First let me also congratulate watthead on a victory. [Linked Image]

Jon

Quote
It is my opinion that 310.15(B)(6) simply confuses the issue of proper conductor sizing.

I agree 100%


Quote
IMHO the service and feeder demand calculations should be modified to return _two_ numbers, one for required conductor ampacity, and the second number for OCPD rating.

Do you really think that will lessen the confusion?

I understand your idea and agree it would work.

I have my own idea, remove Table 310.15(B)(6) and have everyone use 310.16

No one is saving a boat load of money by using Table 310.15(B)(6). The run length of the applications that table is designed for are generally short.

JMO, Bob

Bob Badger
Construction & Maintenance Electrician
Massachusetts