Your double oven unit should only have one tap circuit going to it. There is only one input one the unit. I hadn't ever heard of tapping conductors for kitchen loads before. I wired my house under 2008 code. I put in full gas range on 20a 120v but also put in 50A circuit for future proof for gas range with electric oven. I also put in electric wall oven. Appliance store told me it needed 40A. Just looked up install manual. 4.8 Kw & below 20A circuit. Guess I'd better change breaker.
Are these taps only allowed for pigtail connected appliances or can it include a NEMA plug outlet. Example a 40A breaker going to j-box that taps to a 30A oven plug and a 20A 5-20/15 receptacle. Owner would then plug their loads into it instead of hardwired. Concerned the outlets are not UL listed for the higher current breaker or that the code only mentioned leads and conductors, plug ever exhibit or graphic only shows a j-box with metal conduit going to the loads.
On a second note from my other comment. The install manual from factory states "Models rated 7.3 to 9.6 KW require separate 40A circuit.". I would read that you can't tap a circuit in that instance correct?
I think this is a good example of how the code is about minimum requirements. I'm a big fan of "over"-engineering, but that doesn't help in the exam :-P
What about t rating factors it seems to using the 90C column but not taking into account any derating factors. Mike Holt peaches anything under a hundred amps should use the 60C column automatically
@@obertosiciliano1243 If the terminals are marked 75 deg that's what you follow. If the terminals are unmarked or unknown then you'd revert to the 60 deg column.
Im so confused with the part you used the cooktop + 2 ovens example. shouldnt you refer to the row with 3 equipment for that one? why do you treat it all as one equipment?
Hi... you're a great teacher ! I have a question though. You still run #8 copper ( good for 40 amps ) from the panel to the junction box ? After that you split off into number 10 and 12 ? Also in your calculation you multiply 8 times 1.1.... what is the 1.1 ? Thanks
While we're on article 210, 210.4 (C) must be deleted in future codes. We would never be prohibited from serving other than line-to-neutral loads with a multiwire branch circuit if the legal installation of said circuit requires a means to simultaneously disconnect all ungrounded circuit conductors. 100% of the time we would fall under exception 2 of 210.4 (C). I am eager to hear anyone's thoughts on this. I submitted a proposal for change or clarification just after the deadline for 2020 code cycle.
@@RyanJacksonElectrical Wow. That is the best answer I have received. Thank you. It becomes more evident after reading 240.15(B)(1) and comparing the 2 articles. However, 210.4(C) ex. 2 still leaves open for interpretation the impression that handle ties would open all ungrounded conductors simultaneously. The fact they don't make overcurrent device plural suggests it has to be 1 multi-pole breaker.
@@rynocop7958 hey, newbie electrician here. Just trying to understand the codes being discussed. Couldn't the handle ties be utilized and still be in compliance with exception 2 of 210.4(C) since 240.15(B)(1) permits handle ties in that scenario? Other question is should they specify 1θ in the same exception 2 since the 240.15(B)(1) permission is for circuits that serve only 1θ line-to-neutral loads? Hope that makes sense and I appreciate your time. I'll send this to both of you. Thanks!
@@RyanJacksonElectrical hey, newbie electrician here. Just trying to understand the codes being discussed. Couldn't the handle ties be utilized and still be in compliance with exception 2 of 210.4(C) since 240.15(B)(1) permits handle ties in that scenario? Other question is should they specify 1θ in the same exception (no. 2) since the 240.15(B)(1) permission is for circuits that serve only 1θ line-to-neutral loads? Hope that makes sense and I appreciate your time. I'll send this to both of you. Thanks!
@@truthbebold4009 Regarding handle ties, your statement was my original contention on why a code change is necessary. Looking at that one code section, exception 2 in 210.4C, the only challenge to our contention is the fact they that it says "overcurrent device" in the singular and not the plural. A multi-pole breaker is one overcurrent device and handle ties would be multiple overcurrent devices. Now, as Ryan Jackson stated, 240.15b1 makes it a lot clearer on several levels and states we can use handle ties, but if we do, then those circuits may only serve line to neutral loads. A clarification of the exception in 210.4c at a minimum should be undertaken in the next code cycle, so that the distinction between multi-pole and handle ties is more apparent if an electrician is reading that one article for guidance. For instance, something as simple as adding the wording "by a single" before "overcurrent device".
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Excellent video and explanation, exactly what I needed right now.
Your double oven unit should only have one tap circuit going to it. There is only one input one the unit. I hadn't ever heard of tapping conductors for kitchen loads before. I wired my house under 2008 code. I put in full gas range on 20a 120v but also put in 50A circuit for future proof for gas range with electric oven. I also put in electric wall oven. Appliance store told me it needed 40A. Just looked up install manual. 4.8 Kw & below 20A circuit. Guess I'd better change breaker.
Are these taps only allowed for pigtail connected appliances or can it include a NEMA plug outlet. Example a 40A breaker going to j-box that taps to a 30A oven plug and a 20A 5-20/15 receptacle. Owner would then plug their loads into it instead of hardwired. Concerned the outlets are not UL listed for the higher current breaker or that the code only mentioned leads and conductors, plug ever exhibit or graphic only shows a j-box with metal conduit going to the loads.
You'd still have to comply with 210.21 for receptacle ratings, so this would only be allowed for hard-wired.
On a second note from my other comment. The install manual from factory states "Models rated 7.3 to 9.6 KW require separate 40A circuit.". I would read that you can't tap a circuit in that instance correct?
No ocpd needed for the tap conductors? So, in the example, the 10 AWG and12 AWG are fine on the 40 amp breaker?
Correct.
Ryan Jackson 😮, good to know. Any cap on distance?
I think this is a good example of how the code is about minimum requirements. I'm a big fan of "over"-engineering, but that doesn't help in the exam :-P
What about t rating factors it seems to using the 90C column but not taking into account any derating factors. Mike Holt peaches anything under a hundred amps should use the 60C column automatically
@@obertosiciliano1243 If the terminals are marked 75 deg that's what you follow. If the terminals are unmarked or unknown then you'd revert to the 60 deg column.
Im so confused with the part you used the cooktop + 2 ovens example. shouldnt you refer to the row with 3 equipment for that one? why do you treat it all as one equipment?
@@guspbr See Note 6 to Table 220.55.
thanks ryan
Every versión NEC becomes more obsesive and paranoid.
7.1KW gas cooktop😉
shhh
I want to tank you but does this mean I'm "old/old- school" by putting anything 240V item, on a Dual-Pole because I think it's more ethical.
THis video was so great!! I love it!!
Thanks Ryan - I wish you would put out a book and or videos on just math...
Me too
Hi... you're a great teacher ! I have a question though. You still run #8 copper ( good for 40 amps ) from the panel to the junction box ? After that you split off into number 10 and 12 ?
Also in your calculation you multiply 8 times 1.1.... what is the 1.1 ? Thanks
Oops, I reviewed you video and you answered my question already in the video, my bad.
At 5:40 you said " you can bring a 40 or 50 amp circuit to a junction box."
Okay, now I get it ! Multiplying by 1.1 is the same as adding 10 %....
Time 4:29. I think we have to count: 8+5%=8.4 kW, then increase again 8.4+5%
. Total 8.82 kW
See example D6 in the back of the NEC.
While we're on article 210, 210.4 (C) must be deleted in future codes. We would never be prohibited from serving other than line-to-neutral loads with a multiwire branch circuit if the legal installation of said circuit requires a means to simultaneously disconnect all ungrounded circuit conductors. 100% of the time we would fall under exception 2 of 210.4 (C). I am eager to hear anyone's thoughts on this. I submitted a proposal for change or clarification just after the deadline for 2020 code cycle.
That exception requires a multi-pole breaker instead of just the handle tie required by 210.4(B). It correlates with 240.15.
@@RyanJacksonElectrical Wow. That is the best answer I have received. Thank you. It becomes more evident after reading 240.15(B)(1) and comparing the 2 articles. However, 210.4(C) ex. 2 still leaves open for interpretation the impression that handle ties would open all ungrounded conductors simultaneously. The fact they don't make overcurrent device plural suggests it has to be 1 multi-pole breaker.
@@rynocop7958 hey, newbie electrician here. Just trying to understand the codes being discussed. Couldn't the handle ties be utilized and still be in compliance with exception 2 of 210.4(C) since 240.15(B)(1) permits handle ties in that scenario? Other question is should they specify 1θ in the same exception 2 since the 240.15(B)(1) permission is for circuits that serve only 1θ line-to-neutral loads? Hope that makes sense and I appreciate your time. I'll send this to both of you. Thanks!
@@RyanJacksonElectrical hey, newbie electrician here. Just trying to understand the codes being discussed. Couldn't the handle ties be utilized and still be in compliance with exception 2 of 210.4(C) since 240.15(B)(1) permits handle ties in that scenario? Other question is should they specify 1θ in the same exception (no. 2) since the 240.15(B)(1) permission is for circuits that serve only 1θ line-to-neutral loads? Hope that makes sense and I appreciate your time. I'll send this to both of you. Thanks!
@@truthbebold4009 Regarding handle ties, your statement was my original contention on why a code change is necessary. Looking at that one code section, exception 2 in 210.4C, the only challenge to our contention is the fact they that it says "overcurrent device" in the singular and not the plural. A multi-pole breaker is one overcurrent device and handle ties would be multiple overcurrent devices. Now, as Ryan Jackson stated, 240.15b1 makes it a lot clearer on several levels and states we can use handle ties, but if we do, then those circuits may only serve line to neutral loads. A clarification of the exception in 210.4c at a minimum should be undertaken in the next code cycle, so that the distinction between multi-pole and handle ties is more apparent if an electrician is reading that one article for guidance. For instance, something as simple as adding the wording "by a single" before "overcurrent device".
Thanks for the video.
Thank you are the best
Good stuff.
Great video!
I agree. He, by the way is Mike Holt's successor.