Originally Posted By: roconnor This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
" that may/will require evaluation by a professional per my previous post, no matter how ya expand on that. Cant write it up as a “major defect” or “safety hazard” (repair/evaluation required) because ya don’t know that, and ya cant really call it a “maintenance item” or that it’s in “satisfactory” condition because it?s questionable …
– Robert O’Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: Blaine Wiley This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Having been called “stupid” early in my career by the local AHJ who also was a master electrician for calling out this very item for further evaluation, I simply have since followed the interpretation of the code(s) as explained ever so eloquently by Bob Badger. (in my case is was 10 to 40 as I recall) And although my hair hurts double time after reading his entire post, I will continue to operate the same way.
BTW, The AHJ and I are now buds, and he won't let me live down the "stupid" call.
Originally Posted By: Bob Badger This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
jpeck wrote:
[There is a 30 amp breaker with 12 AWG (20 amp rated) wire in it.
12 AWG is rated 20 amps?
In what code book? 
I could not resist.
12 AWG is rated 25 to 30 amps.
Just having some fun Jerry.
Now back to the subject, I have a problem when people think they know better than the NEC.
The NEC has been doing there thing for over 100 years, and it is not one person making a judgment call, it is a committees who study all the pertinent facts and come to conclusions.
When accident or incidents happen they hear about it, they also have access to testing by various testing agency's.
Some will say the process can be corrupted by manufactures in this case that would result in lager conductors.
In the work I am involved in it is very rare to run at the minimums, right now I am running a feed to a 52 amp load with 1/0s this is a design choice for voltage drop.
I still maintain just because something is done to code minimums does not make it unsafe, wrong or a concern.
The only reason I can even imagine to flag it as a concern is only to verify it is a dedicated circuit.
Oh well to each their own, that's what makes life interesting.
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Bob,
From the ampacity tables.
Size AWG or kcmil
18
16
14*
12*
10*
8
* See 240.4(D).
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).
(D) Small Conductors. Unless specifically permitted in 240.4(E) through (G), the overcurrent protection shall not exceed 15 amperes for 14 AWG, 20 amperes for 12 AWG, and 30 amperes for 10 AWG copper; or 15 amperes for 12 AWG and 25 amperes for 10 AWG aluminum and copper-clad aluminum after any correction factors for ambient temperature and number of conductors have been applied.
So, in that sense, yes, 12 AWG copper is rated for 20 amp.
Robert,
You skimmed over the 'circuits not properly identified' part. That gets written up, and brings in the electrical contractor. NOT for 'further evaluation' but to actually do something, then, while they are on-site doing something, they need to verify the correct sizing, based on what they identify that circuit as being used for.
Originally Posted By: jfarsetta This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Jerry…
Forever the hard head.
For the rest of you,
Forget it guys... cant teach an old dog new tricks. I thought I'd complement Jerry for starting to recognize gray (is that better, Jerry?), but it appears that my complement may have been premature. BTW, in literary circles (including professional editors), grey and gray are interchangable.
I am thankful for the folks who spend their valuable time on this message board to try and educate and guide many of us away from common misconceptions and mistakes; even those made by certain unyeilding home inspectors. So, kudos to our resident sparky-at-large, Mr. Badger.
Thanks to Bob and Rob, and the many others who truly understand what I mean by gray (or grey).
As to the "I'm right and you're not" crowd, all I can say is that some folks get it, and I am starting to really believe that others never will.
-- Joe Farsetta
Illigitimi Non Carborundum
"Dont let the bastards grind you down..."
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
jfarsetta wrote:
I thought I'd complement Jerry for starting to recognize gray (is that better, Jerry?),
Joe,
I did get your complement, thanks.
That "Sorry, couldn't resist." was my way of trying to add a  to that post. Trying to offer alternatives to all the emoticons. Guess I should stick to the emoticons.
There are shades or gray, but what is gray made up of? Black and white. It's either more black, or more white, unless it's a "natural gray" (and please, don't ask me what color "natural gray" is. Maybe one ounce of black and one ounce of white mixed together?)
Originally Posted By: roconnor This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Jerry … that circuit would be a “concern” only because it wasn’t labeled. I certainly wouldn’t be calling in a sparky to label a residential panel, and have him check out the suspect circuit while he was there.
Your kidding about calling in a sparky to label a residential panel, right ... 
-- Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: Guest This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
jfarsetta wrote:
Jerry...
Forget it guys... cant teach an old dog new tricks. I thought I'd complement Jerry for starting to recognize gray (is that better, Jerry?), but it appears that my complement may have been premature. BTW, in literary circles (including professional editors), grey and gray are interchangeable.
.
Joe Farsetta...I can't resist , complement and compliment aren't interchangeable.
Originally Posted By: Bob Badger This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
jpeck wrote:
Bob,
From the ampacity tables.
Size AWG or kcmil
18
16
14*
12*
10*
8
* See 240.4(D).
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).
(D) Small Conductors. Unless specifically permitted in 240.4(E) through (G), the overcurrent protection shall not exceed 15 amperes for 14 AWG, 20 amperes for 12 AWG, and 30 amperes for 10 AWG copper; or 15 amperes for 12 AWG and 25 amperes for 10 AWG aluminum and copper-clad aluminum after any correction factors for ambient temperature and number of conductors have been applied.
So, in that sense, yes, 12 AWG copper is rated for 20 amp.
Those code sections are quoted quite accurately, I still disagree.
Did you think I was unaware of 240.4(D)?
Jerry after all the b*** busting you give everyone about correct terminology you say
Quote:
So, in that sense, yes, 12 AWG copper is rated for 20 amp
I am sorry but in no sense is 12 rated 20 amps, 240.4(D) does not change the rating of the wire only the overcurrent protection to be used with it in some (most) instances.
Had anyone else said that I would have stayed silent, but as you are always the stickler for correct terminology I have to point this out.
Quote:
Unless specifically permitted in 240.4(E) through (G), the overcurrent protection shall not exceed 15 amperes for 14 AWG, 20 amperes for 12 AWG, and 30 amperes for 10 AWG
Notice it says "overcurrent protection shall not exceed"
It does not say the ampacity will be reduced, this makes a huge difference when using the rules in 430, 440 and when adjusting ampacity of conductors for temperature or number of conductors in cables and raceways.
Quote:
So, kudos to our resident sparky-at-large, Mr. Badger.
Thanks to Bob and Rob, and the many others who truly understand what I mean by gray (or grey).
Your most welcome and truly the differences of opinions keep me sharp and on my toes.
I do not dare post something here that I can not back up with some facts, there are many sharp members here that can pick that up right away.
Now to tell you how I would run the circuit, 99% of the time the conductors will match or exceed the breaker rating if I am the one choosing or if engineers are specifying.
My 12,000 BTU AC window unit 12amps @ 120 volts has 10 AWG on a 20 amp breaker, I hate voltage drop.
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Bob Badger wrote:
Jerry after all the b*** busting you give everyone about correct terminology you say
Quote:
So, in that sense, yes, 12 AWG copper is rated for 20 amp
I am sorry but in no sense is 12 rated 20 amps, 240.4(D) does not change the rating of the wire only the overcurrent protection to be used with it in some (most) instances.
Had anyone else said that I would have stayed silent, but as you are always the stickler for correct terminology I have to point this out.
Bob,
We need to go back to what that was in reference to.
"There is a 30 amp breaker with 12 AWG (20 amp rated) wire in it"
In that sentence I was referring to the overcurrent protection, not 30 amp rated, but 20 amp rated.
That explanation stated, I will take your correction of my lack of proper terminology and beg forgiveness. I should have stated "There is a 30 amp breaker with 12 AWG (which is rated for 20 amp overcurrent protection) wire in it", but I thought it would be complicating things. I probably should have changed the entire sentence around to "There is a 30 amp breaker with 12 AWG conductor in it, which is only approved for 20 amp overcurrent protection, except under specific exceptions and circumstances."
By the way, if a panel is NOT properly identified on new construction inspections, Yes, I do write that up. On resale inspections, I include that with the other stuff. Thus, on that panel, assuming that there was more than just that (circuits not properly identified), I would have stated the other things AND that the circuits were not properly identified. By not properly identified, I am not referring to where the panel says Bedroom#2 and it is really for Bedroom #3 (I don't check that), but rather where it says 'General lighting' 4 or 5 times. Yeah, okay, 'general lighting' for what? where?
Originally Posted By: dbowers This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Guys - Enough already. Lets just make it simple and state to our clients the following.
"Some circuit breakers in the main electrical panel were not labeled, therefore we can not confirm the absence or presence of any defects in the panel as we don't know who does what to whom, etc. We recommend having a licensed electrical engineer review the panel box and applicable circuits. If any defects are found the PE should have a licensed electrical contractor repair these defects under guidance and design of the PE".
That ought to help cover us. PLEASE start a new TOPIC!!
Originally Posted By: roconnor This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
jpeck wrote:
You skimmed over the 'circuits not properly identified' part. That gets written up, and brings in the electrical contractor.
Just didn't want anyone to take that literally, cause for an existing panel like the one being discussed an HI will probably end up with egg on their face if they call for a sparky just to label a panel ... 
-- Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
