panels/switchboards.

Your hijack stated a "final" for electrical inspection, its not final until the installations are completed, that includes a means to illuminate. The NEC doesn't stand ALONE, and unammended it actually says so, and your re-hashed '05 debate's references to the CMP further made that clear - the BUILDING CODE (IRC, IBC, UBC, and if applicable to the jurisdiction, the Life Safety Code, the Property Maintence Code, the Energy Code, etc.) An AHJ/B.O. has jurisdiction over the WHOLE not JUST the electrical, and the E. I. is NOT limited to the NEC but to the adopted Code (law, all) of the jurisdiction, and that includes holding the completion bond and NOT releasing or "final-ing" the EC's permit UNTIL the job is COMPLETE, including the required fixtures and working illumination.

You seem determined to hijack threads and rehash seven-year-old debates from other forums. Many don't mind debate, but detest the ad hominem; and most (and the site rules state as much) are agrieved by subject thread hijacks.

Sugest you start your own SUBJECT thread.

I suggest that you read more carefully and would realize you have shotgunned an NEC question with a slurry of other code references.

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

Thanks Jerry--this is a perfect example of what I am talking about. You need to rise above your your desire to step on people.

Thank Roland--your response is a perfect example of what I am talking about. First you bash others, and when they reply you blame them for your failings by bashing them again, my responses are simply those of someone scooting out from under your foot as you continue to attempt to belittle others when they question you, some escape your efforts of trying to step on them and some don't, you prefer those who don't escape as that leaves you 'last man standing' ... your tactics make me question the "man" part of 'last "man" standing' ...

You may continue to try to wiggle off the hook you got yourself onto here, but you will be doing the wiggling by yourself as responding to an apparent brick wall only creates an echo ... and the wall is not listening anyway.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Thank Roland--your response is a perfect example of what I am talking about. First you bash others, and when they reply you blame them for your failings by bashing them again, my responses are simply those of someone scooting out from under your foot as you continue to attempt to belittle others when they question you, some escape your efforts of trying to step on them and some don't, you prefer those who don't escape as that leaves you 'last man standing' ... your tactics make me question the "man" part of 'last "man" standing' ...

You may continue to try to wiggle off the hook you got yourself onto here, but you will be doing the wiggling by yourself as responding to an apparent brick wall only creates an echo ... and the wall is not listening anyway.

I guess if you repeat it often enough you will believe it. Spin, re-direct or just not able to read critically???? And now you are trying to put yourself and others as a victim??

Sorry Roland, didn't mean to sound so personal, more in jest. It's tanacity like yours thats keeps all thinking (and somewhat intertaining). I still dissagree with your assertion as I believe your missing the intent. So many lumens are required for stair treads, so I suppose I'm to assume at a final w/o lamps and or fixtures installed?

Originally Posted by bob smit

Sorry Roland, didn't mean to sound so personal, more in jest. It's tanacity like yours thats keeps all thinking (and somewhat intertaining). I still dissagree with your assertion as I believe your missing the intent. So many lumens are required for stair treads, so I suppose I'm to assume at a final w/o lamps and or fixtures installed?

No problemo. I have thick skin, but I get tired of some others tactics that involve personal insult and attack. After 37 years, I have learned something. I was just never strong in dealing with the BS.

I agree that you need other codes/standards and if a model building code is adopted you will have minimum illumination requirements that in essence would require the installation and function of illuminaires. Same with smoke detectors in residences. I was attempting to point out that the NEC did fall short of requiring them to be installed and given most electricians only get training in the NEC it leaves it up to this AHJ or inspector to educate them in the other standards.. I just couldn't get some to focus on the discussion.

Originally Posted by Stephen Williams

You are right about the breaker protecting the pigtail and the shared load. pig tailing is done in a junction box and assuming it is done as a branch within one circuit is typical. the breaker panel is not a junction box. (any wire nut with more than one wire used for an extension) The wire nut and multiple wires in the breaker box are indication of improper wiring - DYI electrical - , suggestive of other major electrical issues and potential fire hazards that should be thoroughly diagnosed and identified by certified electrician.

2011 NEC
312.8 Switch and Overcurrent Device Enclosures with Splices, Taps, and Feed-Through Conductors.

The wiring space of enclosures for switches or overcurrent devices shall be permitted for conductors feeding through, spliced, or tapping off to other enclosures, switches, or overcurrent devices where all of the following conditions are met:

(1) The total of all conductors installed at any cross section of the wiring space does not exceed 40 percent of the cross-sectional area of that space.

(2) The total area of all conductors, splices, and taps installed at any cross section of the wiring space does not exceed 75 percent of the cross-sectional area of that space.

(3) A warning label is applied to the enclosure that identifies the closest disconnecting means for any feed through conductors.

What you find here is not only is it legal to connect more than two wires in a wire nut or other listed splicing device, because a splice can be more than two wires, but the OK to take several of these splices and connect their pigtails together in yet another splice before connecting to a breaker. Pretty? No. Good practice? No. Legal - You betcha.

As long as required dedicated circuits aren't combined (kitchen/pantry, bath, laundry, heat, etc) it doesn't matter if general circuits get combined provided they can handle the loads. There's really nothing but common sense and gutter space to keep someone from running a dedicated cable to every light fixture and receptacle in the house and bringing all back to the panel and splicing them to split the loads evenly over several breakers.

Every wire nut has a range of combinations based on the total circular mils of the wires.





Thank you..
Epackpolymers.com