Does the electrical utility in your area install a second grounded conductor from their transformer to the service equipment?
I've read some posts on other sites stating such is the case in some areas of the country. Isn't that a CODE VIOLATION? Creating a parallel path from the service equipment back to the transformer. What's up with that?

Why would it be a code violation?
I would call it a good thing.

Parallel conductors per se are not code violations.

If you want to run three wire cable through you house and use two for neutral and one for hot, that is okay.

Parallel conductors are a violation when current can follow a return path that is not parallel to the feed path.


Besides, a parallel path already exists through the earth back to the transformer anyway.

Dspark,
What about 310-4???
Don(resqcapt19)

Hmmm... Good one...!?!

However, I see it as a good thing to provide a redundant GC to prevent the "lost neutral 240 V series" scenario.

Common sense vs. NEC?

It's not a code violation if all the conductors are paralled. From the stories I read, it's only the GC that's paralled. If the utility insists on a paralled GC, not the ungrounded conductors, all the why to the service equipment. I have a problem with it. IHMO.

>What about 310-4???
Doesn't that just confirm that extra neutrals (parallel) are a good thing when used correctly?!?

I mentioned in another thread that 200% neutrals are specified for certain newer installations.
http://www.electrician.com/articles/third.htm

Are you suggesting that these might be illegal?


[This message has been edited by Dspark (edited 05-16-2001).]

I don't believe it is a code violation if only one of the conductors is paralleled.
The intent is that conductors do not have to have the same characteristics.

I can't think of a problem with having parallel neutrals. If you have a problem with them, kindly explain. If you have a hypothetical scenario, that is even better.

Dspark,
I miss read the original post. I thought we were talking about paralleling the grounded conductor and an equipment grounding conductor. The is no problem with parallel neutrals.
Don(resqcapt19)

Dspark,
parrallel all you like, 1/0 & up

Mike;
other posts have really got in depth with this, if you think about it, a lot of our concerns are addressed by having a
ground(ing) & ground(ed) conductor back to the X-former.
heck ,we gotta do it for a SDS x-former!


besides, they don't ( to my knowledge) make 3000 kcmil .....

[This message has been edited by sparky (edited 05-16-2001).]

>parallel all you like, 1/0 & up
And smaller for neutrals. http://www.electrician.com/articles/third.htm

>I misread the original post. I thought we were talking about paralleling the grounded conductor and an equipment grounding conductor.

From the service main to the utility transformer "a second grounded conductor" is basically indistinguishable from that given that bonding is required in the main.

So long as no one has a problem with parallel grounded conductors I'm happy. I hope Mike is satisfied that this is a good requirement that the utility has imposed on him.

Because of the skin effect reducing ampacity for high frequencies, the day may come when neutrals are routinely specified as two smaller diameter parallel conductors. Don't be surprised if you live to see noise suppression for neutrals as a requirement.

Dspark;
the link is describing an 'upsized' noodle, not a parrallel one

>the link is describing an 'upsized' noodle, not a parallel one

I disagree. Regardless, they are roughly equivalent, parallel being somewhat superior.

I regularly implement 200% neutrals as parallels of the same gage, e.g. #10 or #12.

I have never interpreted specifications for double neutrals as meaning that I should a single #6 instead, which would, I think, somewhat defeat the primary purpose, which is to haul away high frequency noise.

Dspark;

http://www.afcweb.com/mctype.html#tuff

note the manufacturer's upsized noodle because they CAN NOT sell a parralleled one.

Dspark,
If it is a grounding conductor and not a neutral, then it will most likely not be of the same size. If the 2 conductors are of unequal size and joined at both ends it would be a violation of 310-4
Don(resqcapt19)

>If the 2 conductors are of unequal size and joined at both ends it would be a violation of 310-4
But how about two conductors of equal size, e.g., two #10 wires?

Dspark,
please show me where in the NEC that parrallel #10 nuetrals are allowed.

I think you would have to show why they are disallowed.

310-4-ex4

I read the post about parallel grounding conductors again. The electrician said the utility was going to pull an equipment grounding conductor from the transformer to the 2000 amp service equipment. The post didn't say if the EGC and grounded conductor are physically the same size. Is that a code violation?

Dspark,
On exisitng installations a neutral #2 and larger is permitted to be paralleled. This is new, so the smallest permitted parallel conductor is 1/0.
Don(resqcapt19)

Mike;
if there is nuetral isolation there are posters that would probably say that this is a better scenario.