Excessive wiring

Archive Public Archive
21

Originally Posted By: Mike Parks
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


While I used to do this I do not think that I will in the future.


I have been considering whether or not this would be bundling.

I never thought of this before, would we have to derate these conductors?

Mike P.

22

Originally Posted By: Bob Badger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Mike come on, do you think I am into making violations? icon_lol.gif


First it is never bundling unless done for longer than 24".

Second we have 21 current carrying conductors going up the gutter, notice the neutrals are in a separate bundle.

21 current carrying conductors gets a 70% derate (here in MA) 30 amps x .7 = 21 amps, I am still all set.

In MA we use the derating table that had been, until recently in use in the NEC, the NEC changed MA said no way.

The table we use in MA assumes load diversity, the new NEC table assumes all conductors fully loaded at the same time.

You can still see this in the NEC as Table B.310.11 (Annex B)

As each one of the circuits you see feeds only 3 duplex receptacles I am not going to lose any sleep. there will be plenty of load diversity.

Bob

--
Bob (AKA iwire)
ECN Discussion Forums
Mike Holt Code Forum

23

Originally Posted By: Mike Parks
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Bob


I know you know and I know you know more than I.

I heard that the 2005 was going to limit bundling. I have not seen this yet.

I wonder if Karl would say anyting about the EMF?

My 1996 is the closest one handy. Read 310.10(4) and give me your opinion.

Mike P.

24

Originally Posted By: Bob Badger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Mike I think we are making a mountain out of a mole hill. icon_lol.gif


If they do change the bundling rules, I will follow them.

I did look at 1996 310.10(4) and I think it is a stretch for this application.

--
Bob (AKA iwire)
ECN Discussion Forums
Mike Holt Code Forum

25

Originally Posted By: Mike Parks
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


I agree but from an enforcement view what would should be done?


I would not fail you for this. I would let you know that it "may" be a violation.

And if I let you know that it "may" be a violation wouldn't you still change it to CYA?

Mike P.

26

Originally Posted By: Bob Badger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Mike Parks wrote:
And if I let you know that it "may" be a violation wouldn't you still change it to CYA?


I have never actually gone over an inspectors head, in my area that is possible, I can go the our AHJ, the State Fire Marshall's office.

99% of the inspectors that I have worked with are decent guys and if they tell me that some particular item bothers them, I will either fix what we are looking at, or make sure that we do not continue doing it the way the inspector does not like.

Very few have asked me anything outrageous, if the inspector says he feels this panel is bundled I would take care of it.

The inspectors that know me, trust me, and that means a lot to me, it keeps the job moving. ![icon_smile.gif](upload://b6iczyK1ETUUqRUc4PAkX83GF2O.gif)

Bob

--
Bob (AKA iwire)
ECN Discussion Forums
Mike Holt Code Forum
27

Originally Posted By: Bob Badger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


jpeck wrote:
Bob,

I'm sure that all those close-together-in-the-neutral-terminal-bar neutral conductors ARE each in their own little terminal.

Just curious as to why they were not fanned out instead of all lumped together like that.


Here are some better pictures of the neutrals.

![](upload://5t9L1wRU3Gv5XfCWDCQXA8FY4Xp.jpeg)



Bob

--
Bob (AKA iwire)
ECN Discussion Forums
Mike Holt Code Forum
28

Originally Posted By: jmyers
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.


Bob,


That is one pertty (intentionally spelled incorrectly) job! ![icon_biggrin.gif](upload://iKNGSw3qcRIEmXySa8gItY6Gczg.gif)

Joe Myers