The Electrical Contractor Network

ECN Electrical Forum
Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals

Books, Tools and Test Equipment for Electrical and Construction Trades

Register Now!

Register Now!

We want your input!


2017 NEC and Related
2017 NEC
Now Available!

Recent Posts
Parking lot pole light swap....
by gfretwell
10/24/16 08:46 PM
International Wire Colour Codes
by Tjia1981
10/23/16 12:08 PM
Son of Sparky
by HotLine1
10/20/16 07:43 PM
Speaking of Plugmold ...
by gfretwell
10/17/16 02:37 PM
Broken battery charger? Check for cobwebs!
by gfretwell
10/17/16 02:30 PM
New in the Gallery:
12.5A through 0.75mm˛ flex (just out of curiosity)
Shout Box

Top Posters (30 Days)
gfretwell 14
HotLine1 7
ghost307 7
renosteinke 6
Potseal 4
Who's Online
0 registered (), 133 Guests and 5 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#77202 - 05/10/01 06:01 PM Tap vs. Ocpd
sparky Offline

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 5545
This is somewhat of a borrowed Q i thought i'd bring to this forum.

Taps are made , resulting in a conductors served from larger OCPD's, this is primarily addressed in 240-21
(d)service cond.
(f)motor circuits

so how would the conductors included in
T310-15(b)(6) or T430-72(b) be defined in light of this?
( or are they meant as d & f ?)

any conjecture, speculation, etc...?

[This message has been edited by sparky (edited 05-10-2001).]

2014 / 2011 NEC & Related Books and Study Guides
#77203 - 05/10/01 11:30 PM Re: Tap vs. Ocpd
Scott35 Offline

Broom Pusher and

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 2724
Loc: Anaheim, CA. USA

On the first table [if I am looking at the right one], I would say that the demand on free air feeders would be only high for minute times - not exceeding an hour or so.

On the other table T430-72 (b), I have some referenced notes that came with my 99 NEC, which edits the printed text.

In that note, there's a few points towards values of 400% of 310-17's 60 degree table, plus 300% of 310-16's 60 degree table.

I'm not exactly sure what level of current would cause a #10 cu to fry, but 160 amps would be at least close enough.

Is this going in the direction you were hoping??

Scott SET
Scott " 35 " Thompson
Just Say NO To Green Eggs And Ham!

#77204 - 05/11/01 03:14 AM Re: Tap vs. Ocpd
sparky Offline

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 5545
Thanks Scott!
yes, i find it interesting how the NEC defines protection in given situations. We tend to think in fixed numbers for conductors, yet this is frequently not so. The original Q eluded to just how far one can fanegal this in the NEC

Also the 'tap rules' as they are know, are not only to be smaller wires 'tapped' into larger wires, but also smaller wires directly introduced to larger OCPD's

This , although the end result is the same, creates a little focus on the definitional aspects of the practice.

The only guidance in those terms i have found is 240-3(e)

I just thought i'd throw it out for the BB's thoughts


ECN Electrical Forums - sponsored by Electrical Contractor Network - Electrical and Code Related Discussion for Electrical Contractors, Electricians, Inspectors, Instructors, Engineers and other related Professionals