"REL" wrote in message
...
I knew we had settled on this before but I was positive for some
reason your orginal post had indicated the 100 amp page was fine. Your
calling it a typo on the guys part. Most typo's happen once, not a
five paragraph explanation of why a value is acceptable.
The "five paragraph explanation" makes perfect sense once the typo is
corrected. You're grasping for straws and you know it.
Now more to the point. Your response back to the group was bring up a
settled disagreement.
we hashed it all not then and I stated you were
correct and I was wrong at that time.
No, REL, you talked out of both sides of your mouth, just like you're doing
now.
You have brought it back up as
if that never happened. It did, and you responded to it happening. I
have no idea why you seek to fuss so much, particularly with me.
Well , SIR, is this _not_ your statement from just a few posts ago???:
"I am not going to spend any more time on the topic researching my own
arguments sir. If you find any support for your maintaining that you
can wire the unit for the MCA and then protect it with the MOCP put a
link here in this thread as I marked it for retrieval.
If you find supporting information I will own my mistake infront of
god and everybody. Perhaps that is a difference you do not see in me.
I do not care if I am wrong, I only seek to correct it when I am."
I don't see anywhere in that statement that you said were wrong. Quite the
opposite, SIR.
You are allowed to wire for the MCA and proctect at the MOCP.
This is how the whole argument got started in the first place! You were
maintaining in _no_ uncertain terms that this _very_ statement (by me, BTW)
was
incorrect. OK, I get it, yesterday you were adamant that one cannot "wire
the unit for the MCA and then protect it with the MOCP", but today, after
reading the link that I provided, you're saying the exact opposite.
It is
also not wise to do so all the time. The NEC specs MINIMAL standards.
The discussion you brought up again this time in your last post refers
to a 15 amp load on 14 gauge wire with 30 amp protection.
Imagine that! A TYPO! The MOCP was _clearly_ stated as 25 amps in the
article for the link that I provided. I suppose
it's OK when _you_ make a typo, but not other's?
While this
might be acceptable as a minimum standard,
Is this your admission of your mistake "in front God and everybody"?
14 gauge wire will cause
significant voltage drop within a very short distance. The cost
savings on such an application does not have value over safety and
equipment life. If it was a long enough run to save much money at all,
it was too long for the voltage drop involved.
Well, SIR, keep backpedaling. The original discussion was per NEC, and you
know it. You were very adamant in the old discussion, and even just a few
days ago, that I was wrong. Here, let me refresh your memory of your
original stance:
http://tinyurl.com/wvsh
Are these _not_ your words from the above link to that thread?:
"if you have a 40 amp breaker, the ampacity of the WIRE aka conductor
shall be rated no less than 40 amps, the end. "
I've already addressed the economic issues of "over and beyond" the NEC in
the old thread,
http://tinyurl.com/ww6h
Your condescending manner seems to prevail, as usual.
I have no idea of why you can not let it go, especialy since it has
already been stated you were correct.
No, REL, it was never stated that I was correct, as witnessed by your above
quoted post of just a few days ago.
At best all that is left is a
disagreement with what is best practice. I am pretty sure we both
agreed that careful consideration to many things might make one choose
not to use the minimum standards set forth by the NEC.
Here is a link to where this all ended sir, if you can explain why it
is come up again for any purpose other than to argue, please explain
to me where the problem remains as it is very unclear to me.
Well, SIR, I snipped the link because it doesn't come close to "where this
all ended".