# #14 for lights, on a 20 amp circuit



## pukester

This is not done or allowed in any municipality I worked in in So.Cal. HOWEVER here in Utah (where most decisions are governed by whether you can save 25 cents), Electricians routinely, on a 12 guage, 20 amp circuit,..will run lights with a #14. The only answer I ever got was that most (if not all) municipalities allow it in Utah. As I get older,. I am leaning towards the real answer being "the inspectors don't make us change it or call us out on it...and it saves us a few bucks on every job". Anybody have any info. on this?


----------



## HackWork

I do it all the time because I don't pull permits. I don't do it to save money, I do it because #14 is so much nicer to work with than #12, especially in the little junction boxes that many lights use.

It is perfectly safe. Most lighting is LED now anyways, but even with incandescent they aren't pulling anywhere near 15A in the lighting that I install.

And this is where someone is going to come up with some unrealistic scenario about how someone else can splice into my lights to add more lights and pull more current, blah blah blah.


----------



## pukester

Thank you,. The older I get, and the more arthritis (and less patience) I get,..the more I like #14 wire. I never thought I would say that in my younger years.


----------



## HackWork

pukester said:


> Thank you,. The older I get, and the more arthritis (and less patience) I get,..the more I like #14 wire. I never thought I would say that in my younger years.


When I was doing commercial work fulltime, I remember what a pleasure it was doing resi sidework with #14 :biggrin:


----------



## MTW

#12 wire is getting more and more unnecessary these days with LED lighting and higher efficiencies in appliances and equipment, even in commercial environments. It's the height of absurdity to me to wire up LED lights with #12 on 277 volts for a circuit that will draw a few amps at most. 

As for the OP's scenario, I put that one in the category of technically a violation, but not unsafe at all. If I'm adding line voltage undercabinet lights, I'll tap them off the countertop circuit using #14.


----------



## HackWork

MTW said:


> #12 wire is getting more and more unnecessary these days with LED lighting and higher efficiencies in appliances and equipment, even in commercial environments. It's the height of absurdity to me to wire up LED lights with #12 on 277 volts for a circuit that will draw a few amps at most.
> 
> As for the OP's scenario, I put that one in the category of technically a violation, but not unsafe at all. If I'm adding line voltage undercabinet lights, I'll tap them off the countertop circuit using #14.


What’s worse, that 16” piece of #14 you ran up to the UC light, or the 16” piece of #18 used inside of the hot light :vs_laugh:


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> What’s worse, that 16” piece of #14 you ran up to the UC light, or the 16” piece of #18 used inside of the hot light :vs_laugh:


Precisely. Codes are now designed to make manufacturers more money and have very little to do with safety anymore.


----------



## CoolWill

Technical violation, but there is some logic behind it. The light is a fixed load. No one is ever going to plug a space heater into a ceiling light. The nature of the circuit self-limits the current draw. It's similar to #18 lamp cord plugged into a 20 amp receptacle.


----------



## pukester

It's amazing what codes have morphed into. Originally they were designed so that one building was like the next....when working on an existing building you had an idea what happened before you got there. (Hence the term "uniform" was used originally...me thinks). Now they've turned the codes in to quite a leviathon. As of late, there has been some pushback from the citizenry. I believe in Utah the state legislature removed the requirement for AFI's. And I read somewhere that two or three other states have done that.


----------



## telsa

NOT a violation of the NEC. Such runs would be deemed Lighting Taps. Such runs are allowed down to #16.

Dig for the exception within the tap rules, IIRC. I'm too lazy to do the library work.

Obviously, you'd be flagged if the number of fixtures got absurd.


----------



## CoolWill

telsa said:


> NOT a violation of the NEC. Such runs would be deemed Lighting Taps. Such runs are allowed down to #16.
> 
> Dig for the exception within the tap rules, IIRC. I'm too lazy to do the library work.
> 
> Obviously, you'd be flagged if the number of fixtures got absurd.


That may be true for fixture wire, but I don't think it applies to switch legs or other permanently installed portions of branch circuits. But, like you, I am too lazy to prove it with code.


----------



## 99cents

Why not just run fixtures and receptacles on a 15 amp circuit? I’m missing something here. For the record, in Canada, residential lighting has to be 15 amp.


----------



## HackWork

99cents said:


> Why not just run fixtures and receptacles on a 15 amp circuit? I’m missing something here. For the record, in Canada, residential lighting has to be 15 amp.


Because I often find myself in a situation in which it would be very easy to tap lights off of a nearby 20A circuit, and very hard to run a new 15A circuit.

Such as Peter D said with the under cabinet lights tapped into the 20A counter circuit.


----------



## Weasel

Why don’t use 15 amp breakers


----------



## CoolWill

99cents said:


> Why not just run fixtures and receptacles on a 15 amp circuit?


I have seen a handful of jurisdictions which, for some reason, don't allow 15 amp branch circuits. It is in maybe two of thkse that they did allow for #14 for swigch legs.



> For the record, in Canada, residential lighting has to be 15 amp.


Almost as silly as forbidding 15 amp circuits.


----------



## HackWork

> For the record, in Canada, residential lighting has to be 15 amp.





CoolWill said:


> Almost as silly as forbidding 15 amp circuits.


Agreed. WHY cant someone put lighting on a 20A circuit if they want? Why is 15A some magical safe number? This is an example of how stupid the code is and why we should ignore it.


----------



## Weasel

Hack you signed up to get in this trade but the NEC and CEC has minimal standers so why are you always cutting corners


----------



## MTW

Weasel said:


> Hack you signed up to get in this trade but the NEC and CEC has minimal standers so why are you always cutting corners


Hi Frunk Slammer.


----------



## HackWork

Weasel said:


> Hack you signed up to get in this trade but the NEC and CEC has minimal standers so why are you always cutting corners


I provide excellent service to my customers which include very safe electrical installations.


----------



## Weasel

The trade your in can kill people and set fires. I don’t break the code. Again the public trust you to do it right


----------



## MTW

Weasel said:


> The trade your in can kill people and set fires. I don’t break the code. Again the public trust you to do it right


I see.


----------



## Weasel

Your comments about how you do things says otherwise


----------



## MTW

Weasel said:


> Your comments about how you do things says otherwise


:sleep1:


----------



## HertzHound

I'd like to report this thread and have it deleted. Some apprentice or homeowner is going to come across this and think that this practice is safe and normal.


This reminds me of a movie that I probably shouldn't have watched as a child. It was a pastor telling a guy over and over "If your eyes see evil, pluck them out". Eventually the guy did!!!


----------



## HackWork

Weasel said:


> The trade your in can kill people and set fires. I don’t break the code. Again the public trust you to do it right


Code has nothing to do with safety.

As I clearly said, I provide very safe installations.


----------



## CoolWill

Weasel said:


> The trade your in can kill people and set fires. I don’t break the code. Again the public trust you to do it right


Are you saying that 100% to code wiring doesn't kill people or cause fires?


----------



## MTW

Codes are nothing more than arbitrary rules made by people who are bought and paid for by manufacturers.


----------



## Weasel

99cent you don’t want to put lighting circuits and combine receptacles on a 20 amp circuit. I’ve seen dropcords plugged into 6 outlets strips so your never know what the customers are going to plug all kind of loads in the receptacles, don’t put lighting loads on it to


----------



## pukester

Of the very few fires (or near fires where someone caught it) I've been privy to,. The most common is wires pulled too tight,...and then as they age (ya,..decades and decades),..the jacket starts to wear,..and at some point arcing will start and may not set a breaker off. Second most common would be flourescent lights that require a mini circuitboard inside,...and the circuitboard decides to fry itself. 
 I am still waiting to personally see or hear about a fire from all of these other things the code protects aunt sally from when hiring Bill to do some electrical work. When I was young, an old timer told me that as long as your wire connections were tight as hell,..you would have nothing to worry about that you could have changed.


----------



## HackWork

Weasel said:


> 99cent you don’t want to put lighting circuits and combine receptacles on a 20 amp circuit. I’ve seen dropcords plugged into 6 outlets strips so your never know what the customers are going to plug all kind of loads in the receptacles, don’t put lighting loads on it to


Wow, every post gets better and better...


----------



## Weasel

If you do it right with the correct wire size and breakers. It should last for many years to hack thinks we don’t need a code book which in his owns words code has nothing to do with safety. Let’s do it right the first time and sleep good at night


----------



## Weasel

Puke Bill probably tapped on an existing outlet which already has loads on it and sally probably plugged in an air conditioner or heater and use a drop cord so she could put it where she wants


----------



## MTW

What a great thread.


----------



## Weasel

Cool will if you do your job right yes it will be safe but it’s on the news all the time that especially heaters that is notorious for causing so many fires other people have to be educated


----------



## HackWork

Weasel said:


> Cool will if you do your job right yes it will be safe but it’s on the news all the time that especially heaters that is notorious for causing so many fires other people have to be educated


 We are not talking about heaters. We are talking about lights.


----------



## Wirenuting

Because he articulates so well and hasn’t figured out how to use the quote function.


----------



## TheLivingBubba

Dafuq did I just read?


----------



## Weasel

I know how to use the quote but your get my point


----------



## micromind

MTW said:


> Codes are nothing more than arbitrary rules made by people who are bought and paid for by manufacturers.


Exactly. 

And VERY few of these people have any recent practical hands-on experience, the vast majority are educated idiots who have no concept of reality. 

Very much like every other law-making gang.


----------



## macmikeman

I only ignore the electrical code when I'm ignoring all the bull$hit associated with the fable of manmade global warming such as polar ice disappearing entirely by the year 2020 and so forth and so on. So I guess that means I ignore the code all the time...............:devil3: Hi Frunk. I miss our discussions...... 



Got a dock picture ?


----------



## 99cents

macmikeman said:


> I only ignore the electrical code when I'm ignoring all the bull$hit associated with the fable of manmade global warming such as polar ice disappearing entirely by the year 2020 and so forth and so on. So I guess that means I ignore the code all the time...............:devil3: Hi Frunk. I miss our discussions......
> 
> 
> 
> Got a dock picture ?


I don’t know who you’re talking to but I think you spelled **** wrong.


----------



## splatz

Clear as mud...



> II. Branch-Circuit Ratings
> 210.19 Conductors — Minimum Ampacity and Size.
> (A) Branch Circuits Not More Than 600 Volts.
> ...
> (4) Other Loads. Branch-circuit conductors that supply
> loads other than those specified in 210.2 and other than
> cooking appliances as covered in 210.19(A)(3) shall have
> an ampacity sufficient for the loads served and shall not be
> smaller than 14 AWG
> 
> Exception No. 1: Tap conductors shall have an ampacity
> suffıcient for the load served. In addition, they shall have an
> ampacity of not less than 15 for circuits rated less than 40
> amperes and not less than 20 for circuits rated at 40 or 50
> amperes and only where these tap conductors supply any of
> the following loads:
> 
> (a) Individual lampholders or luminaires with taps extending not longer than 450 mm (18 in.) beyond any portion of the lampholder or luminaire.
> (b) A luminaire having tap conductors as provided in
> 410.117.
> (c) Individual outlets, other than receptacle outlets,
> with taps not over 450 mm (18 in.) long.
> (d) Infrared lamp industrial heating appliances.
> (e) Nonheating leads of deicing and snow-melting
> cables and mats.
> Exception No. 2: Fixture wires and flexible cords shall be
> permitted to be smaller than 14 AWG as permitted by
> 240.5.


----------



## HertzHound

Might as well pre-fab all receptacles with backstabbed #14. I would say burn all the code books, but nobody buys them anyway. 


I know, I know, we’re talking about adding a tiny fixed load.


----------



## HackWork

HertzHound said:


> Might as well pre-fab all receptacles with backstabbed #14. I would say burn all the code books, but nobody buys them anyway.
> 
> 
> I know, I know, we’re talking about adding a tiny fixed load.


I often use #14 pigtails for outlets on 20A circuits. Why not?


----------



## Weasel

Wirenutting I can’t do so called Quotes from my phone. I don’t stay on my PC all day


----------



## Wirenuting

Weasel said:


> Wirenutting I can’t do so called Quotes from my phone. I don’t stay on my PC all day


Hmmm, works well on mine. 

Maybe you should check out the,

“How-to-use-a- smart-phone” website. It’s right next to Drywallers.com. :vs_laugh:


----------



## HackWork

Weasel said:


> Wirenutting I can’t do so called Quotes from my phone. I don’t stay on my PC all day


Most of my posting is from my phone in the field. You just click on the Quote button.


----------



## 99cents

I can’t believe the princesses here complaining about #12. Are you scared of breaking a nail?


----------



## Wirenuting

HackWork said:


> Most of my posting is from my phone in the field. You just click on the Quote button.


I use the desktop version not the taptalk thing. 
But I do miss the old ET talk app..


----------



## HackWork

Wirenuting said:


> I use the desktop version not the taptalk thing.
> But I do miss the old ET talk app..


I use the desktop version too. I never used the ET app, I hate using apps or mobile versions because they always leave important things out.


----------



## emtnut

HackWork said:


> Agreed. WHY cant someone put lighting on a 20A circuit if they want? Why is 15A some magical safe number? This is an example of how stupid the code is and why we should ignore it.


It's from our 'max 12 outlets per cct' rule.

If it is only lighting, we can run to the max wattage of the lights (leds)


The only issue with tapping your 20A to lighting, is what if the next guy pulls a recept off the lighting (cause it's handy).
But I guess that's more of a DIY protection than safety ... Cause Electricians know code, and follow it :biggrin:


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> I often use #14 pigtails for outlets on 20A circuits. Why not?


I do too, #14 _used_ to be rated for 20 amps anyway until the manufacturers wanted that code changed as well.


----------



## emtnut

MTW said:


> I do too, #14 _used_ to be rated for 20 amps anyway until the manufacturers wanted that code changed as well.


I wouldn't have a problem with that either.

It's just a pigtail, not like it's running through insulated walls or attic


----------



## Weasel

Wirenutting i will if you learn electrical work beside plumbers palace


----------



## CoolWill

emtnut said:


> I wouldn't have a problem with that either.
> 
> It's just a pigtail, not like it's running through insulated walls or attic


Also, unlike the CEC, we are allowed to use 15 amp devices on 20 amp circuits because the load is (theoretically) self-limiting due to the plug used. So, I don't see any harm with tapping a 15 amp receptacle with #14 from a 20 amp circuit, so long as the #14 doesn't supply the rest of the circuit downstream.


----------



## MTW

Peter D says "Abolish the NEC!"


----------



## CoolWill

MTW said:


> Peter D says "Abolish the NEC!"


Who is Peter D?


----------



## Weasel

Wirenutting what part of I don’t have a quote button don’t you understand


----------



## MTW

CoolWill said:


> Who is Peter D?


Well.............


----------



## Wirenuting

Weasel said:


> Wirenutting i will if you learn electrical work beside plumbers palace


Ok master plumber,

What the heck is a “Palace”?


----------



## HertzHound

HackWork said:


> I often use #14 pigtails for outlets on 20A circuits. Why not?



There is no tap rule that allows taping a branch circuit for general receptacles. The only one I know that would come close would be for high bay lights with mogul base fixtures. Those are allowed to tap up to a 50A circuit for a 15A twist lock receptacle.




> 240.4 Protection of Conductors
> Conductors, other than flexible cords, flexible cables, and
> fixture wires, shall be protected against overcurrent in accordance
> with their ampacities specified in *310.15*, unless
> otherwise permitted or required in 240.4(A) through (G).


A through G doesn't allow it. Part D is where they set the limit on 14,12 and 10 gauge to be independant of the ampacities of 310.15. It's why 310.15 has the note for those sizes.




> (D) Small Conductors. Unless specifically permitted in
> 240.4(E) or (G), the overcurrent protection shall not exceed
> that required by (D)(1) through (D)(7) after any correction
> factors for ambient temperature and number of conductors
> have been applied.
> (1) 18 AWG Copper. 7 amperes, provided all the following
> conditions are met:
> (1) Continuous loads do not exceed 5.6 amperes.
> (2) Overcurrent protection is provided by one of the
> following:
> a. Branch-circuit-rated circuit breakers listed and
> marked for use with 18 AWG copper wire
> b. Branch-circuit-rated fuses listed and marked for use
> with 18 AWG copper wire
> c. Class CC, Class J, or Class T fuses
> (2) 16 AWG Copper. 10 amperes, provided all the following
> conditions are met:
> (1) Continuous loads do not exceed 8 amperes.
> (2) Overcurrent protection is provided by one of the following:
> a. Branch-circuit-rated circuit breakers listed and
> marked for use with 16 AWG copper wire
> b. Branch-circuit-rated fuses listed and marked for use
> with 16 AWG copper wire
> c. Class CC, Class J, or Class T fuses
> *(3) 14 AWG Copper. 15 amperes*
> (4) 12 AWG Aluminum and Copper-Clad Aluminum.
> 15 amperes
> (5) 12 AWG Copper. 20 amperes
> (6) 10 AWG Aluminum and Copper-Clad Aluminum.
> 25 amperes
> (7) 10 AWG Copper. 30 amperes


Part E is for tap conductors and doesn't address taps to receptacles. It does refer to 240.21 for the location for overcurrent protection.




> (E) Tap Conductors. Tap conductors shall be permitted to
> be protected against overcurrent in accordance with the following:
> (1) 210.19(A)(3) and (A)(4), Household Ranges and Cooking
> Appliances and Other Loads
> (2) 240.5(B)(2), Fixture Wire
> *(3) 240.21, Location in Circuit*
> (4) 368.17(B), Reduction in Ampacity Size of Busway
> (5) 368.17(C), Feeder or Branch Circuits (busway taps)
> (6) 430.53(D), Single Motor Taps


240.21 is the basic location for overcurent protection. (A) is for branch circuit taps. But these branch circuit taps are not for normal receptacles. It refers you to 210.19 that Splatz quoted. But he left out the part that actually pertains to the situation we are talking about.





> II. Location
> 240.21 Location in Circuit
> Overcurrent protection shall be provided in each ungrounded
> circuit conductor and shall be located at the point where the
> conductors receive their supply except as specified in
> 240.21(A) through (H). Conductors supplied under the provisions
> of 240.21(A) through (H) shall not supply another
> conductor except through an overcurrent protective device
> meeting the requirements of 240.4.
> *(A) Branch-Circuit Conductors. Branch-circuit tap conductors
> meeting the requirements specified in 210.19 shall
> be permitted to have overcurrent protection as specified in
> 210.20.*


Here's the part that Splatz left out.




> 210.19 (A)(2) Branch Circuits with More than One Receptacle.
> 
> 
> Conductors of branch circuits supplying more than one receptacle
> for cord-and-plug-connected portable loads shall
> have an ampacity of not less than the rating of the branch
> circuit.


Heres the commentary from the NEC Handbook




> Because the loading of branch-circuit conductors that supply
> receptacles for cord-and-plug-connected portable loads is
> unpredictable, the circuit conductors are required to have an
> ampacity that is not less than the rating of the branch circuit.
> According to 210.3, the rating of the branch circuit is actually
> the rating of the overcurrent device.


----------



## Wirenuting

Weasel said:


> Wirenutting what part of I don’t have a quote button don’t you understand


Hmmmm, are you stalking me?
Do you think I have a sexy avatar or something?
Or do you just enjoy checking me out with your bad penmanship?



If you have a smart phone you can exit the enhanced view and you’ll end up with a desktop view. 
From there the quote function is on each comment. 
It will make it easier for you to comment to the member your trying to help. 
It really does keep the confusion down.


----------



## HackWork

HertzHound said:


> There is no tap rule that allows taping a branch circuit for general receptacles. The only one I know that would come close would be for high bay lights with mogul base fixtures. Those are allowed to tap up to a 50A circuit for a 15A twist lock receptacle.
> 
> 
> A through G doesn't allow it. Part D is where they set the limit on 14,12 and 10 gauge to be independant of the ampacities of 310.15. It's why 310.15 has the note for those sizes.
> 
> 
> Part E is for tap conductors and doesn't address taps to receptacles. It does refer to 240.21 for the location for overcurrent protection.
> 
> 
> 
> 240.21 is the basic location for overcurent protection. (A) is for branch circuit taps. But these branch circuit taps are not for normal receptacles. It refers you to 210.19 that Splatz quoted. But he left out the part that actually pertains to the situation we are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the part that Splatz left out.
> 
> 
> Heres the commentary from the NEC Handbook


I’m sorry to make you look up code amigo, I thought I made it clear that I don’t care what the code says. It’s perfectly safe to do it, so I do it.


----------



## Incognito

Weasel said:


> Wirenutting I can’t do so called Quotes from my phone. I don’t stay on my PC all day


FYI if your using your phone with the “enhanced mobile view” there is a little box on the top right corner of each post. If you touch it, a check mark appears in it and you will see a quote image like this “ appear above the post. Touch that and it allows you to quote that post. 

That is how I just quoted you from my phone. 

If you don’t quote someone, they have no knowledge that your commenting to them unless they go searching.


----------



## HertzHound

HackWork said:


> I’m sorry to make you look up code amigo, I thought I made it clear that I don’t care what the code says. It’s perfectly safe to do it, so I do it.



Pastor: "If your eyes see evil...Pluck them out.


Me:


----------



## HackWork

HertzHound said:


> Pastor: "If your eyes see evil...Pluck them out.
> 
> 
> Me:


 I don’t blindly follow things just because other people tell me that I should.


----------



## CoolWill

HertzHound said:


> There is no tap rule that allows taping a branch circuit for general receptacles. The only one I know that would come close would be for high bay lights with mogul base fixtures. Those are allowed to tap up to a 50A circuit for a 15A twist lock receptacle.
> 
> 
> A through G doesn't allow it. Part D is where they set the limit on 14,12 and 10 gauge to be independant of the ampacities of 310.15. It's why 310.15 has the note for those sizes.
> 
> 
> Part E is for tap conductors and doesn't address taps to receptacles. It does refer to 240.21 for the location for overcurrent protection.
> 
> 
> 
> 240.21 is the basic location for overcurent protection. (A) is for branch circuit taps. But these branch circuit taps are not for normal receptacles. It refers you to 210.19 that Splatz quoted. But he left out the part that actually pertains to the situation we are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the part that Splatz left out.
> 
> 
> Heres the commentary from the NEC Handbook


But consider what Hax was talking about: 12-2 in... 12-2 out... wirenutted together, then black, white, ground #14 to a 15 amp receptacle. If the receptacle is 15 amp and no load should be greater, what is the harm with using 15 amp wire to it? I mean, besides some code panel saying so?


----------



## HackWork

CoolWill said:


> But consider what Hax was talking about: 12-2 in... 12-2 out... wirenutted together, then black, white, ground #14 to a 15 amp receptacle. If the receptacle is 15 amp and no load should be greater, what is the harm with using 15 amp wire to it? I mean, besides some code panel saying so?


Some people love that warm blanket feeling of following others. They think it will keep them safe.

I am really not that much of a rebel, I have no problem with authority. It's just that I am honest. Code is just like the law, and I break both whenever I feel that it's not a big deal, no one is getting hurt, and I could get away with it.


----------



## macmikeman

Two lane highway, after hours, red arrow turn lane, no traffic coming from the opposite direction. I drive thru the red arrow. You go ahead and sit there waiting like a moron just because you follow the law. Not me.


----------



## HertzHound

CoolWill said:


> But consider what Hax was talking about: 12-2 in... 12-2 out... wirenutted together, then black, white, ground #14 to a 15 amp receptacle. If the receptacle is 15 amp and no load should be greater, what is the harm with using 15 amp wire to it? I mean, besides some code panel saying so?



I understand why it's being done. And chances are it will never be a problem. There's Probably more of a problem with a little piece of fixture wire feeding a giant chandelier, which is allowed. 



The OP wanted to know what everybody thought. I guess he didn't ask what is code compliant. I didn't think reducing the wire size was as prevalent as it is. I also didn't want apprentices think that this was normal practice. Maybe it is? I don't do it.


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> I don’t blindly follow things just because other people tell me that I should.


I used to be one of those people that was a total code purist. Then I realized it was all a money making scam, and I replaced following the code with following common sense.


----------



## readydave8

MTW said:


> I do too, #14 _used_ to be rated for 20 amps anyway until the manufacturers wanted that code changed as well.


What year did that change?


----------



## CoolWill

HertzHound said:


> I understand why it's being done. And chances are it will never be a problem. There's Probably more of a problem with a little piece of fixture wire feeding a giant chandelier, which is allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> The OP wanted to know what everybody thought. I guess he didn't ask what is code compliant. I didn't think reducing the wire size was as prevalent as it is. I also didn't want apprentices think that this was normal practice. Maybe it is? I don't do it.


I don't do it either, but I get it and can see that it's harmless. I'd rather an apprentice know the code and understand why what we're discussing is harmless.


----------



## MTW

readydave8 said:


> What year did that change?


It's been awhile now.


----------



## macmikeman

MTW said:


> It's been awhile now.


Table 310.15 (B) (16) 2011 edition is on my mobile device. It has #14 at 25 amps in the ninety degree column , but of course it also has those three asterisks next to the number to remind dear readers that it's permanently de-rated to 15 amps no matter what, except for chapter 44O exceptions. 

Has this changed since the Nec 2011 edition?


----------



## LGLS

CoolWill said:


> But consider what Hax was talking about: 12-2 in... 12-2 out... wirenutted together, then black, white, ground #14 to a 15 amp receptacle. If the receptacle is 15 amp and no load should be greater, what is the harm with using 15 amp wire to it? I mean, besides some code panel saying so?



Duplex receptacle? 1500 watt broiler and an 800 watt crockpot = 2300 watts.


----------



## HackWork

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Duplex receptacle? 1500 watt broiler and an 800 watt crockpot = 2300 watts.


Now why don’t you use that snazzy math to tell us what will happen to 6 inches of #14 wire with 2300W pulled through it intermittently.


----------



## TheLivingBubba

HackWork said:


> Now why don’t you use that snazzy math to tell us what will happen to 6 inches of #14 wire with 2300W pulled through it intermittently.


Ummmmm


----------



## macmikeman

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Duplex receptacle? 1500 watt broiler and an 800 watt crockpot = 2300 watts.



2300 watts/ 120 volts= 19.16 amps. Well under the 90 deg rating of 25 amps for #14 (depending on which insulation the wire has) . It won't explode.


----------



## Weasel

MTW you better talk to the NFPA they are perhaps the biggest players along manufactures trying to sell their new toys


----------



## MTW

Weasel said:


> MTW you better talk to the NFPA they are perhaps the biggest players along manufactures trying to sell their new toys


You don't say?


----------



## CoolWill

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Duplex receptacle? 1500 watt broiler and an 800 watt crockpot = 2300 watts.


The receptacle will melt before the wire does.


----------



## MTW

LawnGuyLandSparky is too busy attending communist rallies to know about practical electrical work.


----------



## HertzHound

This post is getting ironic 

Here’s the cord on my crock pot. I’m loading it up now and heading to the beach. Normally I grill after the beach. But the thermometer said 103. Grilling? No thanks.


----------



## TheLivingBubba

HertzHound said:


> This post is _*getting*_ ironic
> 
> Here’s the cord on my crock pot. I’m loading it up now and heading to the beach. Normally I grill after the beach. But the thermometer said 103. Grilling? No thanks.



It started out with good intentions then was shat upon by the code police, and filled up quickly like an infants diaper with incoherent posts about the world coming to an end if we deviate even the slightest from what our NFPA overlords say.


----------



## Incognito

I agree that some codes are made for the wrong reasons and manufacturers play a major role, but not all codes are made that way. Seems many jump on that bandwagon anytime they disagree with a code. 

I don’t see how a manufacturer benefits from the code about using 14 awg wire on 15 amp circuits for instance.


----------



## macmikeman

Incognito said:


> I agree that some codes are made for the wrong reasons and manufacturers play a major role, but not all codes are made that way. Seems many jump on that bandwagon anytime they disagree with a code.
> 
> I don’t see how a manufacturer benefits from the code about using 14 awg wire on 15 amp circuits for instance.



Many manufactures suggest you use 14 awg wire on 15 amp circuits. 
Very few suggest you use #12 on 15 amp circuits, but I'm sure a few scaredy cat companies try to cover for their lousy working equipment by demanding you use same......


----------



## HackWork

Incognito said:


> I agree that some codes are made for the wrong reasons and manufacturers play a major role, but not all codes are made that way. Seems many jump on that bandwagon anytime they disagree with a code.


 Only when the code is bad. 

A very large portion of the code is for safety and makes sense, I’m sure we all follow that. 



> I don’t see how a manufacturer benefits from the code about using 14 awg wire on 15 amp circuits for instance.


 Because larger wire will have to be purchased for the 20a circuits. 

It’s not all about the manufacturers. A lot of it is just design issues where the code is overstepping it’s bounds. Also, a lot of Code is just blatant stupidity. 

And example I often use is the way we are prohibited from remarking separate conductors smaller than number six. That is just a silly arbitrary line that someone pulled out of their butt. There is no sense behind it. One of the moderators at Mike Holts forum who was on the code making panel said that was added because the manufacturers wanted to sell more wire. So now I have to buy a new reel of that wire in every color instead of just buying black and re-identifying it.


----------



## macmikeman

Incognito said:


> I agree that some codes are made for the wrong reasons and manufacturers play a major role, but not all codes are made that way. Seems many jump on that bandwagon anytime they disagree with a code.
> 
> I don’t see how a manufacturer benefits from the code about using 14 awg wire on 15 amp circuits for instance.


$69.47 at HD









$45.37 at HD.









Really , we would need to see operating costs to produce and distribute both products to make any valid judgement call what the manufacture's would have us use....


----------



## emtnut

Incognito said:


> I agree that some codes are made for the wrong reasons and manufacturers play a major role, but not all codes are made that way. Seems many jump on that bandwagon anytime they disagree with a code.
> 
> I don’t see how a manufacturer benefits from the code about using 14 awg wire on 15 amp circuits for instance.


Agreed, and I laugh a little when the same guys that say throw out the code book, will quote it when sizing an AC or heater unit, or whatever ... :vs_laugh:

Apart from AFCIs, I don't really see the problems. Maybe NEC is different from CEC ??


----------



## macmikeman

emtnut said:


> Agreed, and I laugh a little when the same guys that say throw out the code book, will quote it when sizing an AC or heater unit, or whatever ... :vs_laugh:
> 
> Apart from AFCIs, I don't really see the problems. Maybe NEC is different from CEC ??


I'm less about throwing out code books , than I am about throwing out inspections and inspectors, permits, fee's, and shoes and socks. All those need to go.


----------



## emtnut

macmikeman said:


> I'm less about throwing out code books , than I am about throwing out inspections and inspectors, permits, fee's, and shoes and socks. All those need to go.


Permits and the fees are a PITA , but I've had nothing but good inspectors in my area. Maybe the Industrial inspectors are more seasoned ? But IMO, the ones I've met with really know their stuff, and have picked up on a few, maybe minor, but important defects.

But if there is no inspection, what's to stop Frunk Slammer from doing the install ??


----------



## macmikeman

emtnut said:


> Permits and the fees are a PITA , but I've had nothing but good inspectors in my area. Maybe the Industrial inspectors are more seasoned ? But IMO, the ones I've met with really know their stuff, and have picked up on a few, maybe minor, but important defects.
> 
> But if there is no inspection, what's to stop Frunk Slammer from doing the install ??


Frunk Slammer stays busy all he want's. Craigslist.


----------



## emtnut

Incognito said:


> I agree that some codes are made for the wrong reasons and manufacturers play a major role, but not all codes are made that way. Seems many jump on that bandwagon anytime they disagree with a code.
> 
> I don’t see how a manufacturer benefits from the code about using 14 awg wire on 15 amp circuits for instance.


Tried to send you a PM ... Looks like they are off ??

Added you as friend, not sure if that will help ?


----------



## CoolWill

emtnut said:


> Tried to send you a PM ... Looks like they are off ??
> 
> Added you as friend, not sure if that will help ?


You never added me as a friend:sad:


----------



## emtnut

CoolWill said:


> You never added me as a friend:sad:


Done .... I didn't send one because you never accepted when I sent it to your @HackWork account .

If you don't accept this one ... we're done :vs_mad:


----------



## CoolWill

emtnut said:


> Done .... I didn't send one because you never accepted when I sent it to your @HackWork account .
> 
> If you don't accept this one ... we're done :vs_mad:


We'll be done when I say we're done:vs_mad:


----------



## cl2sparky

HackWork said:


> When I was doing commercial work fulltime, I remember what a pleasure it was doing resi sidework with #14 [emoji3]


Unfortunately, in the county I reside in, the Inspectors do not allow #14 at all. Any where else In the state it is allowed. AHJ!!!

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk


----------



## macmikeman

cl2sparky said:


> Unfortunately, in the county I reside in, the Inspectors do not allow #14 at all. Any where else In the state it is allowed. AHJ!!!
> 
> Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk



You guys should get together and setup a hooker sting with video's and such so you can blackmail the whole bunch into reversing that............


----------



## sparkiez

splatz said:


> Clear as mud...



I think they could have worded that big paragraph a bit better. It needs to punctuation to clearly identify the meaning. It doesn't mention if the exceptions apply to a circuit serving a load of less than 40A ONLY or if they apply to circuits of 0 to 50A


----------



## telsa

HackWork said:


> Only when the code is bad.
> 
> A very large portion of the code is for safety and makes sense, I’m sure we all follow that.
> 
> Because larger wire will have to be purchased for the 20a circuits.
> 
> It’s not all about the manufacturers. A lot of it is just design issues where the code is overstepping it’s bounds. Also, a lot of Code is just blatant stupidity.
> 
> And example I often use is the way we are prohibited from remarking separate conductors smaller than number six. That is just a silly arbitrary line that someone pulled out of their butt. There is no sense behind it. One of the moderators at Mike Holts forum who was on the code making panel said that was added because the manufacturers wanted to sell more wire. So now I have to buy a new reel of that wire in every color instead of just buying black and re-identifying it.


It's more than that: it's the Code Crew keeping Big Box Retail happy -- with its slew of DIY expert handy men.

They want us to leave behind idiot obvious colors.

Don't say it, but some fine year the Code Crew will spec separate Romex colors for switch-legs. Ugh.


----------



## readydave8

MTW said:


> #14 _used_ to be rated for 20 amps


When?


----------



## Dennis Alwon

To the OP, regardless of the other responses it is not compliant with the NEC. It is compliant if you reduce the overcurrent protective device to 15 amp and not 20 amp.

Yes it is often done but it is not compliant


----------



## HackWork

Dennis Alwon said:


> To the OP, regardless of the other responses it is not compliant with the NEC. It is compliant if you reduce the overcurrent protective device to 15 amp and not 20 amp.
> 
> Yes it is often done but it is not compliant


The OP knows that. The entire premise of his thread is that it is not code compliant.

But you just _had_ to tell us again, didn't you? :biggrin:


----------



## Dennis Alwon

HackWork said:


> The OP knows that. The entire premise of his thread is that it is not code compliant.
> 
> But you just _had_ to tell us again, didn't you? :biggrin:


I had to straighten out your bad info and make sure he understood it was not compliant..:biggrin: 

BTW, You sound like Peter telling everyone to do things non compliantly and don't get a permit...:vs_laugh:

Actually I read the op post again and I still think he was looking for an answer. Maybe he wanted a code section

240.4(D) 210.20(B) and I am sure there are more


----------



## HackWork

Dennis Alwon said:


> I had to straighten out your bad info and make sure he understood it was not compliant..:biggrin:
> 
> BTW, You sound like Peter telling everyone to do things non compliantly and don't get a permit...:vs_laugh:


 I am not telling everyone to do it. I just answered the OPs question as to why I do it, and I backed it up with facts.



> Actually I read the op post again and I still think he was looking for an answer. Maybe he wanted a code section
> 
> 240.4(D) 210.20(B) and I am sure there are more


I think it went over your head. 

He knows that it’s against code, he is asking why it’s generally accepted in his area. The answer is because it is perfectly safe to do it and everyone knows that.


----------



## MTW

Dennis Alwon said:


> BTW, You sound like Peter telling everyone to do things non compliantly and don't get a permit...:vs_laugh:


I don't blindly follow the code, nor do I need the government inspector to look at my work. Why should we continue to act as brainwashed fools for the NEC and building departments?


----------



## MTW

readydave8 said:


> When?



The 2002 NEC? I forgot.


----------



## Incognito

MTW said:


> I don't blindly follow the code, nor do I need the government inspector to look at my work. Why should we continue to act as brainwashed fools for the NEC and building departments?


To protect the trade maybe?

If there was no inspection or code or government influence, anyone could do electrical work, like illegal immigrants. Isn’t that an issue down there?

Of course you can’t stop it completely, but having inspectors, code, licensing and enforcement helps.


----------



## readydave8

MTW said:


> The 2002 NEC? I forgot.


Good answer, thanks. Here is 1897:


----------



## Incognito

readydave8 said:


> MTW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2002 NEC? I forgot.
> 
> 
> 
> Good answer, thanks. Here is 1897:
Click to expand...

15 amp......20 amp.......whatever. 

if you don’t follow code or get inspections, none of that government code stuff matters. Lol


----------



## HackWork

Incognito said:


> 15 amp......20 amp.......whatever.
> 
> if you don’t follow code or get inspections, none of that government code stuff matters. Lol


 Sure it does. A lot of code matters because it’s for safety.

But not all of it.


----------



## MTW

Incognito said:


> To protect the trade maybe?
> 
> If there was no inspection or code or government influence, anyone could do electrical work, like illegal immigrants. Isn’t that an issue down there?
> 
> Of course you can’t stop it completely, but having inspectors, code, licensing and enforcement helps.


The government created the immigration problem, so I'm certainly not going to look to them to be a force to "protect the trade" with their stupid arbitrary rules. 

As for NEC, its sole purpose is to make manufacturers more profit. It used to be a safety code and still has some safety rules in it, but now it's all about the money.


----------



## Incognito

MTW said:


> Incognito said:
> 
> 
> 
> To protect the trade maybe?
> 
> If there was no inspection or code or government influence, anyone could do electrical work, like illegal immigrants. Isnâ€™️t that an issue down there?
> 
> Of course you canâ€™️t stop it completely, but having inspectors, code, licensing and enforcement helps.
> 
> 
> 
> The government created the immigration problem, so I'm certainly not going to look to them to be a force to "protect the trade" with their stupid arbitrary rules.
> 
> As for NEC, its sole purpose is to make manufacturers more profit. It used to be a safety code and still has some safety rules in it, but now it's all about the money.
Click to expand...

Regardless of who makes the rules or how you feel about them, if no one has to follow the code, the NEC or licensing, would that not make it easier for illegals and unskilled people to do electrical work? And if that happens, would it not be easier for a customer to get work done cheaper, eventually lowering the rates for everyone?

Shouldn’t all us skilled, trained workers be for the rules, instead if against them?


----------



## micromind

Incognito said:


> Shouldn’t all us skilled, trained workers be for the rules, instead if against them?


Only the ones that exist for the sole purpose of safety, not the ones that exist for corporate profit or the satiating of egos.

Blind obedience of every regulation is a major step toward communism.


----------



## Incognito

micromind said:


> Incognito said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldnâ€™️t all us skilled, trained workers be for the rules, instead if against them?
> 
> 
> 
> Only the ones that exist for the sole purpose of safety, not the ones that exist for corporate profit or the satiating of egos.
> 
> Blind obedience of every regulation is a major step toward communism.
Click to expand...

Following electrical code and licensing is a step towards communism?


----------



## HackWork

Incognito said:


> Regardless of who makes the rules or how you feel about them, if no one has to follow the code, the NEC or licensing, would that not make it easier for illegals and unskilled people to do electrical work? And if that happens, would it not be easier for a customer to get work done cheaper, eventually lowering the rates for everyone?


I don't follow this at all.

If Peter chooses to not follow electrical code, it doesn't make any difference as to whether illegals do electrical work.

Illegals are not supposed to be employed in the first place. They are employed illegally and the employer is facing a much, much harsher penalty for doing that than for breaking electrical code. 

Later today when I use a piece of #14 for a receptacle pigtail on a 20A circuit I will NOT being helping illegals.


> Shouldn’t all us skilled, trained workers be for the rules, instead if against them?


 No, absolutely not. That is nonsense. We should only worry about the rules that are there for safety. When it comes to the stupid rules, the design rules, or the rules that are there to make corporate profit, we as professionals should ignore them.

I always find this funny how you will talk about following the rules when at work, yet you will break many laws just driving to work... Everyone breaks the law every day of their life. But don't break electrical code because that is really bad lol...


----------



## HackWork

Incognito said:


> Following electrical code and licensing is a step towards communism?


Here is what he said:


> Blind obedience of every regulation is a major step toward communism.


Blind obedience is ALWAYS bad. Checks and balances are extremely important in life. We are only here in the freedom that we have because our society does question authority and does not blindly obey.


----------



## Incognito

HackWork said:


> I don't follow this at all.
> 
> If Peter chooses to not follow electrical code, it doesn't make any difference as to whether illegals do electrical work.
> 
> My point was if we all ignored code and other regulations, or if they became not required or enforced for our trade, then it would be easier for anyone to do electrical work which would eventually lower the going rate for all professionals. Take cab’s for instance. Here you used to have to have a licence and insurance to be a cab driver. Now that is no longer required and Uber and others have taken over lowering the standard rate everywhere. Also a licence now, which cost them a lot at the time, is garbage and worthless. That didn’t happen over a long period either, it practically happened overnight and many licensed cabbies were caught with their pants down.
> 
> Illegals are not supposed to be employed in the first place. They are employed illegally and the employer is facing a much, much harsher penalty for doing that than for breaking electrical code.
> 
> Later today when I use a piece of #14 for a receptacle pigtail on a 20A circuit I will NOT being helping illegals.
> No, absolutely not. That is nonsense. We should only worry about the rules that are there for safety. When it comes to the stupid rules, the design rules, or the rules that are there to make corporate profit, we as professionals should ignore them.
> 
> I always find this funny how you will talk about following the rules when at work, yet you will break many laws just driving to work... Everyone breaks the law every day of their life. But don't break electrical code because that is really bad lol...


Oh I’m a rule breaker too, even with code and I understand what your saying about the safety ones vs the manufacturer ones. Even inspectors allow certain codes to be bent for those reasons, just like today on my way to work I will pass a cop going 15 Km over the limit and he won’t care:wink:


----------



## 99cents

We all make money at this because it’s a regulated trade. Anybody who brags about breaking the rules is just saying, “Look at me”. We all bend rules from time to time but it takes a special kind of child to chronically boast about it.


----------



## CoolWill

99cents said:


> We all make money at this because it’s a regulated trade. Anybody who brags about breaking the rules is just saying, “Look at me”. We all bend rules from time to time but it takes a special kind of child to chronically boast about it.


So how do people make money in non-regulated trades? Anyone can do concrete work, yet there are successful companies out there that specialize in concrete. How can that be? 

To think that electricians only exist because of government regulation is ridiculous.


----------



## HackWork

Incognito said:


> Oh I’m a rule breaker too, even with code and I understand what your saying about the safety ones vs the manufacturer ones.


It's more than just the codes put in for manufacturer profit that we detest. It's the code that is put in for design issues, even though the code book specifically says that it is not there for electrical design. It's also the code that is put in for no good reason at all, usually just because some academic loser keeps submitting it because he wants to brag to his academic loser friends that he is famous because one of his proposals was accepted. This literally happens, and we have cited those codes in the numerous threads.

If I thought that #14 was dangerous in the instances that we spoke about, I would not use it. But it is NOT dangerous. 

The code can't address every little situation because there are millions of them, so they have to make sweeping generalizations to cover them all. A professional can look at one of those little situations and say to himself, for example "_Even though this is a 20A circuit, it is perfectly safe to use a #14 pigtail to jump out to a device that is compliantly rated 15A._"

There is nothing wrong with that. It's no different than saying "_The speed limit is 25MPH but the road is clear and wide so I can drive 35MPH_". 

The difference is that breaking the speed limit like we all do each day is more dangerous than using a #14 pigtail on a 20A general receptacle circuit.


----------



## HackWork

99cents said:


> We all make money at this because it’s a regulated trade.


That's not true, electrician make money in areas where there is absolutely no regulation. No license, no code, nothing.

I live in one of the most liberal states in the US, and up until a few years ago we only had an electrical and plumbing license. A few years ago they made an HVAC license. All the other trades are unregulated, from pouring concrete in skyscrapers and bridges to roofing. Yet they all make money.



> Anybody who brags about breaking the rules is just saying, “Look at me”. We all bend rules from time to time but it takes a special kind of child to chronically boast about it.


 It's not bragging about it, it's simply being honest and open when the other side keeps acting all indignant and hypocritical, as if their following every single code requirement is a badge of honor. It's not.


----------



## CoolWill

Incognito said:


> just like today on my way to work I will pass a cop going 15 Km over the limit and he won’t care:wink:


Riiiiiigggghhhhtttt.... You're one of those guys that slows down and creeps behind a cop that's going 10 mph under the limit. Admit it.


----------



## Incognito

CoolWill said:


> 99cents said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all make money at this because itâ€™️s a regulated trade. Anybody who brags about breaking the rules is just saying, â€œLook at meâ€. We all bend rules from time to time but it takes a special kind of child to chronically boast about it.
> 
> 
> 
> So how do people make money in non-regulated trades? Anyone can do concrete work, yet there are successful companies out there that specialize in concrete. How can that be?
> 
> To think that electricians only exist because of government regulation is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

It’s not that we exist it’s that we get the wages that we do. If anyone can legally do electrical work then people would be doing it for minimum wage. You would have to lower your rates to compete. 

Hell a friend of mine runs a company that supplies and cleans portable chitters for construction sites. He is loaded but his workers only make minimum wage.


----------



## Incognito

CoolWill said:


> Incognito said:
> 
> 
> 
> just like today on my way to work I will pass a cop going 15 Km over the limit and he wonâ€™️t care
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiiigggghhhhtttt.... You're one of those guys that slows down and creeps behind a cop that's going 10 mph under the limit. Admit it.
Click to expand...

Actual photo of me on my way to work this morning.


----------



## HackWork

Incognito said:


> It’s not that we exist it’s that we get the wages that we do. If anyone can legally do electrical work then people would be doing it for minimum wage. You would have to lower your rates to compete.


I don't agree with this.

Right now anyone CAN do electrical work. Just look on Craigslist and you will see dozens of handymen advertising electrical work. The state does nothing about it. Plenty of people hire those handymen in order to save money. But it doesn't stop the rest of us from selling ourselves in different ways and getting top dollar.



> Hell a friend of mine runs a company that supplies and cleans portable chitters for construction sites. He is loaded but his workers only make minimum wage.


 Sucking up sh1t is a minimum wage job.


----------



## HackWork

Incognito said:


> Actual photo of me on my way to work this morning.


Sh1t snares, Randy.


----------



## HertzHound

CoolWill said:


> So how do people make money in non-regulated trades? Anyone can do concrete work, yet there are successful companies out there that specialize in concrete. How can that be?
> 
> To think that electricians only exist because of government regulation is ridiculous.


Around here the ones working in the concrete trades live in single family homes that have ten electric meters on the side of the house, and ten satellite dishes on the roof. But I’m sure the companies they work for are making money.


----------



## Incognito

HackWork said:


> I don't agree with this.
> 
> Right now anyone CAN do electrical work. Just look on Craigslist and you will see dozens of handymen advertising electrical work. The state does nothing about it. Plenty of people hire those handymen in order to save money. But it doesn't stop the rest of us from selling ourselves in different ways and getting top dollar.
> 
> Sucking up sh1t is a minimum wage job.


Well here it is different. Every aspect of electrical work must be done by a certified person. We can not hire laborers. Where you are, can you hire anyone to pull wire for you? And do you pay them electrician wages? What about fire alarm? Here only electricians can install fire alarm. Is it the same there? 

Also, we have a snitch line for those craiglist guys :wink:


----------



## HertzHound

I won’t be the first one to cast a stone. One time I didn’t use a ground screw in a metal box.


----------



## HertzHound

Incognito said:


> Well here it is different. Every aspect of electrical work must be done by a certified person. We can not hire laborers. Where you are, can you hire anyone to pull wire for you? And do you pay them electrician wages? What about fire alarm? Here only electricians can install fire alarm. Is it the same there?
> 
> Also, we have a snitch line for those craiglist guys :wink:


Thats why we have high rise residential going up with $20 hour wage electricians wiring them. All the ones that crossed the boarder years ago that used to pull Romex now pull MC. Same sh!t different floor.

A good contractor could never come remotely close to winning a bid against these other contractors. I’m sure their foreman could care less what type of wire gets used.


----------



## 99cents

We see unqualified people (other than HO’s) do electrical work here but it’s usually no more than a scabby renovator running a dishwasher circuit. As far as illegal immigrants go, we have lots of immigrants but most of them are legal. Different problem down south.


----------



## micromind

Incognito said:


> Following electrical code and licensing is a step towards communism?


It sure is......any time anyone obeys regulations simply because they are regulations and doesn't at the very least question why, he has completely given his life to the government.


----------



## micromind

HackWork said:


> Sucking up sh1t is a minimum wage job.


It's too bad too.......clearly, the toilet man is by far the most important person on any job........


----------



## emtnut

CoolWill said:


> So how do people make money in non-regulated trades? Anyone can do concrete work, yet there are successful companies out there that specialize in concrete. How can that be?
> 
> To think that electricians only exist because of government regulation is ridiculous.


Sorry Willy, I agree that there are successful concrete contrators, the guys actually pouring the cement are making next to nothing, unless they are in the Labourers Union.

Concrete pushing Italians excluded, but they do lucrative side work.

Without licensing, there would be Electrical contractors making big bucks, and 'helpers' doing the work at close to minimum wage.
Obviously exceptions to that rule, and depends whether we are talking Resi, Industrial, commercial, service etc ...


----------



## Incognito

micromind said:


> Incognito said:
> 
> 
> 
> Following electrical code and licensing is a step towards communism?
> 
> 
> 
> It sure is......any time anyone obeys regulations simply because they are regulations and doesn't at the very least question why, he has completely given his life to the government.
Click to expand...



Completely given his life to the government? Anytime anyone follows regulations? Lol. Seriously, I actually laughed out loud when I read that. Thanks. 

So if you complain about them or question them, but still follow them where does that put you? Partially given your life to the government? 

Lol


----------



## CoolWill

Incognito said:


> Completely given his life to the government? Anytime anyone follows regulations? Lol. Seriously, I actually laughed out loud when I read that. Thanks.
> 
> So if you complain about them or question them, but still follow them where does that put you? Partially given your life to the government?
> 
> Lol


You keep doing that. He didn't just say "anytime anyone follows regulations." You are leaving out key words. Stop being so dishonest.


----------



## micromind

Incognito said:


> Completely given his life to the government? Anytime anyone follows regulations? Lol. Seriously, I actually laughed out loud when I read that. Thanks.
> 
> So if you complain about them or question them, but still follow them where does that put you? Partially given your life to the government?
> 
> Lol


Like most other stuff, it's the attitude you have that makes the difference. 

If you believe that every rule works to your benefit and must always be blindly obeyed, you have given your life to the government.

If you question regulations and have the intelligence to see which ones actually do benefit you (and society in general), and are willing to blatantly violate the rules that are meant to get you to worship the government, then you are your own person, not a slave of an unspeakably evil organization.


----------



## telsa

High profit margins don't exist without barriers to entry.

That's an economic law as strong as F= ma.

When a fellow has a NICHE he can escape the competition -- but just for a time.

That niche can be as basic as:

Size -- only the gorillas can bid on the project...

Techno-specialization -- it's a tiny market that takes a ton of brains and knowledge...

Repetition -- it's in ones wheelhouse... ( Big Grocer has rotten, out of date, prints -- that lead all outside bidders on a merry chase. )

You'll ALL note that such niches don't exist when a noob is being rapped by a drunk, small-time residential GC// framer with delusions of competency. ( Check for speling. )

Most ECs work for wages. They don't come to ET.

Instead we get a slew of DIYers.

Heh. 

The losers are too worn out to consult the Internet as to how to get ahead in our trade.


----------



## HackWork

Incognito said:


> Completely given his life to the government? Anytime anyone follows regulations? Lol. Seriously, I actually laughed out loud when I read that. Thanks.


He did *not* say "Anytime anyone follows regulations". He said "any time anyone obeys regulations simply because they are regulations and doesn't at the very least question why".

Those are 2 completely different things. If you have to be intellectually dishonest to win a debate, then you should not have entered it in the first place.


----------



## Incognito

HackWork said:


> He did *not* say "Anytime anyone follows regulations". He said "any time anyone obeys regulations simply because they are regulations and doesn't at the very least question why".
> 
> Those are 2 completely different things. If you have to be intellectually dishonest to win a debate, then you should not have entered it in the first place.


Intellectually dishonest? I pasted his quote in my post! I did not alter or change what he said, it is pasted in my post. No I did not type it out again, I’m on a phone FFS. 


Also, where do I or anyone in this thread or other threads say they obey regulations simply because they are regulations and don’t at the very least question why?

And what about my question? No one has answered that yet?



> So if you complain about them or question them, but still follow them where does that put you? Partially given your life to the government?


You guys are hilarious


----------



## HackWork

Incognito said:


> Intellectually dishonest? I pasted his quote in my post!


 You re-wrote his statement in your post, and what you wrote was not what he said. It was completely different and you know it.



> I did not alter or change what he said


 And now you are lying. I even posted what you changed his statment into. Let me post it again:

His statement: "any time anyone obeys regulations simply because they are regulations and doesn't at the very least question why".
What you posted that he said: "Anytime anyone follows regulations"

You see? A complete fabrication.



> No I did not type it out again, I’m on a phone FFS.


 Yes, you did type it out again and I posted it for the second time above. How can you continue to lie about this?



> And what about my question? No one has answered that yet?


 I am not here to serve you, I don't answer every stupid strawman that every member posts. I saw you make a BS post so I decided to call you out on it.


----------



## Incognito

HackWork said:


> You re-wrote his statement in your post, and what you wrote was not what he said. It was completely different and you know it.
> 
> And now you are lying. I even posted what you changed his statment into. Let me post it again:
> 
> His statement: "any time anyone obeys regulations simply because they are regulations and doesn't at the very least question why".
> What you posted that he said: "Anytime anyone follows regulations"
> 
> You see? A complete fabrication.
> 
> Yes, you did type it out again and I posted it for the second time above. How can you continue to lie about this?
> 
> I am not here to serve you, I don't answer every stupid strawman that every member posts. I saw you make a BS post so I decided to call you out on it.



It is amazing how you tear apart what I post so it suits your point, while ignoring what my post actually says.

And you refuse to answer my question, but Have many times pestered others about questions you ask of them that they do not answer in other threads.

You truly are a professional troll here at ET.


Hilarious :vs_laugh:


----------



## CoolWill

Incognito said:


> It is amazing how you tear apart what I post so it suits your point, while ignoring what my post actually says.
> 
> And you refuse to answer my question, but Have many times pestered others about questions you ask of them that they do not answer in other threads.
> 
> You truly are a professional troll here at ET.
> 
> 
> Hilarious :vs_laugh:


You clearly reframed what Micromind said. To deny it now to save face is absurd.

As to the question, you jave posted several times in various threads about how we, as professionals, are obliged to follow the code regardless of how we feel about it. That is blindly following a regulation for the sake of following a regulation. I'm too lazy to search out those threads, but they exist.


----------



## HackWork

Incognito said:


> It is amazing how you tear apart what I post so it suits your point, while ignoring what my post actually says.


 My point is nothing more than you are a liar. I pointed out what you actually said, which was a blatant lie.


> And you refuse to answer my question,


 Of course I refuse to answer your question, you asked someone else the question. Your question is based off of someone else’s statement, which you misconstrued. It has nothing to do with me. I didn’t say a word about government control.

What you are doing now is essentially the same as saying to me “why don’t you like the color black? Why won’t you answer me?” When I never said that I do not like the color black.


----------



## 99cents

Communist? Really?


----------



## HackWork

99cents said:


> Communist? Really?


Micromind is one of the most intelligent and respected members of this forum. He chooses his words carefully. Why don’t you quote exactly what he said in the proper context and then ask him directly what you’re so amazed about?


----------



## 99cents

HackWork said:


> Micromind is one of the most intelligent and respected members of this forum. He chooses his words carefully. Why don’t you quote exactly what he said in the proper context and then ask him directly what you’re so amazed about?


Because following a code book has nothing to do with communism.


----------



## HackWork

99cents said:


> Because following a code book has nothing to do with communism.


 And no one ever said that it did. *No one.*

Again, you took what he said complete out of context. You are being extremely disingenuous. 

You and Incognito are doing this because you have no way to refute what Micromind actually said, so you continue to pretend that he said something different.

Why don’t you quote exactly what he said in the proper context and then ask him directly what you’re so amazed about?


----------



## 99cents

HackWork said:


> And no one ever said that it did. *No one.*
> 
> Again, you took what he said complete out of context. You are being extremely disingenuous.
> 
> You and Incognito are doing this because you have no way to refute what Micromind actually said, so you continue to pretend that he said something different.
> 
> Why don’t you quote exactly what he said in the proper context and then ask him directly what you’re so amazed about?


His word, not mine.


----------



## HackWork

99cents said:


> His word, not mine.


Yes, he used a word. :vs_laugh::vs_laugh::vs_laugh:

But he did not use it in the way that you continue to accuse him of doing.

I keep asking you why you don't use his word in the context that he used it in, but you refuse to do so.


----------



## CoolWill

HackWork said:


> And no one ever said that it did. *No one.*
> 
> Again, you took what he said complete out of context. You are being extremely disingenuous.
> 
> You and Incognito are doing this because you have no way to refute what Micromind actually said, so you continue to pretend that he said something different.
> 
> Why don’t you quote exactly what he said in the proper context and then ask him directly what you’re so amazed about?


When you can't refute the message, attack the messenger. Soon they'll say it's racist.


----------



## 99cents

HackWork said:


> Yes, he used a word. :vs_laugh::vs_laugh::vs_laugh:


How do you communicate around here if not with words?


----------



## HackWork

CoolWill said:


> When you can't refute the message, attack the messenger. Soon they'll say it's racist.


Both 99cents and Incognito like to accuse everyone who puts them in their place of trolling. Yet both of them are clearly the ones trolling.


----------



## MTW

micromind said:


> If you question regulations and have the intelligence to see which ones actually do benefit you (and society in general), and are willing to blatantly violate the rules that are meant to get you to worship the government, then you are your own person, not a slave of an unspeakably evil organization.


:yes::yes:

Let's use the example in this thread to illustrate your point. I'd say full 95 out of 100 inspectors, maybe even 98 or 99 would say that you can't use #14 for lighting on a 20 amp circuit because it violates the NEC, and follow the same reasoning used in this thread (it could be overloaded, etc.) 

Let's say you try to reason with said inspectors about how #14 can handle 20 amps, and it will never be overloaded on a fixed load, etc. That 95+% will default to "The NEC says you can't do it, so therefore I can't pass this inspection!" They are simply blindly following and enforcing the NEC without applying an ounce of common sense or reason to the situation. Only that tiny minority will be able to reason it out for themselves and realize that it's no danger at all, and allow the installation to pass despite what their stupid law book says.


----------



## 99cents

MTW said:


> :yes::yes:
> 
> Let's use the example in this thread to illustrate your point. I'd say full 95 out of 100 inspectors, maybe even 98 or 99 would say that you can't use #14 for lighting on a 20 amp circuit because it violates the NEC, and follow the same reasoning used in this thread (it could be overloaded, etc.)
> 
> Let's say you try to reason with said inspectors about how #14 can handle 20 amps, and it will never be overloaded on a fixed load, etc. That 95+% will default to "The NEC says you can't do it, so therefore I can't pass this inspection!" They are simply blindly following and enforcing the NEC without applying an ounce of common sense or reason to the situation. Only that tiny minority will be able to reason it out for themselves and realize that it's no danger at all, and allow the installation to pass despite what their stupid law book says.


Please give us your findings on the time/current curves of 15 and 20 amp breakers and how they relate to insulation temperature. Thank you.


----------



## CoolWill

99cents said:


> Please give us your findings on the time/current curves of 15 and 20 amp breakers and how they relate to insulation temperature. Thank you.


It has ZERO to do with that. It has everything to do with the fact that a 100 watt fixture, let's say, is a fixed load. Under the NEC, we can use 15 amp devices on 20 amp circuits because of similar reasoning. Same with fixture wire. The code has already reasoned an internally consistent "violation" of itself, so extending those principles to fixed lighting load switch legs isn't such a heinous idea.


----------



## MTW

I worked in a bathroom recently with such a scenario. The work was done by an electrician as evidenced by the neatly run wires, proper splicing and boxes used. He tapped off the 20 amp outlet circuit with #14 to the lights over the mirror. Some communist would likely have changed the breaker or raised a big stink about it and demanded it be fixed. I changed out the lights as requested and did nothing else.


----------



## Incognito

CoolWill said:


> you jave posted *several times* in various threads about* how we, as professionals, are obliged to follow the code regardless of how we feel about it. *That is blindly following a regulation for the sake of following a regulation. I'm too lazy to search out those threads, but they exist.



Too lazy or they don't exist?

Please show me where I have said this!

Don't forget, word for word. Don't re frame what I have said :wink:


----------



## MTW

Incognito said:


> Too lazy or they don't exist?
> 
> Please show me where I have said this!
> 
> Don't forget, word for word. Don't re frame what I have said :wink:


Hi Frunkslammer.


----------



## HackWork

CoolWill said:


> You clearly reframed what Micromind said. To deny it now to save face is absurd.
> 
> As to the question, you jave posted several times in various threads about how we, as professionals, are obliged to follow the code regardless of how we feel about it. That is blindly following a regulation for the sake of following a regulation. I'm too lazy to search out those threads, but they exist.





Incognito said:


> I have said this!


Yes.

You see, context doesn't matter, I learned that from you and 99cents. We can just pull any words out of a statement and say that you said them. 

Oh, and thanks for saying these exact words about me: "You truly are a professional" :biggrin:


----------



## Incognito

HackWork said:


> Yes.
> 
> You see, context doesn't matter, I learned that from you and 99cents. We can just pull any words out of a statement and say that you said them.
> 
> 
> Oh, and thanks for saying these exact words about me: "*You truly are a professional*" :biggrin:


No prob. 

I assume you don't hear that very often :wink:


The difference with my posts, as I pointed out already, is I included the actual quote as well. You both are saying I have said something without the actual quote, big difference.



You would think I would have learned by now not to feed the trolls.


----------



## CoolWill

Incognito said:


> Too lazy or they don't exist?
> 
> Please show me where I have said this!
> 
> Don't forget, word for word. Don't re frame what I have said :wink:


Too lazy. I already said this.


----------



## HackWork

Incognito said:


> The difference with my posts, as I pointed out already, is I included the actual quote as well.


 You lied twice about what Micromind said. That's all there is to it. You literally quoted him as saying something that he did not say.



> You would think I would have learned by now not to feed the trolls.


 You *are* the troll, just like 99cents. The two of you are the ones posting the garbage in this thread. Everyone else has been posting normally and reasonably.


----------



## MTW

CoolWill said:


> So how do people make money in non-regulated trades? Anyone can do concrete work, yet there are successful companies out there that specialize in concrete. How can that be?
> 
> To think that electricians only exist because of government regulation is ridiculous.


Great point. There are siding companies that slap vinyl siding on tract houses as far as the eye can see, and there are siding companies that install cedar shingles on $2 million dollar custom houses on the water. Both require a building permit but no licensing or other qualifications to do, but one requires vastly more skill.


----------



## emtnut

MTW said:


> Great point. There are siding companies that slap vinyl siding on tract houses as far as the eye can see, and there are siding companies that install cedar shingles on $2 million dollar custom houses on the water. Both require a building permit but no licensing or other qualifications to do, but one requires vastly more skill.


Great point. No qualifications = $10 hr :vs_laugh:

Thought you were on the other side of this argument ... :biggrin:


----------



## MTW

emtnut said:


> Great point. No qualifications = $10 hr :vs_laugh:
> 
> Thought you were on the other side of this argument ... :biggrin:


No carpenter in my area makes $10 an hour. What's your point exactly other than to be wrong?


----------



## emtnut

MTW said:


> No carpenter in my area makes $10 an hour. What's your point exactly other than to be wrong?


A Carpenter? ... installing siding ?? :vs_laugh:

Yeah, the roofers in your area must be carpenters too LMAO !


----------



## HackWork

emtnut said:


> A Carpenter? ... installing siding ?? :vs_laugh:
> 
> Yeah, the roofers in your area must be carpenters too LMAO !


They are in my area.

In my state the only licenses are for the owner of an electrical, plumbing, or HVAC company. The owners of all the other trade companies and the employees of all of them don’t need any type of license. The day I hire a laborer is the day he becomes an electrician. Most roofers and siding guys and masons and painters are also carpenters.

But they are still out making lots of money without a government license or certification.

Licenses can help people make money. But they are just a selling point. It’s definitely not the only way.


----------



## MTW

emtnut said:


> A Carpenter? ... installing siding ?? :vs_laugh:
> 
> Yeah, the roofers in your area must be carpenters too LMAO !


Why is that hard to believe? Carpenters do everything here - siding, framing, finish, roofing, cabinetry, etc.


----------



## emtnut

HackWork said:


> They are in my area.
> 
> In my state the only licenses are for the owner of an electrical, plumbing, or HVAC company. The owners of all the other trade companies and the employees of all of them don’t need any type of license. The day I hire a laborer is the day he becomes an electrician. Most roofers and siding guys and masons and painters are also carpenters.
> 
> But they are still out making lots of money without a government license or certification.
> 
> Licenses can help people make money. But they are just a selling point. It’s definitely not the only way.


Carpenters are a licensed trade up here. They make good $$


You guys down there may quite well be different than here, but I know (personally) 2 siding contractors. 
Neither of them are carpenters, and the guys they hire aren't living large.

One does well, mostly reno work
The other has a contract here in Ottawa with a major home builder. He does quite well, .... his laborers aren't living large.



> Licenses can help people make money. But they are just a selling point. It’s definitely not the only way


I agree it's not the only way, but for the average working guy it is.

If you run your own company (licensed or not), your either living large, or going under.


----------



## emtnut

MTW said:


> Why is that hard to believe? Carpenters do everything here - siding, framing, finish, roofing, cabinetry, etc.


A small time 'carpenter' (whether licensed or self proclaimed) will do many small jobs like that. Kind of a handyman.

On new construction, there are dedicated crews ... and there are NO carpenters on the siding or roofing companies.


----------



## micromind

99cents said:


> Communist? Really?


Actually, yes. 

My definition of communist may very well be different than the official definition but it's what I've been taught. My definition of communism is a society where the government owns everything and controls the vast majority of it. The people have very little, if any, freedom to make any decision, the government has already made them for you. 

A person who blindly does whatever the code says will almost certainly blindly obey every other law without question. This fits my definition of communism. 

Here is how I look at it.......I'm going to get preachy here but I'll keep it to a minimum.......lol.

In the Old Testament part of the Bible, there are tons of rules. A good part of them make sense and should be there but some of them are just plain idiotic. The reason for the dumb ones is to force people to focus on God. Doing stuff that you wouldn't ordinarily do just because it's the law is a form of worship and God is trying to get His people to worship Him. Government does the same thing.........

The main underlying things about all of Gods laws is a statement that God didn't actually make but if He did, it would be completely true.......'I spent over 1,000 years trying to rule the heart of man by written law and even I failed.....what makes you think you will succeed?'

The underlying issue with the government imposing idiotic laws that we're all required to blindly obey is not for the benefit of you or any other normal citizen, it is to force you to focus your attention on them. And by doing so, eventually they will be able to completely dominate you in every way.


----------



## 99cents

MTW said:


> Hi Frunkslammer.


Except I’m not Frunkslammer. Why do you say stupid things?


----------



## HertzHound

What ever happened to "The law is the law, is the law". 



Easy peasey. #14 & #12 and never the twain shall meet.


Forensic Investigation. 



And this guy.


----------



## MTW

HertzHound said:


> What ever happened to "The law is the law, is the law".
> 
> 
> 
> Easy peasey. #14 & #12 and never the twain shall meet.
> 
> 
> Forensic Investigation.
> 
> 
> 
> And this guy.


You're kidding, I hope.


----------



## HertzHound

I swallowed an ice cube yesterday and haven't pooped it out yet.


I'm getting really scared.


----------



## FishinElectrcian

HertzHound said:


> I swallowed an ice cube yesterday and haven't pooped it out yet.
> 
> 
> I'm getting really scared.


Damn that's great!


----------



## telsa

FishinElectrcian said:


> Damn that's great!


Some guys know how to hang on to their chit.

Others just fiss their lives away.


----------



## FishinElectrcian

You mean on a forum? 😄

I took two suppositories this morning and for the amount of good they did I coulda shoved em up my a**. Chalky!!

Well I'm not reading thru this whole thread and what seems to be a battle of personalitys.. I already unknowingly stepped in it by picking sides on the Wiggy debate but:

It seems that tapping down for a known load such as a light that can't be varied is safe. Though not entirely legal unless there's a backdoor rule I'm missing. If a manufacturer can put a 16awg cord on a tool or toaster as long as it's less than 3 feet and plug it into a 15A circuit I find that even less safe but legal. Or a 4500W HWT with 12awg or 14awg inside it and we run a 10awg to it on a double 30A.

From the CEC for heating we have the ability to use a one size tap down rule.. From my inspector I'm one of the only guys still doing it, I like running a 12awg root feeder to the first tstat or two, run 14 to the Heaters and fuse with 20. 

I think we can increase the breaker one size too for heating but I'm fuzzy and this Dude does not abide. We are also able to go 100 percent loading as long as there are multiple thermostats, which I never do. The intention of that is to allow for more on a circuit with the assumption that they won't be on at once but I'm rural and if the powers out for a day they all come on.

In theory with 80 percent breaker loading a 20A breaker should start nuisance tripping after 16A.. Sometimes, maybe. 14 awg can carry 20A no problem for a short tail as long as the heat is dispersed. If you coil it up the heat is additive, tape it to keep it neat and that's where it melts first. If you figure 8 it, it's fine. Run it through a puddle, that's a "hydro cooled cord" double the amperage! Haha. 

Done some temporary "event" wiring in the past, it's surprising what you can actually push through a wire...


----------



## MTW

Too long, didn't read. ^


----------



## TheLivingBubba

Tldr ^


----------



## CoolWill

FishinElectrcian said:


> You mean on a forum? 😄
> 
> I took two suppositories this morning and for the amount of good they did I coulda shoved em up my a**. Chalky!!
> 
> Well I'm not reading thru this whole thread and what seems to be a battle of personalitys.. I already unknowingly stepped in it by picking sides on the Wiggy debate but:
> 
> It seems that tapping down for a known load such as a light that can't be varied is safe. Though not entirely legal unless there's a backdoor rule I'm missing. If a manufacturer can put a 16awg cord on a tool or toaster as long as it's less than 3 feet and plug it into a 15A circuit I find that even less safe but legal. Or a 4500W HWT with 12awg or 14awg inside it and we run a 10awg to it on a double 30A.
> 
> From the CEC for heating we have the ability to use a one size tap down rule.. From my inspector I'm one of the only guys still doing it, I like running a 12awg root feeder to the first tstat or two, run 14 to the Heaters and fuse with 20.
> 
> I think we can increase the breaker one size too for heating but I'm fuzzy and this Dude does not abide. We are also able to go 100 percent loading as long as there are multiple thermostats, which I never do. The intention of that is to allow for more on a circuit with the assumption that they won't be on at once but I'm rural and if the powers out for a day they all come on.
> 
> In theory with 80 percent breaker loading a 20A breaker should start nuisance tripping after 16A.. Sometimes, maybe. 14 awg can carry 20A no problem for a short tail as long as the heat is dispersed. If you coil it up the heat is additive, tape it to keep it neat and that's where it melts first. If you figure 8 it, it's fine. Run it through a puddle, that's a "hydro cooled cord" double the amperage! Haha.
> 
> Done some temporary "event" wiring in the past, it's surprising what you can actually push through a wire...


There's a good example. The CEC allows for smaller wire than would be normally be allowed, as long as it is for a fixed resistive heating load... Because it's a fixed load. The only difference between that and a fixed lighting load is the code addresses one and not the other. 

The NEC, by the way, has no such rule for resistive heating. The wire must be full sized. So, a heater in Blaine, WA has to be wired in #12 on a 20 A breaker, but 5 miles north in White Rock, BC, it could be #14 on a 20 A breaker. One of you code warriors justify that with something other than "Buh... Code!"


----------



## HackWork

CoolWill said:


> There's a good example. The CEC allows for smaller wire than would be normally be allowed, as long as it is for a fixed resistive heating load... Because it's a fixed load. The only difference between that and a fixed lighting load is the code addresses one and not the other.
> 
> The NEC, by the way, has no such rule for resistive heating. The wire must be full sized. So, a heater in Blaine, WA has to be wired in #12 on a 20 A breaker, but 5 miles north in White Rock, BC, it could be #14 on a 20 A breaker. One of you code warriors justify that with something other than "Buh... Code!"


On one day I couldn't use #2 SER cable for 100A, the very next day I could. It went from unsafe to safe again. 

Did something magically happen? Or did they just admit that code restriction was complete BS in the first place?


----------



## CoolWill

HackWork said:


> On one day I couldn't use #2 SER cable for 100A, the very next day I could. It went from unsafe to safe again.
> 
> Did something magically happen? Or did they just admit that code restriction was complete BS in the first place?


Depends on if it was painted or not.


----------



## MTW

CoolWill said:


> There's a good example. The CEC allows for smaller wire than would be normally be allowed, as long as it is for a fixed resistive heating load... Because it's a fixed load. The only difference between that and a fixed lighting load is the code addresses one and not the other.
> 
> The NEC, by the way, has no such rule for resistive heating. The wire must be full sized. So, a heater in Blaine, WA has to be wired in #12 on a 20 A breaker, but 5 miles north in White Rock, BC, it could be #14 on a 20 A breaker. One of you code warriors justify that with something other than "Buh... Code!"


Didn't you know that invisible borders automatically make electrical installations unsafe? :furious:

And you seem to know a bit about the geography of B.C. :detective:


----------



## HackWork

CoolWill said:


> Depends on if it was painted or not.


Or in 120" of insulation. 119" is ok, but 120" will cause death and destruction.


----------



## CoolWill

MTW said:


> And you seem to know a bit about the geography of B.C. :detective:


I know my way around a woman too.


----------



## HackWork

MTW said:


> Didn't you know that invisible borders automatically make electrical installations unsafe? :furious:
> 
> And you seem to know a bit about the geography of B.C. :detective:


It's not just electric.

I was assured by many master plumbers that my stall shower would definitely overflow if I used the existing 1.5" tub drain line for it. 

Of course, it won't overflow in Canada where that is common, only the US where the code says you need 2".


----------



## macmikeman

HackWork said:


> It's not just electric.
> 
> I was assured by many master plumbers that my stall shower would definitely overflow if I used the existing 1.5" tub drain line for it.
> 
> Of course, it won't overflow in Canada where that is common, only the US where the code says you need 2".



Maybe there are bigger turd's in the USA?


----------



## CoolWill

macmikeman said:


> Maybe there are bigger turd's in the USA?


You crap in your shower?


----------



## HackWork

macmikeman said:


> Maybe there are bigger turd's in the USA?


I waffle stomp all my turds thru the shower drain cover, so it's mush, I mean moot.



CoolWill said:


> You crap in your shower?


You don't??


----------



## MTW

CoolWill said:


> I know my way around a man too.


----------



## macmikeman

CoolWill said:


> You crap in your shower?



Never! I crap out near the coconut tree


----------



## MTW

So what have we learned once again? Most code rules were created by academics with no real world experience. Therefore they make no sense.


----------



## CoolWill

MTW said:


>


:vs_mad::vs_mad::sad:


----------



## CoolWill

HackWork said:


> I waffle stomp all my turds thru the shower drain cover, so it's mush, I mean moot.
> 
> 
> You don't??


I've never even been to his house.


----------



## Incognito

MTW said:


> So what have we learned once again? Most code rules were created by academics with no real world experience. Therefore they make no sense.


You learned that Canadian code is not only better than the NEC, it is made by actual people who work in the trade not academics and uses more common sense.


----------



## MTW

Incognito said:


> You learned that Canadian code is not only better than the NEC, it is made by actual people who work in the trade not academics and uses more common sense.


Riiiiiiiiiigggghhhht. While I agree there are some rules in the CEC that are better, there are others that are worse, so it all washes out in the end.


----------



## CoolWill

Incognito said:


> You learned that Canadian code is not only better than the NEC, it is made by actual people who work in the trade not academics and uses more common sense.


That might be true, but it's adherents don't know chit.


----------



## JBrzoz00

This same thing was commonplace in the Chas SC area for years í ½í¹„ they considered it a â€œtapâ€�


----------



## Seau1355

This doesn't have much to do with the OP, but it seems this post strayed from that long ago. 




From another view point regarding permits and inspections. Homeowners insurance policies in the state I reside in have a clause that mentions permits are required for any work that is completed where the local jurisdiction requires permits for that work. It's not the exact verbiage, but close. So as an example, a homeowner hires contractors to finish the basement and something catches fire in the basement,or the basement floods, etc... and the insurance company discovers no permits were pulled for the work in the basement, they will not cover the cost of repairs. So there is always that. Not sure if other homeowner insurance policies in other states have that, but something to keep in mind. Maybe something to ask the homeowner if there policy requires that. They may want to spend the extra money for the permit if that's the case.


----------



## [email protected]

telsa said:


> NOT a violation of the NEC. Such runs would be deemed Lighting Taps. Such runs are allowed down to #16.
> 
> Dig for the exception within the tap rules, IIRC. I'm too lazy to do the library work.
> 
> Obviously, you'd be flagged if the number of fixtures got absurd.



In my barn, I have 8 LED fixtures tapped off of a 20A circuit with #14AWG. Obviously the 20A circuit is #12AWG. I did this as a temporary thing with the intents of replacing the tap with it's own 15A circuit.

What I think I'm reading in these posts is that it's not really necessary to replace the circuit. Are you saying that this is not a NEC violation? Just curious. I don't want to replace the circuit if it's not necessary...


----------



## readydave8

[email protected] said:


> In my barn, I have 8 LED fixtures tapped off of a 20A circuit with #14AWG. Obviously the 20A circuit is #12AWG. I did this as a temporary thing with the intents of replacing the tap with it's own 15A circuit.
> 
> What I think I'm reading in these posts is that it's not really necessary to replace the circuit. Are you saying that this is not a NEC violation? Just curious. I don't want to replace the circuit if it's not necessary...


yes it is a violation, read the thread more thoroughly


----------



## HertzHound

[email protected] said:


> In my barn, I have 8 LED fixtures tapped off of a 20A circuit with #14AWG. Obviously the 20A circuit is #12AWG. I did this as a temporary thing with the intents of replacing the tap with it's own 15A circuit.
> 
> What I think I'm reading in these posts is that it's not really necessary to replace the circuit. Are you saying that this is not a NEC violation? Just curious. I don't want to replace the circuit if it's not necessary...



That's why I said in the beginning this whole thread should be removed.


Lewis and Lewis know a little bit about what ain't natural.


----------



## HackWork

HertzHound said:


> That's why I said in the beginning this whole thread should be removed.


We were all very clear in that the code does not allow it, but it is perfect safe to do.

The free exchange of accurate information should never be "removed".


----------



## flyboy

HertzHound said:


> *That's why I said in the beginning this whole thread should be removed.*


This is America where we are free to exchange opinions and ideas. And you are free to agree or not agree or not even participate in the conversation.

I suggest you move to North Korea if you want censorship.


----------



## HertzHound

flyboy said:


> This is America where we are free to exchange opinions and ideas. And you are free to agree or not agree or not even participate in the conversation.
> 
> I suggest you move to North Korea if you want censorship.


Then I suggest that this thread be moved to the controversial section. :vs_laugh:


----------



## HackWork

HertzHound said:


> Then I suggest that this thread be moved to the controversial section. :vs_laugh:


 No, it belongs right here. This forum is not for kissing the ass of the NEC. That is what Mike Holt’s forum is for. 

The NEC is wrong in many instances, and there’s nothing wrong with saying that out in public for everyone to read.


----------



## MechanicalDVR

macmikeman said:


> Maybe there are bigger turd's in the USA?



All together possible!


----------



## MechanicalDVR

CoolWill said:


> You crap in your shower?



You may not have been here when it was mentioned that one member does and stomps it into the drain.


----------



## MechanicalDVR

HackWork said:


> I waffle stomp all my turds thru the shower drain cover, so it's mush, I mean moot.
> 
> 
> You don't??




I've seen you mention this habit before.


----------



## HackWork

MechanicalDVR said:


> I've seen you mention this habit before.


It's just a normal everyday thing that people do.


----------



## flyboy

I did it this morning.


----------



## MechanicalDVR

HackWork said:


> It's just a normal everyday thing that people do.



We have different viewpoints on 'normal'.


----------



## MechanicalDVR

flyboy said:


> I did it this morning.



Why am I not surprised?


Is that due to an abused sphincter?


----------



## CoolWill

MechanicalDVR said:


> Why am I not surprised?
> 
> 
> Is that due to an abused sphincter?


It's hard to hold your mud after the kind of life he's lived. Plus he's ollllllllldddddd.


----------



## MechanicalDVR

CoolWill said:


> It's hard to hold your mud after the kind of life he's lived. Plus he's ollllllllldddddd.



:thumbup:

I was thinking along those lines...


----------



## HackWork

I've had my sphincter sliced and I do pretty well, only a couple accidents and it was my fault for being lazy.


----------



## MTW

HertzHound said:


> That's why I said in the beginning this whole thread should be removed.



Oh no. You're one of those "by the book" people, aren't you? :wallbash: 

But yeah, we wouldn't want a few LED lights to overheat that #14, now would we?  

I actually ran into this again recently, 20 amp branch circuit but all the lighting was tapped off with #14. I left it alone. :thumbsup:


----------



## flyboy

CoolWill said:


> It's hard to hold your mud after the kind of life he's lived. Plus he's ollllllllldddddd.


:sad:


----------



## HertzHound

MTW said:


> Oh no. You're one of those "by the book" people, aren't you? :wallbash:
> 
> But yeah, we wouldn't want a few LED lights to overheat that #14, now would we?
> 
> I actually ran into this again recently, 20 amp branch circuit but all the lighting was tapped off with #14. I left it alone. :thumbsup:


Damn, you guys need a snitch line. That was definitely done by a handyman.


----------



## MTW

CoolWill said:


> It's hard to hold your mud after the kind of life he's lived. Plus he's ollllllllldddddd.



He has a "girlfriend" dontcha know? :no::no:


----------



## flyboy

MTW said:


> He has a "girlfriend" dontcha know? :no::no:


:sad:


----------



## Easy

pukester said:


> This is not done or allowed in any municipality I worked in in So.Cal. HOWEVER here in Utah (where most decisions are governed by whether you can save 25 cents), Electricians routinely, on a 12 guage, 20 amp circuit,..will run lights with a #14. The only answer I ever got was that most (if not all) municipalities allow it in Utah. As I get older,. I am leaning towards the real answer being "the inspectors don't make us change it or call us out on it...and it saves us a few bucks on every job". Anybody have any info. on this?


I'm not 100% sure if I understand what your question is. Your not saying that the electricians in Utah are running 20 amp circuits and transitioning to 14 gage wire are you? That would be a violation for sure. Most residential lighting circuits are ran in 14 gage but I have come across some homes that use 12 gage for lighting circuits and fed with a 20 amp CB. The problem with running 12 gage to switch boxes is that it's very difficult to work with. Standard switches are not so bad on 12 gage but dimmer switches and such take up more room and working with solid #12 wire can be a challenge even in a deep box. I would never run #12 for a residential lighting circuit. As for commercial or industrial applications I have never seen 14 gage wire used on lighting circuits only 12 gage. In commercial always use stranded wire so it's easy to trim out switch boxes.


----------



## Weasel

Puckster you need to read the NEC. Quit saying what you hear and start saying what you know


----------



## electroken

*using #14 wire on 20a ckt*

This is not a good practice at all. If users and electricians insist on doing this it is wrong as a short circuit could heat up he 14 long before it would blow the 20amp breaker -especially those "maybe trip" breakers. 

My toaster uses a system much like most cheaper breakers and it burns toast now and then. Fuses I would trust but not a breaker.
In any case it is far better to just run wiring for lighting and outlets in bedrooms and living rooms on #14 and just having more circuits will be better than cheating them in on a 20a circuit.
I know in kitchens I find a lot of times when someone runs a sink light off the 20a kitchen outlet circuits. 

It is much harder to deal with the #12 in small jct boxes and leads to shorts and opens with mainly due to loose wire nuts.
Just my opinion but seen a lot in my time.


----------



## CoolWill

electroken said:


> This is not a good practice at all. If users and electricians insist on doing this it is wrong as a short circuit could heat up he 14 long before it would blow the 20amp breaker -especially those "maybe trip" breakers.



How much do you think the #14 will heat up compared to the #12 in a short?


----------



## HackWork

CoolWill said:


> How much do you think the #14 will heat up compared to the #12 in a short?


I can't say exactly, but it is enough of a difference that #12 is perfect safe while #14 will kill everyone.


----------



## Dennis Alwon

This is an electrical forum and we should be giving compliant info. I really find it odd that many of you are endorsing doing things illegally. If you want to do that then its fine but to give advice on an electrical forum that is a violation of the code is not right, IMO.

I agree that in 99% of the time it may not be an issue but the forum is here to help others learn the correct way to do things.

The issue isn't just about overheating. Remember when 12/2 nm had a smaller equipment grounding conductor. There is a reason they changed that one of which is that in a long run a smaller size equipment grounding conductor may not clear a ground fault. 

I want to go on record and say do not listen to people saying it is okay to run 14/2 on a 20 amp circuit. It is not and it is not compliant--plain and simple.


----------



## HackWork

Dennis Alwon said:


> This is an electrical forum and we should be giving compliant info.


Dennis, this is not a code forum. This is an electrical forum. We should be open and honest here. There is no reason to "hide behind the code". 

The code is made up by people with opinions for a profitable corporation. You see them as your god, we do not. They are not infallible, and they are not better than us.

No one is tricking anyone else into thinking that something is code compliant, everyone is very open about certain things being against code when they post it

You should be spending your time shutting down the fraudulent posts people make about code. THAT is irresponsible and dangerous, yet you remain silent to it.


----------



## Dennis Alwon

It is an electrical forum and because of that the code is part of it. Call it what you like but the code is part of this forum.

Comments that you make are read by others that can encourage them to do non-compliant work. I think it is a sad state of affairs.... I am not perfect and I may break some code rules but quite frankly this one is not one I would brag about doing in a non-compliant manner. 

Btw, I have the right to comment how I want not how you want me to... To be honest I have not read the thread just the first part and then I posted.


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> Dennis, this is not a code forum. This is an electrical forum. We should be open and honest here. There is no reason to "hide behind the code".
> 
> The code is made up by people with opinions for a profitable corporation. You see them as your god, we do not. They are not infallible, and they are not better than us.
> 
> No one is tricking anyone else into thinking that something is code compliant, everyone is very open about certain things being against code when they post it
> 
> You should be spending your time shutting down the fraudulent posts people make about code. THAT is irresponsible and dangerous, yet you remain silent to it.


Anyone who doesn't follow the NEC to the letter should be put to death.


----------



## HackWork

Dennis Alwon said:


> It is an electrical forum and because of that the code is part of it. Call it what you like but the code is part of this forum.


Code is part of this forum, and that’s why we speak about it often. But Code isn’t the only thing. There is far more to discuss.


> Comments that you make are read by others that can encourage them to do non-compliant work. I think it is a sad state of affairs.... I am not perfect and I may break some code rules but quite frankly this one is not one I would brag about doing in a non-compliant manner.


 When we talk about doing something that is against Code, we are clear about it being against Code. If someone wants to do it that way, that is their decision. Why are you trying to stop our free-speech?


> Btw, I have the right to comment how I want not how you want me to...


You see what you just said there? That applies to both of us.

It is you who has taken this thread off topic trying to tell people how they should post.


----------



## Easy

MTW said:


> Anyone who doesn't follow the NEC to the letter should be put to death.


MTW ... That's a bit harsh.. :vs_mad:


----------



## Dan the electricman

HackWork said:


> Why are you trying to stop our free-speech?


I suspect it's because someone could use#14 poorly, and cause a fire. Then when the end user sues him(her), he tries to blame the forum, and include them in the lawsuit. It's never a good idea to advocate breaking the code publicly. 

Free speech, huh? LOL! The owner(s) of this forum can ban anyone and anything whenever they want. They don't even need a reason. :wink:


----------



## MTW

Dan the electricman said:


> I suspect it's because someone could use#14 poorly, and cause a fire. Then when the end user sues him(her), he tries to blame the forum, and include them in the lawsuit. It's never a good idea to advocate breaking the code publicly.
> 
> Free speech, huh? LOL! The owner(s) of this forum can ban anyone and anything whenever they want. They don't even need a reason. :wink:



If that were really the case this forum could not exist at all because some unqualified person could take _any_ of the information here and misuse it. 

I advocate "breaking code" whenever it's clear that the rule is intended to make manufacturers more money and have no basis in increasing safety whatsoever.


----------



## HackWork

Dan the electricman said:


> I suspect it's because someone could use#14 poorly, and cause a fire. Then when the end user sues him(her), he tries to blame the forum, and include them in the lawsuit. It's never a good idea to advocate breaking the code publicly.


 I think it’s a great idea and it should be done more often. 


> Free speech, huh? LOL! The owner(s) of this forum can ban anyone and anything whenever they want. They don't even need a reason. :wink:


I understand that. But Dennis is speaking for himself here, not for the forum. We already know that the forum is not worried about this contrived liability and has no problem with this discussion being out in the open.


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> I think it’s a great idea and it should be done more often.
> 
> 
> I understand that. But Dennis is speaking for himself here, not for the forum. We already know that the forum is not worried about this contrived liability and has no problem with this discussion being out in the open.



I see.


----------



## 460 Delta

If this forum banned everyone who cut a corner on code or uses unorthodox off label methods, I think this place would be like The Omega Man, one guy on here alone.


----------



## MTW

460 Delta said:


> If this forum banned everyone who cut a corner on code or uses unorthodox off label methods, I think this place would be like The Omega Man, one guy on here alone.



That would be me since I follow the code 100% of the time.


----------



## 460 Delta

MTW said:


> That would be me since I follow the code 100% of the time.


The last man on ET always carries an automatic weapon.


----------



## CoolWill

I've been following this thread from the start. Not one person, NOT ONE, suggested anyone use #14 on a 20 amp circuit against code. Several said that they do it in some circumstances. Others said they understood why it was harmless. But no one said that someone else should go do it.


----------



## MTW

CoolWill said:


> I've been following this thread from the start. Not one person, NOT ONE, suggested anyone use #14 on a 20 amp circuit against code. Several said that they do it in some circumstances. Others said they understood why it was harmless. But no one said that someone else should go do it.


Only a certain communist make that assertion. Who knew, right?


----------



## 460 Delta

MTW said:


> Only a certain communist make that assertion. Who knew, right?


Calling people out as communists is a sin. 
No wait, it’s truthful, carry on as before.


----------



## HackWork

MTW said:


> Only a certain communist make that assertion. Who knew, right?


Everyone’s a communist now, huh? So Dennis should be imprisoned and then murdered?

When are you going to get banned again?


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> Everyone’s a communist now, huh? So Dennis should be imprisoned and then murdered?
> 
> When are you going to get banned again?


:sleep1:


----------



## 460 Delta

HackWork said:


> Everyone’s a communist now, huh? So Dennis should be imprisoned and then murdered?
> 
> When are you going to get banned again?


It’s not a ban, it’s time out for his re-education and his socio-political awakening.


----------



## Easy

CoolWill said:


> I've been following this thread from the start. Not one person, NOT ONE, suggested anyone use #14 on a 20 amp circuit against code. Several said that they do it in some circumstances. Others said they understood why it was harmless. But no one said that someone else should go do it.


I have not spent much time in this forum but when I do come to visit I usually learn something. I enjoy reading HackWorks post and imagine that he is a real good person. I really don’t think that he is running 14 gage wire on a 20 amp circuit in the real world. He is most likely just messing with us.


----------



## Easy

HackWork said:


> I do it all the time because I don't pull permits. I don't do it to save money, I do it because #14 is so much nicer to work with than #12, especially in the little junction boxes that many lights use.
> 
> It is perfectly safe. Most lighting is LED now anyways, but even with incandescent they aren't pulling anywhere near 15A in the lighting that I install.
> 
> And this is where someone is going to come up with some unrealistic scenario about how someone else can splice into my lights to add more lights and pull more current, blah blah blah.


I kind of agree with you Hack. The problem is no one else does. I personally would not ever transition to 14 gage on a 20 amp circuit mainly because I worry about getting giged or belittled. Many years ago I did some ark welding with a welder that required 50 Amps. I installed a 50 amp breaker in my panel and hooked up a full roll of 12 gage romex to it. I welded for about 2 hours and the cable got a bit warm but it never caught on fire. :smile:


----------



## HackWork

Easy said:


> I have not spent much time in this forum but when I do come to visit I usually learn something. I enjoy reading HackWorks post and imagine that he is a real good person. I really don’t think that he is running 14 gage wire on a 20 amp circuit in the real world. He is most likely just messing with us.


Here is a #14 that I used on a 20A bathroom circuit because the #12 wouldn’t fit into the backstab. The other picture is a #14 pigtail in a 20A circuit.


----------



## Easy

HackWork said:


> Here is a #14 that I used on a 20A bathroom circuit because the #12 wouldn’t fit into the backstab. The other picture is a #14 pigtail in a 20A circuit.
> 
> View attachment 137104
> 
> 
> View attachment 137106


Romex inside conduit ? Yes we are all guilty of using 14 gage to backstab. Inspectors hate that but usually it's done at trim out. lol


----------



## Easy

Why is it acceptable to use 15 amp receps on a 20 amp circuit but we cant use 14 gage pigtails ?


----------



## Dennis Alwon

Easy said:


> Romex inside conduit ? Yes we are all guilty of using 14 gage to backstab. Inspectors hate that but usually it's done at trim out. lol


RX inside conduit is fine unless it is outdoors. NC has an amendment to that if done 6' or less.

14 gauge wire is allowed to be backstabbed whether inspectors like it or not. I prefer not to backstab but that is my decision not an NEC rule.


----------



## HackWork

Dennis Alwon said:


> RX inside conduit is fine unless it is outdoors. NC has an amendment to that if done 6' or less.


 That's a smart amendment.

Even if not 6', they should clear up the code to allow you to enter a surface mounted outside box from behind with romex.


----------



## zac

HackWork said:


> Here is a #14 that I used on a 20A bathroom circuit because the #12 wouldn’t fit into the backstab. The other picture is a #14 pigtail in a 20A circuit.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 137104
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 137106


How do you dog leg offset connectors!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## HackWork

zac said:


> How do you dog leg offset connectors!


They aren't.

But FWIW, I will happily turn any offset to match the distance I need without regret. That's the point of offsets, like using an offset nipple.


----------



## zac

HackWork said:


> They aren't.
> 
> But FWIW, I will happily turn any offset to match the distance I need without regret. That's the point of offsets, like using an offset nipple.


It was a joke, A factory offset connector shouldn't be dog legged.

And I roll offsets all the time without blinking. I aim to bend pipe once with a few tweaks when needed. I carry a plethora of couplings! 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## HackWork

zac said:


> *It was a joke*, A factory offset connector shouldn't be dog legged.
> 
> And I roll offsets all the time without blinking. I aim to bend pipe once with a few tweaks when needed. I carry a plethora of couplings!


Gotcha. I thought you were trying to hurt me again. I am very delicate. Like a flower.


----------



## Easy

Dennis Alwon said:


> RX inside conduit is fine unless it is outdoors. NC has an amendment to that if done 6' or less.
> 
> 14 gauge wire is allowed to be backstabbed whether inspectors like it or not. I prefer not to backstab but that is my decision not an NEC rule.


I did not know about the 6' rule for NM cable. Thanks... That's logical in places like basement to protect the cable. 

I don't backstab very often but if I do backstab a receptacle I would at least wire nut and pigtail first. That way only one receptacle would be at risk. If its a 20 amp circuit with 15 amp receptacles I would attach to the side screws. Wagos and back stabbing just don't seem to be that reliable.


----------



## HackWork

Easy said:


> I did not know about the 6' rule for NM cable. Thanks... That's logical in places like basement to protect the cable.
> 
> I don't backstab very often but if I do backstab a receptacle I would at least wire nut and pigtail first. That way only one receptacle would be at risk. If its a 20 amp circuit with 15 amp receptacles I would attach to the side screws. Wagos and back stabbing just don't seem to be that reliable.


That is an amendment in North Carolina, the 6 foot rule he mentioned doesn’t apply to you.

But there is no reason why you can’t put romex inside of a conduit in a basement.


----------



## Easy

HackWorks thanks for the insight. I would think that if you had a panel or sub panel in a residential basement it would be a good way of protecting the NM cable coming into said panel. I wonder how many 14-2 cables you could legally install in lets say a 2" conduit? Would that be acceptable ? You would have to de-rate the conductors at some point. ??? I have seen it done before. I would be concerned that it might get red tagged by the inspector.


----------



## HackWork

What Dennis was talking about was *outside*. Pipe run outside is considered a wet location, which romex can't be installed in. However, in his state they made an amendment to allow you to run romex thru 6' of pipe outside.

Running romex thru pipe everywhere else is perfectly fine. The pipe can either be a raceway or a sleeve. Derating rules still apply in appropriate situations.


----------



## Easy

Thanks Hack ... Yes I know that NM cant be used in wet locations. I just watched the inspector gig the patio guy for installing it to feed his fans and recessed lights in an aluminum patio. The patio guy was highly disturbed about it. UF was installed and for some reason the fans needed to be on a GFI circuit but the lights did not.


----------



## Easy

Hack I think everyone has abandoned us in this thread..


----------



## electroken

*Romex use and back wiring*

I agree about the romex use to a surface box should be allowed. I often run romex to a nailon box which is used for an outside outlet but the box is within the wall cavity. I see little difference because water can enter either of those boxes and does at times. Sometimes the rules are a bit nit-picking.
As for offets, I often use a little tool I bought about a 100 years ago (just seems like it now) and it was by Greenlee and used to make offsets in 1/2" emt. They also had one for 3/4" but I declined that one as I was a fairly small and weak guy. But the off-setter works well.
Now about pigtailing on a 20amp ckt to an outlet. I have done it at times when someone previous has tried to stuff 5 12/2 romex into a 20cu in box. I do not recommend using those back stabs as they are prone to fail. I have been on numerous calls to find the reason for some outlet to be non-working and it turned out to be a loose connection at an outlet or a loose wirenut. I am old school and still recall the day when it was very routine to run 3 wire shared neutral circuits. It was generally accepted and actually code requirement to not use the device for feedthrouogh of the circuits, especially tne neutral. If you do not know why, then go back to school!
I always see this practice on a lot of jobs, even recent ones done be so-called professional electrician and I cringe. Part of the rough-in is to splice the wiring so that the device can be installed without using wirenuts at the finishing. It also lessons confusion about what connects to what and a long time spent trouble-shooting things once the power is turned on the circuits.
Phew! got that off my mind for a while now and I will relax and wait to be criticized.
:smile:


----------



## electroken

BTW pigtailing out to an outlet with #14 from a 20amp ckt is not the same as running 70-100' of #14 romex to a bunch of lights and outlets.


----------



## HackWork

How do you split a MWBC off of a device?


----------



## electroken

*Multi branch ckt*

Only needed to be done on a receptacle; just twist off the junction between the two hot connections on the outlet and then it is split on the outlet.
If I understand what you are asking.
You would be surprised how many times I have rescued a home owner who was trying to install a gfi on his kitchen outlet and did not realize those two sets of wires did not go on the line and load of the gfi. He found out he needed a new gfi. 

Also on knob and tube wiring where the average electrician might even be caught by the way those 3 way switches were wired up. The travelers were used as a way to run a 120v ckt to the next floor in a lot of cases and was known as a "hot 3way". Generally things went very wrong when the owner got a really good switch as a replacement such as a mercury contact silent switch. In those switches and early quiet switches the contact from the common would "make before break" from one traveler to the next and the lights would all go out for a while.


----------



## Dennis Alwon

electroken said:


> BTW pigtailing out to an outlet with #14 from a 20amp ckt is not the same as running 70-100' of #14 romex to a bunch of lights and outlets.


It is still not compliant


----------



## CoolWill

Dennis Alwon said:


> It is still not compliant


And not at all a danger.


----------



## electroken

*not compliant*

Yes, I will agree it is not compliant and can get you sited for a code violation. It is just not as dangerous to do and very unlikely to ever cause a problem. In my humble opinion it is not remotely as great as the likelyhood that backwiring an outlet with the push -n terminals will end up with an open or be causing flickering lights etc.


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> Here is a #14 that I used on a 20A bathroom circuit because the #12 wouldn’t fit into the backstab. The other picture is a #14 pigtail in a 20A circuit.
> 
> View attachment 137104
> 
> 
> View attachment 137106



That second pic looks straight out of the Wiring 1-2-3 book.


----------



## HackWork

MTW said:


> That second pic looks straight out of the Wiring 1-2-3 book.


It _is_ really good wiring, I must say. 

Notice how I didn't break the conductor as I jumped from one device to another. That's continuity, baby.


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> It _is_ really good wiring, I must say.
> 
> Notice how I didn't break the conductor as I jumped from one device to another. That's continuity, baby.


The wiring itself looks fine. It's the offset fittings that give it true DIY character.


----------



## HackWork

MTW said:


> The wiring itself looks fine. It's the offset fittings that give it true DIY character.


That's impossible, the owner of the house actually used the word "Professional" in his review, and named me personally. 

Professional is the opposite of DIY.


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> That's impossible, the owner of the house actually used the word "Professional" in his review, and named me personally.
> 
> Professional is the opposite of DIY.


You should be put to death for using them.


----------



## HackWork

I like the way you edited your post lol

Original:


MTW said:


> Is that so?


Edit:


MTW said:


> You should be put to death for using them.


----------



## MTW

HackWork said:


> I like the way you edited your post lol


Is that so?


----------



## MTW

CoolWill said:


> And not at all a danger.


But.......but.....fire....death....overheating......not code compliant......[more emotionally based nonsense]


----------



## emtnut

electroken said:


> Yes, I will agree it is not compliant and can get you sited for a code violation. It is just not as dangerous to do and very unlikely to ever cause a problem. In my humble opinion it is not remotely as great as the likelyhood that backwiring an outlet with the push -n terminals will end up with an open or be causing flickering lights etc.


I couldn't agree with you more !

When I rewired my new panel at my cottage, I ran #10 for the 100A service.
I watch my power consumption like a hawk, and even doing laundry (electric water tank and dryer) and making supper (oven and elements on) and it was -30˚C so I had supplementary oil filled electric heaters, my peak only hit 41A.

I feel really bad about that, because @Easy who is an NEC specialist and professional experimenter found that you can easily run 50A on #12.
I really wasted money on that #10 :vs_mad:



Easy said:


> Many years ago I did some ark welding with a welder that required 50 Amps. I installed a 50 amp breaker in my panel and hooked up a full roll of 12 gage romex to it. I welded for about 2 hours and the cable got a bit warm but it never caught on fire. :smile:


Easy .... :no:


Back on topic thou ... yeah, back stabs ARE bad , and yes mfr's will never admit it because then they would have to pay $$.
So although my #10 on a 100A service is a code violation ... Well Ill quote .... 


> In my humble opinion it is not remotely as great as the likelyhood that backwiring an outlet with the push -n terminals will end up with an open or be causing flickering lights etc.


----------



## HackWork

I really think you should use #6 for your 100 amp service. #10 is kinda pushing it.


----------



## electroken

*using offset connectors.*

I recall whenever I look into my basement hallway that I see those offset 1/2" emt connectors I used on my first every wiring job - my own house. It was around 1967 or 68 if I recall correctly. (yes I am still living in my same house I came home from the hospital in 1939)
I have been tempted every now and then over the years to redo the job using my offset tool, but it is too much trouble for nothing. They simply just remind me that I should do better on other jobs I do and not use those things as they are usually a sign of DIY.
If you have been in the trade very long, and you manage to revisit some places where you did work in your early years, you will surely find it somewhat lacking. Unless you were unlike most of us who are continually learning on the job.


I recall some years ago when I was on a commercial job working for another contractor. I was about to saw off a piece of 1/2" emt (obviously to make it somewhat shorter) and was doing it in my usual way by placing the emt through the rungs of my step ladder for a support to make the cut. A young guy who was a new apprentice, stopped me and showed me a better way to do it using the openings in the shoe of my bender. I had never seen that way to do it. Well, as I recall most of the benders I had must have been cheaper ones who had solid shoes instead of my newer one I was now using. I thanked him and used his new method to do the job much more easily.


----------



## Easy

I feel really bad about that, because @Easy who is an NEC specialist and professional experimenter found that you can easily run 50A on #12.
I really wasted money on that #10 :vs_mad:



Easy .... :no:

Hey don't beat me up on this. It was just an example of how robust wire is. It was the only thing I had at the time that would reach down my drive way so I could do some welding on my tailor. After I was done I quickly disconnected the wire and removed the breaker. I even through out the roll of #12 as I knew it was no good any more. The only person at risk was me. Thank goodness the conductors were in free air and had some cooling properties. My rule of thumb is this... If I want to put my self at risk .. so what. Kind of like Ben Franklin and his kite. :vs_laugh:


----------



## Easy

Hey don't beat me up on this. It was just an example of how robust wire is. It was the only thing I had at the time that would reach down my drive way so I could do some welding on my tailor. After I was done I quickly disconnected the wire and removed the breaker. I even through out the roll of #12 as I knew it was no good any more. The only person at risk was me. Thank goodness the conductors were in free air and had some cooling properties. My rule of thumb is this... If I want to put my self at risk .. so what. Kind of like Ben Franklin and his kite. :vs_laugh:


----------



## Easy

:surprise:


----------



## emtnut

Easy said:


> Hey don't beat me up on this. It was just an example of how robust wire is.


I think it was a better example of duty cycle of welders :wink:

Now, maybe you actually did have a 200+ Amp weld going for a continuous 2 hrs, in that case I will eat my words :biggrin:

If it's not too late, get that cable back !!


----------



## crw16

The code states counter circuits are to be dedicated to serve the counter and small appliances. Lighting is lighting. #14 on a 20A breaker you have the chance of overloading the conductor in the event of a fault. The wire becomes the weakest link not the overcurrent protection.


----------



## HackWork

crw16 said:


> The code states counter circuits are to be dedicated to serve the counter and small appliances. Lighting is lighting. #14 on a 20A breaker you have the chance of overloading the conductor in the event of a fault. The wire becomes the weakest link not the overcurrent protection.


Nope.


----------



## MTW

crw16 said:


> The code states counter circuits are to be dedicated to serve the counter and small appliances. Lighting is lighting. #14 on a 20A breaker you have the chance of overloading the conductor in the event of a fault. The wire becomes the weakest link not the overcurrent protection.


#14 can safely carry 20 amps indefinitely without a problem. 

Secondly, have you ever tried to wire modern LED under cabinet lights with #12 wire?


----------



## Incognito

HackWork said:


> crw16 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The code states counter circuits are to be dedicated to serve the counter and small appliances. Lighting is lighting. #14 on a 20A breaker you have the chance of overloading the conductor in the event of a fault. The wire becomes the weakest link not the overcurrent protection.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
Click to expand...

What are you saying “nope” to in his post?

Is it ok to do so in the NEC?


----------



## CoolWill

Incognito said:


> What are you saying “nope” to in his post?
> 
> Is it ok to do so in the NEC?


It is not OK by the NEC. But that wasn't in the post. People keep acting like #14 will spontaneously burst into flames if it has 20 amps running through it. These breathless claims of "the weakest link in a fault", etc are just silly. We aren't talking about the code. Let's talk science. For what scientific reason can #14 safely carry 15 amps, but violently explode with 17 amps? Why are the margins so razor thin with this stuff? 

Why can #14 be trusted to carry 25 amps to start a motor on a 30 amp breaker, but it can't be trusted to carry 0.8 amps of LED current on a 20 amp breaker? How does it even know? Is #14 intelligent? Is it programmed from an app during installation?


----------



## HackWork

Incognito said:


> What are you saying “nope” to in his post?
> 
> Is it ok to do so in the NEC?


We were doing so well, but now you’re back to trolling.


----------



## dronai

I was working on a troubleshooting job with a dead short, and breaker tripping. Opened the dead front, and saw that the insulation was burned off of the wire to the 20A breaker. Went into the attic to see how far the wire insuation was burned off, and had to pull out all of the #14 wire until it went to a junction box, and converted to #12. The 12 gauge wire insulation was in good shape.


----------



## Incognito

HackWork said:


> Incognito said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you saying â€œnopeâ€ to in his post?
> 
> Is it ok to do so in the NEC?
> 
> 
> 
> We were doing so well, but now youâ€™️re back to trolling.
Click to expand...

No no, all good. I thought you were saying nope because it was ok by your code. 
Carry on


----------



## HackWork

dronai said:


> I was working on a troubleshooting job with a dead short, and breaker tripping. Opened the dead front, and saw that the insulation was burned off of the wire to the 20A breaker. Went into the attic to see how far the wire insuation was burned off, and had to pull out all of the #14 wire until it went to a junction box, and converted to #12. The 12 gauge wire insulation was in good shape.


A breaker does not limit current, a dead short could pull hundreds of amps. A 20 amp breaker will trip in the exact same split second that a 15 amp breaker will trip. Until they trip, the same exact amount of current would flow through them.

A dead short would not cause the insulation to completely burn off of 14 gauge wire while allowing it to remain perfectly intact on 12 gauge wire.


----------



## dronai

HackWork said:


> A breaker does not limit current, a dead short could pull hundreds of amps. A 20 amp breaker will trip in the exact same split second that a 15 amp breaker will trip. Until they trip, the same exact amount of current would flow through them.
> 
> A dead short would not cause the insulation to completely burn off of 14 gauge wire while allowing it to remain perfectly intact on 12 gauge wire.


So then my whole story is fabricated ?


----------



## HackWork

dronai said:


> So then my whole story is fabricated ?


Something else was happening. Maybe in the junction box where it transition from 14 to 12. 

If you connect 20 foot of 14 gauge wire to 20 foot of 12 gauge wire and run enough current through the wires to burn all the insulation off of the 14 gauge, the insulation on the 12 gauge will also be damaged, just to a lesser degree. 

Furthermore, 20A will not do it. 

So the situation you described would’ve happened the same way if it was on a 15 amp breaker.


----------



## splatz

There's a lot of videos like this on Youtube, you can see the NEC is pretty conservative about wire sizes (as it should be).


----------



## HackWork

splatz said:


> There's a lot of videos like this on Youtube, you can see the NEC is pretty conservative about wire sizes (as it should be).
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsJffbx_l7E


Ehhhh, I don't know about that. I have seen 18 amps burn #14 so bright that all the insulation burnt off and the heat created opened up a portal to another dimension. Use #12, it could save the world.


----------



## 460 Delta

HackWork said:


> Ehhhh, I don't know about that. I have seen 18 amps burn #14 so bright that all the insulation burnt off and the heat created opened up a portal to another dimension. Use #12, it could save the world.


If the dimension is on the 1980 code cycle, I’d be willing to try to replicate this situation you speak of.


----------



## dronai

HackWork said:


> Something else was happening. Maybe in the junction box where it transition from 14 to 12.
> 
> If you connect 20 foot of 14 gauge wire to 20 foot of 12 gauge wire and run enough current through the wires to burn all the insulation off of the 14 gauge, the insulation on the 12 gauge will also be damaged, just to a lesser degree.
> 
> Furthermore, 20A will not do it.
> 
> So the situation you described would’ve happened the same way if it was on a 15 amp breaker.


There were workers with jack hammers taking the plaster off of the pool. They overloaded the circuit, and must have been at enough to melt the 14 guage insulation, maybe 30A or so. 12 was fine. I've only seen this happen once in almost 35 years


----------



## zac

dronai said:


> There were workers with jack hammers taking the plaster off of the pool. They overloaded the circuit, and must have been at enough to melt the 14 guage insulation, maybe 30A or so. 12 was fine. I've only seen this happen once in almost 35 years


I had guys blowing out a breaker using a floor grinder on a remodel. I put my amp probe on the wire at the breaker and had the guy run his grinder. He was running around 28 amps for about a minute or so until the breaker tripped. I told him no more grinder until you get it fixed. Didn't do any noticable damage to the wire but if I wasn't there they'd probably keep at it until something went bad. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Easy

zac said:


> I had guys blowing out a breaker using a floor grinder on a remodel. I put my amp probe on the wire at the breaker and had the guy run his grinder. He was running around 28 amps for about a minute or so until the breaker tripped. I told him no more grinder until you get it fixed. Didn't do any noticable damage to the wire but if I wasn't there they'd probably keep at it until something went bad.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


Good point ZAC .. Once you have overloaded a conductor for a long enough period of time the insulation breaks down and the next time it happens it just get worse and worse. There is no reason anyone should ever overload a conductor for any reason. If it's NM cable in a wall it's even worse.


----------



## emtnut

MTW said:


> #14 can safely carry 20 amps indefinitely without a problem.


So, #14 in an attic in 180˚ temps, for 18 hrs with 20A, this #14 will still be OK ?


----------



## zac

emtnut said:


> So, #14 in an attic in 180˚ temps, for 18 hrs with 20A, this #14 will still be OK ?


You just stick with emt Mr.





Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## emtnut

zac said:


> You just stick with emt Mr.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk



So, #14 in an attic in 180˚ temps, for 18 hrs with 20A, this #14 will still be OK ?
*If it's in EMT* ?? :biggrin:


----------



## LGLS

emtnut said:


> So, #14 in an attic in 180˚ temps, for 18 hrs with 20A, this #14 will still be OK ?
> *If it's in EMT* ?? :biggrin:


Even more so. The EMT acts as a heat sink, allowing even more current.


----------



## zac

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Even more so. The EMT acts as a heat sink, allowing even more current.


Sorry guys it was a joke to emtnut.
Hello! 


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## splatz

dronai said:


> There were workers with jack hammers taking the plaster off of the pool. They overloaded the circuit, and must have been at enough to melt the 14 guage insulation, maybe 30A or so. 12 was fine. I've only seen this happen once in almost 35 years


To be fair you did not tell the whole story. The dead short wasn't what cooked off the insulation, the overload cooked off the insulation, then without insulation you had a dead short. The breaker was too slow to trip on overload, and / or someone kept resetting and repeating. (Luckily it shorted before it started a fire.)


----------



## CoolWill

More dramatized breathless stories. First, it was a short flash-vaporized the insulation right off some #14... Then it was a jackhammer drawing 35 amps... I'm not exactly convinced that would do it either. I'm going to setup an experiment.


----------



## HackWork

I maintain that anything that will completely burn off the insulations from #14 will also severely damage the insulation on #12.

Either way, how could 30A be pulled thru long enough to do that damage if it was on a 20A breaker? 

I have a burn on my hand from touching a 1900 box underneath a counter in the center of a mall. There was a ground fault occurring and I guess it was too far from the breaker to trip it (common in malls, I was often not able to blow breakers purposely when I tried). This type of thing might have been happening with the situation that dronai mentioned, the #12 might have been out of the loop completely.


----------



## emtnut

zac said:


> Sorry guys it was a joke to emtnut.
> Hello!
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


I knew you were kidding ... not sure about LGLS ???


----------



## splatz

HackWork said:


> There was a ground fault occurring and I guess it was too far from the breaker to trip it (common in malls, I was often not able to blow breakers purposely when I tried).


I'm scratching my head about that.


A ground fault to a metal box should be clearing via the EGC, not through the ground itself. Ground resistance is usually high enough that a breaker won't clear a fault on a short to ground.



Even with 1000' of #14, the resistance is about 2.5ohms, so a #14 EGC with a dead short to the box would be at (V/I) amps, so (120 / 2.5) = 48 amps - adequate to quickly kill the breaker.



Maybe if the fault is in series with a load and the EGC is long enough to have some resistance, it would not clear?


----------



## HackWork

splatz said:


> A ground fault to a metal box should be clearing via the EGC, not through the ground itself.


 My understanding is that a short circuit is when the hot touches a neutral or another hot, and a ground fault is when the hot touches anything grounded- whether it be an EGC, something bonded to the EGC, or the ground itself.

I'm not sure if that is correct or not, but in this situation I believe the hot was touching the metal box and current was flowing thru it to the EGC and back to the panel, but not enough to trip the breaker (assuming due to high resistance).



> Even with 1000' of #14, the resistance is about 2.5ohms, so a #14 EGC with a dead short to the box would be at (V/I) amps, so (120 / 2.5) = 48 amps - adequate to quickly kill the breaker.


 I tried to blow up many circuits in many malls (and other places), and many times the only thing that would happen is that the other lights on the circuit would dim. I tried both the neutral and the EGC. 

I'm not sure the rhyme or reason. I assumed it was distance. It could be poor connections, but it happened the same way in too many different circuits and I never blew a connection. As far as I remember, these were all SqD QOB panels.


----------



## CoolWill

HackWork said:


> My understanding is that a short circuit is when the hot touches a neutral or another hot, and a ground fault is when the hot touches anything grounded- whether it be an EGC, something bonded to the EGC, or the ground itself.
> 
> I'm not sure if that is correct or not, but in this situation I believe the hot was touching the metal box and current was flowing thru it to the EGC and back to the panel, but not enough to trip the breaker (assuming due to high resistance).
> 
> I tried to blow up many circuits in many malls (and other places), and many times the only thing that would happen is that the other lights on the circuit would dim. I tried both the neutral and the EGC.
> 
> I'm not sure the rhyme or reason. I assumed it was distance. It could be poor connections, but it happened the same way in too many different circuits and I never blew a connection. As far as I remember, these were all SqD QOB panels.


Yeah, I've done a lot of work in malls with similar effect. You can get some interesting rattle out of a conduit but no trip, or no trip for quite some time. I suppose inductance has some kind of choke effect in long runs too. Don't know. Just guessing.


----------



## LGLS

emtnut said:


> I knew you were kidding ... not sure about LGLS ???



Of course I knew he was kidding don't be ridiculous.


----------



## HertzHound

You can take a roll of Romex, and don’t unroll it, and plug an extension cord into the white and black at the center. Then unroll a foot or two off the outside and ground the white wire. Then use the black wire to lay down some nice arcs. It won’t trip the breaker. 

I marked some 4” square blank covers with the voltage and circuit numbers once with the arc. I’m sure it impressed the next electrician that came across it. It was an experiment for the apprentice to show him real world inductance. Im sure it would instantly trip the breaker if laid out straight.


----------



## Easy

HertzHound said:


> You can take a roll of Romex, and don’t unroll it, and plug an extension cord into the white and black at the center. Then unroll a foot or two off the outside and ground the white wire. Then use the black wire to lay down some nice arcs. It won’t trip the breaker.
> 
> I marked some 4” square blank covers with the voltage and circuit numbers once with the arc. I’m sure it impressed the next electrician that came across it. It was an experiment for the apprentice to show him real world inductance. Im sure it would instantly trip the breaker if laid out straight.


Wow thanks for the tip on perma-marking cover plates. I have done some welding with 20 amp circuits as well. It may have something to do with the AIC ratting of a breaker. Not real sure about that but the typical ratings are from 5,000 to 200,000 AIC. Regardless of my not actually knowing the facts I just bring this up to see what others think. I do know that selective coordination is important because you don't want up-stream breakers tripping out. I no longer do any arc welling with 20 amp circuits. It not good when you trip a main if your trying to ID a 20 circuit by shorting it out. Some electricians (not me) use 50 amp feed through breakers with a pig tail and cord cap plugged into a receptacle and short out stuff that way. Not smart at all...


----------



## telsa

Easy said:


> Why is it acceptable to use 15 amp receps on a 20 amp circuit but we cant use 14 gage pigtails ?


NEMA standards make the internals of the 15 A the same as the 20 A. ( ampacity )

The only difference is the final face geometry.

Naturally, the NEMA players have some influence with the NEC writing crews.


----------



## lighterup

CoolWill said:


> Yeah, I've done a lot of work in malls with similar effect. You can get some interesting rattle out of a conduit but no trip, or no trip for quite some time. I suppose inductance has some kind of *choke effect* in long runs too. Don't know. Just guessing.


10 to 1 the gec was installed thru the weep hole. Kenny clamp would've changed everything















:whistling2:


----------



## CoolWill

lighterup said:


> 10 to 1 the gec was installed thru the weep hole. Kenny clamp would've changed everything


What's a Kenny clamp?


----------



## emtnut

HertzHound said:


> You can take a roll of Romex, and don’t unroll it, and plug an extension cord into the white and black at the center. Then unroll a foot or two off the outside and ground the white wire. Then use the black wire to lay down some nice arcs. It won’t trip the breaker.
> 
> I marked some 4” square blank covers with the voltage and circuit numbers once with the arc. I’m sure it impressed the next electrician that came across it. It was an experiment for the apprentice to show him real world inductance. Im sure it would instantly trip the breaker if laid out straight.


What size roll ?? 250' ? ... asking for a friend :biggrin:


----------



## CoolWill

emtnut said:


> What size roll ?? 250' ? ... asking for a friend :biggrin:


That's way too long. 75 meters should do it.


----------



## emtnut

CoolWill said:


> That's way too long. 75 meters should do it.



Well, I was going to unroll 4 or 5 feet for the welding end .... er, I mean my friend will :biggrin:

Good to go ?


----------



## lighterup

emtnut said:


> What size roll ?? 250' ? ... asking for a friend :biggrin:


I mis read the question...nevermiiiind


----------



## readydave8

telsa said:


> NEMA standards make the internals of the 15 A the same as the 20 A. ( ampacity )
> 
> The only difference is the final face geometry.
> 
> Naturally, the NEMA players have some influence with the NEC writing crews.


A 20 amp breaker is a 15 amp breaker that is marked 20 amp? I'm confused.


----------



## HackWork

readydave8 said:


> A 20 amp breaker is a 15 amp breaker that is marked 20 amp? I'm confused.


He’s talking about a receptacle, not a breaker.


----------



## MTW

telsa said:


> Naturally, the NEMA players have complete influence over the NEC writing crews.


Fify


----------

