Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,617
Default Breaker on #6 copper

I am putting in a subpanel for my workshop. I need another 240v line, so I
am ripping out the two 120v lines and the 240v line I have already put in
and replacing them all with a subpanel. Wish I had done it right the first
time, but that boat has sailed.

I am running #6 copper. As I read it, it is good for 55a, and since there
is no 55a breaker, I can use a 60a. Is that correct?

On the other hand; the most I will ever ever use at one time is a bandsaw
and DC, which draw 27a together (which is why I need another 240v). I
happen to have a 30a breaker. Any reason not to just use that? It is over
the 80% rule, but I presume that applies to the wire rather than to the
breaker. If it trips, I can always replace it.

The #6 was only a few dollars more than the #8; so what the heck...


  #2   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
RBM RBM is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,690
Default Breaker on #6 copper

60 is fine


"Toller" wrote in message
...
I am putting in a subpanel for my workshop. I need another 240v line, so I
am ripping out the two 120v lines and the 240v line I have already put in
and replacing them all with a subpanel. Wish I had done it right the first
time, but that boat has sailed.

I am running #6 copper. As I read it, it is good for 55a, and since
there is no 55a breaker, I can use a 60a. Is that correct?

On the other hand; the most I will ever ever use at one time is a bandsaw
and DC, which draw 27a together (which is why I need another 240v). I
happen to have a 30a breaker. Any reason not to just use that? It is
over the 80% rule, but I presume that applies to the wire rather than to
the breaker. If it trips, I can always replace it.

The #6 was only a few dollars more than the #8; so what the heck...



  #3   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35
Default Breaker on #6 copper


"Toller" wrote in message
...
I am putting in a subpanel for my workshop. I need another 240v line, so I
am ripping out the two 120v lines and the 240v line I have already put in
and replacing them all with a subpanel. Wish I had done it right the first
time, but that boat has sailed.

I am running #6 copper. As I read it, it is good for 55a, and since
there is no 55a breaker, I can use a 60a. Is that correct?


100 foot run in dry condition good up to 65 amp. (ITE ret.)
3 wire conduit size 1"


On the other hand; the most I will ever ever use at one time is a bandsaw
and DC, which draw 27a together (which is why I need another 240v). I
happen to have a 30a breaker. Any reason not to just use that? It is
over the 80% rule, but I presume that applies to the wire rather than to
the breaker. If it trips, I can always replace it.

The #6 was only a few dollars more than the #8; so what the heck...



  #4   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
M Q M Q is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 257
Default Breaker on #6 copper

Toller wrote:

I am putting in a subpanel for my workshop. I need another 240v line, so I
am ripping out the two 120v lines and the 240v line I have already put in
and replacing them all with a subpanel. Wish I had done it right the first
time, but that boat has sailed.

I am running #6 copper. As I read it, it is good for 55a, and since there
is no 55a breaker, I can use a 60a. Is that correct?

No. Use a 50A breaker (or less).

On the other hand; the most I will ever ever use at one time is a bandsaw
and DC, which draw 27a together (which is why I need another 240v). I
happen to have a 30a breaker. Any reason not to just use that? It is over
the 80% rule, but I presume that applies to the wire rather than to the
breaker. If it trips, I can always replace it.

The 80% applies to the breaker, so with a 30A breaker you can only run 24 A
continuous load. And maybe you might also want to run some lights,
a vacuum, a radio, a charger for some handheld tools, etc.?

The #6 was only a few dollars more than the #8; so what the heck...



  #5   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 201
Default Breaker on #6 copper

RBM,


60 is fine

Is the OP wrong that the #6 line is rated for only 55 amps or are you
saying that a 60 amp breaker is safe with wire that will fail at 55 amps.
Something is wrong here.

Dave M.




  #6   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
M Q M Q is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 257
Default Breaker on #6 copper

M Q wrote:

Toller wrote:

....
I am running #6 copper. As I read it, it is good for 55a, and since
there is no 55a breaker, I can use a 60a. Is that correct?


No. Use a 50A breaker (or less).


I should clarify my comments here. The ampacity of the #6 wire depends upon
the type of wire. OP didn't say what type. If it is a type that has a 55 A
ampacity, then use 50 A breaker. Other types of #6, may have ampacities of
65, 75, or other.

  #7   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,375
Default Breaker on #6 copper

In article k.net, "David Martel" wrote:
RBM,


60 is fine

Is the OP wrong that the #6 line is rated for only 55 amps or are you
saying that a 60 amp breaker is safe with wire that will fail at 55 amps.
Something is wrong here.


Nothing is wrong at all. The NEC specifically permits going up to the next
higher standard breaker size when the rated ampacity of the wire (55A in this
case) does not correspond to any standard breaker size.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,375
Default Breaker on #6 copper

In article AW%si.115$zg3.49@trnddc04, M Q wrote:
Toller wrote:
I am running #6 copper. As I read it, it is good for 55a, and since there
is no 55a breaker, I can use a 60a. Is that correct?

No. Use a 50A breaker (or less).


Wrong. Please familiarize yourself with the NEC before attempting to answer
electrical questions.

A 60A breaker is perfectly fine:

"Devices Rated 800 Amperes or Less. The next higher standard overcurrent
device rating (above the ampacity of the conductors being protected) shall be
permitted to be used, provided all of the following conditions are met ..."
[2005 NEC, Article 240.4(B)]

The conditions can be summarized as not a multiple-receptacle circuit, no
matching standard breaker, and next size up not 800A.





On the other hand; the most I will ever ever use at one time is a bandsaw
and DC, which draw 27a together (which is why I need another 240v). I
happen to have a 30a breaker. Any reason not to just use that? It is over
the 80% rule, but I presume that applies to the wire rather than to the
breaker. If it trips, I can always replace it.

The 80% applies to the breaker, so with a 30A breaker you can only run 24 A
continuous load. And maybe you might also want to run some lights,
a vacuum, a radio, a charger for some handheld tools, etc.?

The #6 was only a few dollars more than the #8; so what the heck...




--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,375
Default Breaker on #6 copper

In article , "Toller" wrote:
I am putting in a subpanel for my workshop. I need another 240v line, so I
am ripping out the two 120v lines and the 240v line I have already put in
and replacing them all with a subpanel. Wish I had done it right the first
time, but that boat has sailed.

I am running #6 copper. As I read it, it is good for 55a, and since there
is no 55a breaker, I can use a 60a. Is that correct?


Correct; this is specifically permitted under Article 240.4(B).

On the other hand; the most I will ever ever use at one time is a bandsaw
and DC, which draw 27a together (which is why I need another 240v). I
happen to have a 30a breaker. Any reason not to just use that? It is over
the 80% rule,


Remember that the "80% rule" applies only to circuits serving a continuous
load, which is defined as "a load where the maximum current is expected to
continue for three hours or more." [2005 NEC, Article 100]

This usage probably doesn't meet that definition.

but I presume that applies to the wire rather than to the
breaker.


Actually, it applies to both (see Article 210.19(A)(1) [wire] and 210.20(A)
[breaker]), but, as noted above, this installation doesn't appear to meet the
definition of a continuous load anyway, so it doesn't matter.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,375
Default Breaker on #6 copper

In article LO0ti.318$V53.117@trnddc08, M Q wrote:
I should clarify my comments here. The ampacity of the #6 wire depends upon
the type of wire. OP didn't say what type. If it is a type that has a 55 A
ampacity, then use 50 A breaker. Other types of #6, may have ampacities of
65, 75, or other.


Clarifed or not, your comments are still wrong. It's perfectly OK to use a 60A
breaker on a conductor with a listed ampacity of 55A, under Article 240.4(B).

Likewise, if the listed ampacity is 65A, a 70A breaker may be used, and if the
listed ampacity is 75A, an 80A breaker may be used -- all because standard
breaker sizes do not include 55, 65, or 75 amps.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.


  #11   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Breaker on #6 copper

On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 13:55:20 GMT, Toller wrote:
I am putting in a subpanel for my workshop. I need another 240v line, so I
am ripping out the two 120v lines and the 240v line I have already put in
and replacing them all with a subpanel. Wish I had done it right the first
time, but that boat has sailed.

I am running #6 copper. As I read it, it is good for 55a, and since there
is no 55a breaker, I can use a 60a. Is that correct?


Yes, it is correct.

I did the same thing, ran a 60a circuit to my garage, and I regret to
this day that I did not make it a 100A circuit.

Spend a few more bucks and get a 100A circuit. You can then buy some
large equipment (welding, plasma cutters) and run them inexpensively.

i

On the other hand; the most I will ever ever use at one time is a bandsaw
and DC, which draw 27a together (which is why I need another 240v). I
happen to have a 30a breaker. Any reason not to just use that? It is over
the 80% rule, but I presume that applies to the wire rather than to the
breaker. If it trips, I can always replace it.

The #6 was only a few dollars more than the #8; so what the heck...


  #12   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default Breaker on #6 copper


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.. .
In article , "Toller"
wrote:
I am putting in a subpanel for my workshop. I need another 240v line, so
I
am ripping out the two 120v lines and the 240v line I have already put in
and replacing them all with a subpanel. Wish I had done it right the
first
time, but that boat has sailed.

I am running #6 copper. As I read it, it is good for 55a, and since
there
is no 55a breaker, I can use a 60a. Is that correct?


Correct; this is specifically permitted under Article 240.4(B).

On the other hand; the most I will ever ever use at one time is a bandsaw
and DC, which draw 27a together (which is why I need another 240v). I
happen to have a 30a breaker. Any reason not to just use that? It is
over
the 80% rule,


Remember that the "80% rule" applies only to circuits serving a continuous
load, which is defined as "a load where the maximum current is expected to
continue for three hours or more." [2005 NEC, Article 100]

No, I can't see ever running the bandsaw for 3 hours. Thanks

  #13   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,375
Default Breaker on #6 copper

In article , "Wade Lippman" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. ..


Remember that the "80% rule" applies only to circuits serving a continuous
load, which is defined as "a load where the maximum current is expected to
continue for three hours or more." [2005 NEC, Article 100]

No, I can't see ever running the bandsaw for 3 hours. Thanks

And even if you were, it's very unlikely that it would be pulling maximum
current the entire time.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
  #14   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,079
Default Breaker on #6 copper


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article k.net,
"David Martel" wrote:
RBM,


60 is fine

Is the OP wrong that the #6 line is rated for only 55 amps or are you
saying that a 60 amp breaker is safe with wire that will fail at 55 amps.
Something is wrong here.


Nothing is wrong at all. The NEC specifically permits going up to the next
higher standard breaker size when the rated ampacity of the wire (55A in
this
case) does not correspond to any standard breaker size.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)



That doesn't make sense to me at all.

Why allow the breaker to trip at a higher rating than the wire? Conceivably
the wire would fail without the breaker ever tripping. That presumes the
wire rating of 55 A means it is only capable of carrying 55A at 120V


  #15   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
M Q M Q is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 257
Default Breaker on #6 copper

Doug Miller wrote:

In article AW%si.115$zg3.49@trnddc04, M Q wrote:

....

Wrong. Please familiarize yourself with the NEC before attempting to answer
electrical questions.

A 60A breaker is perfectly fine:

"Devices Rated 800 Amperes or Less. The next higher standard overcurrent
device rating (above the ampacity of the conductors being protected) shall be
permitted to be used, provided all of the following conditions are met ..."
[2005 NEC, Article 240.4(B)]

The conditions can be summarized as not a multiple-receptacle circuit, no
matching standard breaker, and next size up not 800A.


Mea Culpa. I was wrong on two points. Thanks for correcting me.

I will now slink off with my tail between my legs.



  #16   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,375
Default Breaker on #6 copper

In article , "Eigenvector" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.. .
Nothing is wrong at all. The NEC specifically permits going up to the next
higher standard breaker size when the rated ampacity of the wire (55A in this
case) does not correspond to any standard breaker size.

That doesn't make sense to me at all.


Whether it makes sense to you or not, it *is* the Code. Article 240.4(B), to
be exact.

Why allow the breaker to trip at a higher rating than the wire? Conceivably
the wire would fail


What do you mean by "fail"? Melt? Start a fire? Neither will happen as a
result of applying a 60A breaker on a 6AWG copper conductor.

without the breaker ever tripping. That presumes the
wire rating of 55 A means it is only capable of carrying 55A at 120V


The vast majority of the time, a typical circuit with 60A overcurrent
protection isn't going to be carrying anywhere near 60A. In any event, the
difference between 60A and 55A on a #6 wire is not going to mean the
difference between the wire igniting vs. not igniting. I imagine that the NFPA
(authors of the NEC) decided that five amps on a wire that size wasn't enough
to worry about. You could always ask them.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
  #17   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default Breaker on #6 copper


"Eigenvector" wrote in message
. ..

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article k.net,
"David Martel" wrote:
RBM,


60 is fine

Is the OP wrong that the #6 line is rated for only 55 amps or are you
saying that a 60 amp breaker is safe with wire that will fail at 55 amps.
Something is wrong here.


Nothing is wrong at all. The NEC specifically permits going up to the
next
higher standard breaker size when the rated ampacity of the wire (55A in
this
case) does not correspond to any standard breaker size.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)



That doesn't make sense to me at all.

Why allow the breaker to trip at a higher rating than the wire?
Conceivably the wire would fail without the breaker ever tripping. That
presumes the wire rating of 55 A means it is only capable of carrying 55A
at 120V

My cottage had a 23a water heater on #12 for 35 years before I found it and
replaced it with #10.
That is about the worst possible thing, since it comes on at full draw, and
stays on for a long period of time; yet nothing happened. Code is rather
conservative, which prevents many fires.

And don't forget, the wire is 90degree and the panel and breaker are
75degree; yet the 55a limit is as though they were 60degree. So the extra 5
amps is not a big deal.

  #18   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
RBM RBM is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,690
Default Breaker on #6 copper

You're also presuming that the heat generated by pulling 60 amps through a
#6 copper wire would cause it to reach it's flash point. I'm pretty
confident that the NEC has figured in considerable leeway



"Eigenvector" wrote in message
. ..

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article k.net,
"David Martel" wrote:
RBM,


60 is fine

Is the OP wrong that the #6 line is rated for only 55 amps or are you
saying that a 60 amp breaker is safe with wire that will fail at 55 amps.
Something is wrong here.


Nothing is wrong at all. The NEC specifically permits going up to the
next
higher standard breaker size when the rated ampacity of the wire (55A in
this
case) does not correspond to any standard breaker size.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)



That doesn't make sense to me at all.

Why allow the breaker to trip at a higher rating than the wire?
Conceivably the wire would fail without the breaker ever tripping. That
presumes the wire rating of 55 A means it is only capable of carrying 55A
at 120V



  #19   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,079
Default Breaker on #6 copper


"M Q" wrote in message
news:6u6ti.353$V53.338@trnddc08...
Doug Miller wrote:

In article AW%si.115$zg3.49@trnddc04, M Q
wrote:

...

Wrong. Please familiarize yourself with the NEC before attempting to
answer electrical questions.

A 60A breaker is perfectly fine:

"Devices Rated 800 Amperes or Less. The next higher standard overcurrent
device rating (above the ampacity of the conductors being protected)
shall be permitted to be used, provided all of the following conditions
are met ..." [2005 NEC, Article 240.4(B)]

The conditions can be summarized as not a multiple-receptacle circuit, no
matching standard breaker, and next size up not 800A.


Mea Culpa. I was wrong on two points. Thanks for correcting me.

I will now slink off with my tail between my legs.


You got better treatment than I did from him.


  #20   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,375
Default Breaker on #6 copper

In article , "Eigenvector" wrote:

"M Q" wrote in message
news:6u6ti.353$V53.338@trnddc08...
Doug Miller wrote:

In article AW%si.115$zg3.49@trnddc04, M Q
wrote:

...

Wrong. Please familiarize yourself with the NEC before attempting to
answer electrical questions.

A 60A breaker is perfectly fine:

"Devices Rated 800 Amperes or Less. The next higher standard overcurrent
device rating (above the ampacity of the conductors being protected)
shall be permitted to be used, provided all of the following conditions
are met ..." [2005 NEC, Article 240.4(B)]

The conditions can be summarized as not a multiple-receptacle circuit, no
matching standard breaker, and next size up not 800A.


Mea Culpa. I was wrong on two points. Thanks for correcting me.

I will now slink off with my tail between my legs.


You got better treatment than I did from him.

If I offended you, I'm sorry - it was unintentional.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.


  #21   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 548
Default Breaker on #6 copper

Toller wrote:
I am putting in a subpanel for my workshop. I need another 240v line, so I
am ripping out the two 120v lines and the 240v line I have already put in
and replacing them all with a subpanel. Wish I had done it right the first
time, but that boat has sailed.

I am running #6 copper. As I read it, it is good for 55a, and since there
is no 55a breaker, I can use a 60a. Is that correct?

On the other hand; the most I will ever ever use at one time is a bandsaw
and DC, which draw 27a together (which is why I need another 240v). I
happen to have a 30a breaker. Any reason not to just use that? It is over
the 80% rule, but I presume that applies to the wire rather than to the
breaker. If it trips, I can always replace it.

The #6 was only a few dollars more than the #8; so what the heck...




If you have a 30A breaker already, use it. If it ever trips (or just
before you sell the house), replace it with a 60A.

Bob
  #22   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 238
Default Breaker on #6 copper

Well good greif! the damn wire will handle about 3 times what they say they
will. thats why.

s


"Eigenvector" wrote in message
. ..

That doesn't make sense to me at all.

Why allow the breaker to trip at a higher rating than the wire?
Conceivably the wire would fail without the breaker ever tripping. That
presumes the wire rating of 55 A means it is only capable of carrying 55A
at 120V



  #23   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,447
Default Breaker on #6 copper

On Aug 4, 7:30 pm, "Eigenvector" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message

...





In article k.net,
"David Martel" wrote:
RBM,


60 is fine


Is the OP wrong that the #6 line is rated for only 55 amps or are you
saying that a 60 amp breaker is safe with wire that will fail at 55 amps.
Something is wrong here.


Nothing is wrong at all. The NEC specifically permits going up to the next
higher standard breaker size when the rated ampacity of the wire (55A in
this
case) does not correspond to any standard breaker size.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)


That doesn't make sense to me at all.

Why allow the breaker to trip at a higher rating than the wire? Conceivably
the wire would fail without the breaker ever tripping. That presumes the
wire rating of 55 A means it is only capable of carrying 55A at 120V- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


A couple of the posts here seem to make the assumption that a wire
with a 'rated safe' ampacity of 50 amps (i.e. that it can carry 50
amps under normal conditions of voltage drop and length of run etc.)
will immediately heat up and burn off if it is made to carry 55 amps
for intermittent periods of time.
Not so. A 50 amp rated wire (say #6AWG) can probably carry twice that
even if getting a bit warm and with a certain amount of voltage drop.
And anyone who has ever dealt with an emergency situation where one
presses into service whatever reasonable size conductors are available
and has a good feel for the basics of electrical resistance, current
flow and voltage drop will understand that.
In this case we are discussing 'normal' domestic workshop conditions
to meet safety and code requirements.
With only one or two people working a maximum home workshop load is
unlikely to be close to the rated capability.
The statement "is only capable of carrying 55 amps" is probably only
true in regard to maximum current that could be carried continuously.
The reference 'is only capable of carrying 55 amps "at 120V", is
superfluous. We are considering current here, not voltage.
For example: Today we had two people working on a friends personal
vehicle in our domestic garage; the maximum load at any one time was,
intermittently;
1) A small wire welder maximum about 20 amps (@230 volt)
2) A sander/grinder or hand drill, maximum 5 amps (@120 volt).
3) A halogen lamp. 2.5 amps (@ 120 volt)
Total (intermittently) 27.5 amps, plus maybe another light that was
on. Maximum 30 amps say all fed from a panel wired with #6AWG and a
50 amp (Square D) breaker from the main house panel about 40 cable
feet distant. Nothing blinked or went dim etc. Caught fire or popped a
breaker.

  #24   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
mm mm is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,824
Default Breaker on #6 copper

On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 22:58:03 GMT, "Wade Lippman"
wrote:


And don't forget, the wire is 90degree and the panel and breaker are
75degree; yet the 55a limit is as though they were 60degree. So the extra 5
amps is not a big deal.


I don't understand any of the 3 degree things.
  #25   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
mm mm is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,824
Default Breaker on #6 copper

On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 20:38:19 -0700, terry
wrote:

The reference 'is only capable of carrying 55 amps "at 120V", is
superfluous. We are considering current here, not voltage.


Absolutely. The heat, if any, generated by the current flowing
through the wire is totally dependant on how much current is flowing,
and unrelated to the voltage applied to the whole circuit.

I think this will help a few people and won't help others at all.

E=IR (Remember that. ) In other words:
EMF=Current times resistance. In other words, in this case:
Voltage = 55 amps x R (resistance)

Power = Voltage x Amps. (Remember this.)In other words, in this case:
Watts = voltage x 55 amps.

But the voltage in the formula above is not the 110 or 220 that comes
from the wall. It's the voltage drop from one end of the wire to the
other, which is small, because the resistance of the wire is small.
The total voltage drop of an appliance plugged in to a wall is 110 or
220 or whatever, but almost all of that voltage drop is in the
appliance, and not in the cord going to it. It's the saw or washer or
water heater or mixmaster that is designed to do the work, and the
wire to it is designed to have low resistance and not impeded the
electrficity getting to the appliance. But, in this case we're
talking about running 6 gauge wire with a 60 amp breaker, even though
the wire is rated at only 55 amps. So how much heat (power or watts,
iirc) will be generated in that wire if the current goes up to just
shy of 60 amps, even though it is rated at 55 amps.

Look at the formulas at the top, and then continue he

Since voltage = 55 amps x R, then:
Watts = 55 amps x R x 55 amps. In other words:
Watts = (55 amps) squared x R.

Where R is the resistance of the wire feedinn the appliance.

This is not the number of watts given off by a lightbulb, if there is
a lightbulb in the appliance, or used by the motor if there is a motor
in it. It's the number of watts given off by the wire feeding the
appliance. And it is totally unrelated to the voltage applied to the
appliance**

**Except insofar as if higher voltage were applied, more current woudl
go through the same resistance wire and appliance.










  #26   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,375
Default Breaker on #6 copper

In article , mm wrote:
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 22:58:03 GMT, "Wade Lippman"
wrote:


And don't forget, the wire is 90degree and the panel and breaker are
75degree; yet the 55a limit is as though they were 60degree. So the extra 5
amps is not a big deal.


I don't understand any of the 3 degree things.


Temperature rating of the insulation (some insulating materials can withstand
higher temperatures than others).

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
  #27   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35
Default Breaker on #6 copper


"mm" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 20:38:19 -0700, terry
wrote:

The reference 'is only capable of carrying 55 amps "at 120V", is
superfluous. We are considering current here, not voltage.


Absolutely. The heat, if any, generated by the current flowing
through the wire is totally dependant on how much current is flowing,
and unrelated to the voltage applied to the whole circuit.


That is not quiet right!
"voltage drop" in the line times current equals watts
which generate heat in or on the line
so voltage does have some effect.


I think this will help a few people and won't help others at all.

E=IR (Remember that. ) In other words:
EMF=Current times resistance.


EMF= Electro Motive Force

In other words, in this case: IxR=E
Voltage = 55 amps x R (resistance)

Power = Voltage x Amps. (Remember this.)In other words, in this case:
Watts = voltage x 55 amps.

But the voltage in the formula above is not the 110 or 220 that comes
from the wall. It's the voltage drop from one end of the wire to the
other, which is small, because the resistance of the wire is small.
The total voltage drop of an appliance plugged in to a wall is 110 or
220 or whatever, but almost all of that voltage drop is in the
appliance, and not in the cord going to it. It's the saw or washer or
water heater or mixmaster that is designed to do the work, and the
wire to it is designed to have low resistance and not impeded the
electrficity getting to the appliance. But, in this case we're
talking about running 6 gauge wire with a 60 amp breaker, even though
the wire is rated at only 55 amps. So how much heat (power or watts,
iirc) will be generated in that wire if the current goes up to just
shy of 60 amps, even though it is rated at 55 amps.

Look at the formulas at the top, and then continue he

Since voltage = 55 amps x R, then:
Watts = 55 amps x R x 55 amps.


In other words:can you make simple
(E=Volts) x (I=Curent) =(W=Watts)

Watts = (55 amps) squared x R.

Where R is the resistance of the wire feedinn the appliance.

This is not the number of watts given off by a lightbulb, if there is
a lightbulb in the appliance, or used by the motor if there is a motor
in it. It's the number of watts given off by the wire feeding the
appliance. And it is totally unrelated to the voltage applied to the
appliance**

**Except insofar as if higher voltage were applied, more current woudl
go through the same resistance wire and appliance.

And for any General use #6 wire three in conduit is rated for 65 Amps.


  #28   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
dpb dpb is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,595
Default Breaker on #6 copper

Tony wrote:
"mm" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 20:38:19 -0700, terry
wrote:

The reference 'is only capable of carrying 55 amps "at 120V", is
superfluous. We are considering current here, not voltage.

Absolutely. The heat, if any, generated by the current flowing
through the wire is totally dependant on how much current is flowing,
and unrelated to the voltage applied to the whole circuit.


That is not quiet right!
"voltage drop" in the line times current equals watts
which generate heat in or on the line
so voltage does have some effect.

....

Well, yes and no...depends on whether it is a constant current or
constant voltage source (or another way to consider it is in regards to
the chicken and egg )...

For a power circuit fed from the grid, one can consider it a constant
voltage source.

There is current flow through the circuit only because there is a
voltage drop from that source to the neutral.

How much voltage drop is in the wiring depends on the resistance of the
wiring, that is correct. But how much current flows through the wire
depends on the _total_ resistance from the source back to the neutral
(assuming a series circuit, the current through each component is the
same), not just the wire. So, given that there is a fixed voltage
supply and for a particular piece of equipment on the circuit in the
shop, the current will also be (nearly) constant and the voltage drop
across the wiring will be determined by that current. Consequently, of
the wiring loss, the situation looks more like a current source rather
than a voltage source.

But then again, one can analyze it as if there were a fixed voltage
impressed over the cable and arrive at the same numerical result...

V = IR

P = VI = (IR)I = I^2 R

Which is more fundamental; the VI or I-squared R form? All depends on
point of view...

....
  #29   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,375
Default Breaker on #6 copper

In article pFkti.3844$J13.1918@trnddc02, "Tony" wrote:

And for any General use #6 wire three in conduit is rated for 65 Amps.


That is incorrect -- the ampacity depends on the insulation. Type TW or UF
6AWG conductors, for example, have an ampacity of 55A.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
  #30   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,079
Default Breaker on #6 copper


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et...
In article , "Eigenvector"
wrote:

"M Q" wrote in message
news:6u6ti.353$V53.338@trnddc08...
Doug Miller wrote:

In article AW%si.115$zg3.49@trnddc04, M Q
wrote:
...

Wrong. Please familiarize yourself with the NEC before attempting to
answer electrical questions.

A 60A breaker is perfectly fine:

"Devices Rated 800 Amperes or Less. The next higher standard
overcurrent
device rating (above the ampacity of the conductors being protected)
shall be permitted to be used, provided all of the following conditions
are met ..." [2005 NEC, Article 240.4(B)]

The conditions can be summarized as not a multiple-receptacle circuit,
no
matching standard breaker, and next size up not 800A.

Mea Culpa. I was wrong on two points. Thanks for correcting me.

I will now slink off with my tail between my legs.


You got better treatment than I did from him.

If I offended you, I'm sorry - it was unintentional.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)


Don't worry about, I have thin skin lately.

But back to my question, which was more out of interest than contesting a
ruling. The 5 extra amps is more than just the wire, what about the device
at the other end of that wire - it'll be taking on an additional 5 amps too.
Maybe not important, if it has its own fuses, they'll blow too. I was just
curious is all.

Now this next part is just my mind asking questions, not making personal
attacks.

A lot of people are firing back claiming the wire can handle 65 A, 60 A,
2000A, whatever, those current carrying capacities aren't advertised on the
wire bundle, so how would an electrician know that? I'm presuming an
electrician isn't schooled at the same level as an Electrical Engineer. So
looking at a wire and being able to tell the ampacity of it seems liberal to
me. When they allow higher breaker sizes it also tells me that the NEC
conventions are largely anecdotal or arbitrary as opposed to calculated or
theoretical values - which is even more worrisome to me. I would expect
them to state restrictions and rules more along the lines of "This is the
theoretical limit of this particular wire, plus a safety margin of 1.5 - you
may not use something higher than this value" Rather than, "Just use the
next highest one, they don't make the correct one for it." If they were to
state something like that, I would also expect them to qualify it by stating
the reason why they make that allowance. Like I said, just me asking
questions.




  #31   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 746
Default Breaker on #6 copper

Eigenvector wrote:
SNIP


A lot of people are firing back claiming the wire can handle 65 A, 60 A,
2000A, whatever, those current carrying capacities aren't advertised on the
wire bundle, so how would an electrician know that? I'm presuming an
electrician isn't schooled at the same level as an Electrical Engineer. So
looking at a wire and being able to tell the ampacity of it seems liberal to
me. When they allow higher breaker sizes it also tells me that the NEC
conventions are largely anecdotal or arbitrary as opposed to calculated or
theoretical values - which is even more worrisome to me. I would expect
them to state restrictions and rules more along the lines of "This is the
theoretical limit of this particular wire, plus a safety margin of 1.5 - you
may not use something higher than this value" Rather than, "Just use the
next highest one, they don't make the correct one for it." If they were to
state something like that, I would also expect them to qualify it by stating
the reason why they make that allowance. Like I said, just me asking
questions.



Indeed, electricians are required to know all those fine details.

To get some feel for the breadth of Code issues, look at Mike Holt's
pages which include a very busy forum on Code issues:
http://www.mikeholt.com/Newsletters/Newsletters.htm

Jim
  #32   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
dpb dpb is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,595
Default Breaker on #6 copper

Eigenvector wrote:
....
A lot of people are firing back claiming the wire can handle 65 A, 60 A,
2000A, whatever, those current carrying capacities aren't advertised on the
wire bundle, so how would an electrician know that? I'm presuming an
electrician isn't schooled at the same level as an Electrical Engineer. So
looking at a wire and being able to tell the ampacity of it seems liberal to
me. When they allow higher breaker sizes it also tells me that the NEC
conventions are largely anecdotal or arbitrary as opposed to calculated or
theoretical values - which is even more worrisome to me. I would expect
them to state restrictions and rules more along the lines of "This is the
theoretical limit of this particular wire, plus a safety margin of 1.5 - you
may not use something higher than this value" Rather than, "Just use the
next highest one, they don't make the correct one for it." If they were to
state something like that, I would also expect them to qualify it by stating
the reason why they make that allowance. Like I said, just me asking
questions.


The electrician doesn't have to know what the theoretical
current-carrying capacity of a conductor is -- all he has to do is learn
the basic rules of NEC (or whatever particular code variant he is
working under).

The NEC is a product of the NFPA which is a nonprofit organization
formed initially by a bunch of insurance underwriters for the purpose of
trying to bring some order into common practice and to reduce the
prevelance/frequency of fires owing to poor practice (and, given the
time in which they started, not in small part, to define what good
practice entailed.)

The code is pragmatic and not intended as a technical treatise or
engineering specification. That saic, there are bases for each rule and
reasons for the rule and the exceptions to the rules. As others have
said, the tendency is to make the rules conservative with respect to
actual practices that would be an imminent and immediate danger.

Code is written by committee of member representatives and is, for the
most part, a volunteer activity. For an overview of the Code
development process, see the following link...

http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=161&
URL=Codes%20and%20Standards/Code%20development%20process

Having served on another Standards committee subcommittee in the past
with similar rules, it is a protracted process to say the least...

--
  #34   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,743
Default Breaker on #6 copper

Eigenvector wrote:
When they allow higher breaker
sizes it also tells me that the NEC conventions are largely anecdotal
or arbitrary as opposed to calculated or theoretical values - which
is even more worrisome to me. I would expect them to state
restrictions and rules more along the lines of "This is the
theoretical limit of this particular wire, plus a safety margin of
1.5 - you may not use something higher than this value" Rather than,
"Just use the next highest one, they don't make the correct one for
it." If they were to state something like that, I would also expect
them to qualify it by stating the reason why they make that
allowance. Like I said, just me asking questions.


Like most "regulations," there is no requirement that a "reason" be given.
Often the regulation is arbitrary and based on emotional satisfaction rather
than science (silicone breast implants, arsenic levels in municipal water
systems).

Other times, like having a licensed electrician (or union member), be
responsible for changing a light bulb, the underlying reason is political or
economic.

Sometimes, like the regulations prohibiting PEX in California, the
regulation is merely a pride issue.





  #35   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35
Default Breaker on #6 copper

Doug: no disrespect to you are any one ales in this forum,
I have no degree to speak of so I am not going to contradict you
But from my understanding insulation do not have anything
to do with wire Ampacity or in the other words capacity to
carry amount of current. Wire insulation rating is for soly purpose
where that wire can be used to be able to carry it's rated current.
example # 10 wire insulated with rubber is good up to maximum
140 Deg. F regardless if is carrying 30 amps. or 10 amps.
because at that temp. rubber will start to melt.
I use lot of glass cover wire and Teflon but # 10 wire is good
only for up 30 amps. higher amperage requires larger conductor
8 or 6 whatever I may need so I don't see insulation been factor here
I am sorry that is the way I see it
Tony
www.cas-environ.com



"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. net...
In article pFkti.3844$J13.1918@trnddc02, "Tony"
wrote:

And for any General use #6 wire three in conduit is rated for 65 Amps.


That is incorrect -- the ampacity depends on the insulation. Type TW or UF
6AWG conductors, for example, have an ampacity of 55A.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.





  #36   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
RBM RBM is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,690
Default Breaker on #6 copper

In wire sizes 10-12-14, the NEC limits the ampacity to 30-20-15 regardless
of insulation type, but in larger sizes the NEC allows different amperages
depending upon insulation type, as well as other factors



"Tony" wrote in message
news:OPpti.3043$dD3.1679@trnddc07...
Doug: no disrespect to you are any one ales in this forum,
I have no degree to speak of so I am not going to contradict you
But from my understanding insulation do not have anything
to do with wire Ampacity or in the other words capacity to
carry amount of current. Wire insulation rating is for soly purpose
where that wire can be used to be able to carry it's rated current.
example # 10 wire insulated with rubber is good up to maximum
140 Deg. F regardless if is carrying 30 amps. or 10 amps.
because at that temp. rubber will start to melt.
I use lot of glass cover wire and Teflon but # 10 wire is good
only for up 30 amps. higher amperage requires larger conductor
8 or 6 whatever I may need so I don't see insulation been factor here
I am sorry that is the way I see it
Tony
www.cas-environ.com



"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. net...
In article pFkti.3844$J13.1918@trnddc02, "Tony"
wrote:

And for any General use #6 wire three in conduit is rated for 65 Amps.


That is incorrect -- the ampacity depends on the insulation. Type TW or
UF
6AWG conductors, for example, have an ampacity of 55A.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.





  #37   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,375
Default Breaker on #6 copper

In article , "Eigenvector" wrote:

But back to my question, which was more out of interest than contesting a
ruling. The 5 extra amps is more than just the wire, what about the device
at the other end of that wire - it'll be taking on an additional 5 amps too.


No, actually, they won't. A device draws whatever it draws. A 1200W heater,
for example, pulls 10A at 120V whether the circuit it's on has a 15A breaker
or a 100A breaker.

Maybe not important, if it has its own fuses, they'll blow too. I was just
curious is all.


Nope; see above.

Now this next part is just my mind asking questions, not making personal
attacks.

A lot of people are firing back claiming the wire can handle 65 A, 60 A,
2000A, whatever, those current carrying capacities aren't advertised on the
wire bundle, so how would an electrician know that? I'm presuming an
electrician isn't schooled at the same level as an Electrical Engineer. So
looking at a wire and being able to tell the ampacity of it seems liberal to
me.


You don't tell the ampacity just from looking at the wire. Well, you might if
you have NEC Table 310.16 memorized, but it's the table that tells you, not
the wire.

When they allow higher breaker sizes it also tells me that the NEC
conventions are largely anecdotal or arbitrary as opposed to calculated or
theoretical values - which is even more worrisome to me.


It should be worrisome if your conclusion were correct; fortunately, it's not.

It's important to remember that the Code allows going up *one*, and only one,
breaker size, and then only if the listed ampacity does not correspond to a
standard breaker size. For instance, a wire with a listed ampacity of 50A may
*not* be breakered at 60A, because 50A is a standard breaker.

I would expect
them to state restrictions and rules more along the lines of "This is the
theoretical limit of this particular wire, plus a safety margin of 1.5 - you
may not use something higher than this value" Rather than, "Just use the
next highest one, they don't make the correct one for it."


There isn't really any difference between the two situations, and the latter
is much more convenient to implement in practice.

If they were to
state something like that, I would also expect them to qualify it by stating
the reason why they make that allowance. Like I said, just me asking
questions.


Perhaps the most important thing that you're missing here is the part of
240.4(B) that says "provided all of the following conditions are met" --
conditions which I only summarized in my earlier posts in this thread. It
seems to me that it's time to quote the first one in full, and comment on it:

"(1) The conductors being protected are NOT part of a multioutlet branch
circuit supplying receptacles for cord-and-plug-connected portable loads."
[emphasis added]

Let's examine the possibilities under which the bump is permitted by this
condition:

1) Circuit has no receptacles at all. That means it's feeding either a
subpanel, or direct-wired stationary equipment. In the former case, the load
will depend on which circuits in the subpanel are in use, and is unlikely to
ever be at maximum. In the latter case, the load is precisely known, and the
safety (or lack thereof) is readily determined.

2) Circuit has a single receptacle, or multiple receptacles, for
cord-and-plug-connected NON-portable equipment. Again, the actual load can be
readily determined: you know what's going to be used on the circuit, because
it's sitting right next to the outlets, and it isn't going anywhere. A circuit
supplying outlets for a table saw and a 5HP air compressor would be a good
example of this category.

3) Circuit has a single receptacle for cord-and-plug-connected portable
equipment. It is unlikely that any Code-compliant circuits can exist in this
category: the *lowest* listed ampacity that would be permitted to be bumped is
a 55A conductor breakered at 60A; it is a Code violation to install a
receptacle with a rating lower than that of the overcurrent device on any
circuit over 20A; and any load which requires a 60A (or higher) rated
receptacle is highly unlikely to meet anyone's definition of "portable".

In short, this means that the bump up to the next higher breaker size is
limited to circumstances in which the load is either limited, or more or less
fixed, and readily predictable.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
  #38   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,375
Default Breaker on #6 copper

In article OPpti.3043$dD3.1679@trnddc07, "Tony" wrote:
Doug: no disrespect to you are any one ales in this forum,
I have no degree to speak of so I am not going to contradict you
But from my understanding insulation do not have anything
to do with wire Ampacity or in the other words capacity to
carry amount of current.


Well, I'm sorry, but your understanding is incorrect. Ampacity depends on
multiple factors, and insulation is one of them. I'll try to explain.

Wire insulation rating is for soly purpose
where that wire can be used to be able to carry it's rated current.


Exactly. And the rating depends on the type of insulation (among other
things) -- this is laid out clearly in Table 310.16 of the National Electrical
Code.

example # 10 wire insulated with rubber is good up to maximum
140 Deg. F regardless if is carrying 30 amps. or 10 amps.
because at that temp. rubber will start to melt.


Which is exactly why wires with rubber insulation are limited to carrying
currents low enough to *not* heat the wire up that much. Wires insulated with
materials capable of withstanding higher temperatures are allowed to carry
more current because they can get hotter without damaging the insulation and
creating a hazard.

I use lot of glass cover wire and Teflon but # 10 wire is good
only for up 30 amps. higher amperage requires larger conductor
8 or 6 whatever I may need so I don't see insulation been factor here


The insulation *isn't* a factor for AWG10 and smaller wires, because the NEC
specifically limits the allowable breaker rating for AWG10, 12, and 14
conductors to 30A, 20A, and 15A respectively, regardless of what insulating
material is used.

For wires AWG8 and larger, the ampacity *does* depend on the insulation. For
example, AWG8 wires with Type TW insulation are limited to 40A -- but with
Type THHN insulation, the allowable ampacity is 55A.

I am sorry that is the way I see it
Tony
www.cas-environ.com



"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.net...
In article pFkti.3844$J13.1918@trnddc02, "Tony"
wrote:

And for any General use #6 wire three in conduit is rated for 65 Amps.


That is incorrect -- the ampacity depends on the insulation. Type TW or UF
6AWG conductors, for example, have an ampacity of 55A.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
  #39   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
dpb dpb is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,595
Default Breaker on #6 copper

HeyBub wrote:
....
Like most "regulations," there is no requirement that a "reason" be given.
Often the regulation is arbitrary and based on emotional satisfaction rather
than science (silicone breast implants, arsenic levels in municipal water
systems).

Other times, like having a licensed electrician (or union member), be
responsible for changing a light bulb, the underlying reason is political or
economic.

Sometimes, like the regulations prohibiting PEX in California, the
regulation is merely a pride issue.


Some of those _may_ have some merit, but I'm doubtful of most...

W/ the NEC, there is a very long and involved process of building the
Code and while it isn't required (nor even very meaningful) to publish
every nuance of "why" underlying the actual code provisions, there are
defensible reasons for them and there has to be sufficient basis to win
the approval of a sizable number of participants. At last time I looked
there were some 80,000 members of the NFPA and the NEC had something
otoh 5,000(!) peer reviewers. With that many folks involved, anything
_too_ arbitrary or one-side simply isn't going to fly.

It may appear arbitrary, but like most things, the details are far more
complex than they may appear from the outside.

--


  #40   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,981
Default Breaker on #6 copper

dpb wrote:
Eigenvector wrote:
...
A lot of people are firing back claiming the wire can handle 65 A, 60
A, 2000A, whatever, those current carrying capacities aren't
advertised on the wire bundle, so how would an electrician know that?
I'm presuming an electrician isn't schooled at the same level as an
Electrical Engineer. So looking at a wire and being able to tell the
ampacity of it seems liberal to me. When they allow higher breaker
sizes it also tells me that the NEC conventions are largely anecdotal
or arbitrary as opposed to calculated or theoretical values - which is
even more worrisome to me. I would expect them to state restrictions
and rules more along the lines of "This is the theoretical limit of
this particular wire, plus a safety margin of 1.5 - you may not use
something higher than this value" Rather than, "Just use the next
highest one, they don't make the correct one for it." If they were to
state something like that, I would also expect them to qualify it by
stating the reason why they make that allowance. Like I said, just me
asking questions.


The electrician doesn't have to know what the theoretical
current-carrying capacity of a conductor is -- all he has to do is learn
the basic rules of NEC (or whatever particular code variant he is
working under).

The NEC is a product of the NFPA which is a nonprofit organization
formed initially by a bunch of insurance underwriters for the purpose of
trying to bring some order into common practice and to reduce the
prevelance/frequency of fires owing to poor practice (and, given the
time in which they started, not in small part, to define what good
practice entailed.)

The code is pragmatic and not intended as a technical treatise or
engineering specification. That saic, there are bases for each rule and
reasons for the rule and the exceptions to the rules. As others have
said, the tendency is to make the rules conservative with respect to
actual practices that would be an imminent and immediate danger.

Code is written by committee of member representatives and is, for the
most part, a volunteer activity. For an overview of the Code
development process, see the following link...

http://www.nfpa.org/categoryList.asp?categoryID=161&
URL=Codes%20and%20Standards/Code%20development%20process

Having served on another Standards committee subcommittee in the past
with similar rules, it is a protracted process to say the least...


Which one?


Nice description, I quite generally agree.
IIRC the chemical industries forced a change from "hazardous" wiring to
"classified" wiring. And I think the health care industries forced more
significant changes to the chapter on health care facilities. Both
examples quite old but there are probably still 'aberrations'. The
process in general works pretty well.


A few of the steps for NEC revision:

Proposed changes are submitted by anyone.

A panel makes decisions on the proposals and the results are published
in the "Report on proposals" - ROC.

The public makes comments on the proposed changes.

The panel makes decisions using the comments and the results are
published in the "Report on comments" -- ROC.

There are a few more steps.



The ROP and ROC are available (when I last looked) on the internet.
Reading them can be interesting. You get the logic for the change (and
occasionally lack of logic). When a proposed change fails you may get
the logic (or lack of logic) for why the code is written as it is.

--
bud--


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Electric BBQ breaks GFI 20 Amp breaker yet works fine with non-GFI breaker. BoyntonStu Home Repair 10 May 26th 07 07:56 PM
Fernco/Mission couplers for copper to copper? Dan Lanciani Home Repair 1 January 29th 07 12:26 AM
Fernco/Mission couplers for copper to copper? Dan Lanciani Home Ownership 1 January 29th 07 12:26 AM
A/C Unit Keeps Tripping Circuit Breaker - How to test breaker before calling repair man? C5Ya Home Repair 10 August 26th 05 08:34 PM
Circuit breaker tester maps to wrong breaker!! Joe Doe Home Repair 7 November 30th 04 02:47 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:26 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"