One Lug One Cable

[chemicalx]

I have been in a constat arguement with my boss that one set of lugs on a MEP 806 B TQG generator can only have one conductor per lug. I have been trying to find the code to back it up and all I could find was 110.14 (A) "Terminals for more than one conductor and terminals used to connect aluminum shall be so identified" Since the lugs are not identified as having the capability of accepting more than one conductor I thought the arguement would end there but it turns out I need more ammo.

 

[petersonra]

I have been in a constat arguement with my boss that one set of lugs on a MEP 806 B TQG generator can only have one conductor per lug. I have been trying to find the code to back it up and all I could find was 110.14 (A) "Terminals for more than one conductor and terminals used to connect aluminum shall be so identified" Since the lugs are not identified as having the capability of accepting more than one conductor I thought the arguement would end there but it turns out I need more ammo.

It is pretty clear what it says. How much more ammo do you need?

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I agree. Have your boss read this thread. Terminals must be identified for use with 2 wires- that simple

 

[chemicalx]

Aluminum to copper

Aluminum to copper

He says that since the article makes mention of aluminum to copper connection that its relevance cannot be transposed to the number of conductors to a lug. Basically, he is of the opinion that if there's room than another conductor can be inserted. My concern, and I believe it to be valid, is that if you jam 2 stripped 1 AWG conductors into one lug there is no guarantee that you will have a good bond.

 

[petersonra]

He says that since the article makes mention of aluminum to copper connection that its relevance cannot be transposed to the number of conductors to a lug. Basically, he is of the opinion that if there's room than another conductor can be inserted. My concern, and I believe it to be valid, is that if you jam 2 stripped 1 AWG conductors into one lug there is no guarantee that you will have a good bond.

he is just wrong.

having said that, he is also the boss.

 

[tkb]

He says that since the article makes mention of aluminum to copper connection that its relevance cannot be transposed to the number of conductors to a lug. Basically, he is of the opinion that if there's room than another conductor can be inserted. My concern, and I believe it to be valid, is that if you jam 2 stripped 1 AWG conductors into one lug there is no guarantee that you will have a good bond.

You need to breakdown the code requirement to full understand it. There are two statements in the one sentence.

Terminals for more than one conductor and terminals used to connect aluminum shall be so identified.

Terminals for more than one conductor and terminals used to connect aluminum shall be so identified.

Unless the terminal is identified for more than one conductor, then only one conductor is allowed.
The other half is unless it is identified for use with aluminum, it can only be used for copper.

 

[infinity]

He says that since the article makes mention of aluminum to copper connection that its relevance cannot be transposed to the number of conductors to a lug. Basically, he is of the opinion that if there's room than another conductor can be inserted. My concern, and I believe it to be valid, is that if you jam 2 stripped 1 AWG conductors into one lug there is no guarantee that you will have a good bond.

He needs to brush up on his reading. :roll:

 

[Smart $]

He says that since the article makes mention of aluminum to copper connection that its relevance cannot be transposed to the number of conductors to a lug. Basically, he is of the opinion that if there's room than another conductor can be inserted. My concern, and I believe it to be valid, is that if you jam 2 stripped 1 AWG conductors into one lug there is no guarantee that you will have a good bond.

From UL White Book:

WIRE CONNECTORS AND SOLDERING​

LUGS (ZMVV)
​

...​

​

​

PRODUCT MARKINGS AND RATINGS
​

Wire size and wire combinations ? Wire connectors are rated for 30
AWG or larger copper conductors and/or 12 AWG or larger aluminum conductors.
The wire size, wire range or wire combinations are marked on the
connector, or on or within the unit container. Wire connectors additionally
investigated for metric size conductors are marked with the metric wire
sizes expressed in mm2.
Multiple conductors ? Connectors generally accommodate a single conductor
under a clamping mechanism unless otherwise identified, such as
with the number of conductors located parenthetically in front of the wire
size or range. Some connectors may have a single conductor wire range as
well as a second multiple conductor wire range. Some connectors, such as
twist-on connectors, will have multiple conductors expressed in a list of
wire combinations.
Parallel conductors ? Connectors intended for paralleling of conductors
are intended to be used in accordance with Clause 310.4 of the NEC. Parallel
connectors may have multiple conductor clamping mechanisms, each
accepting a single conductor or a singular clamping mechanism accepting
multiple conductors.
​

 

[kwired]

You need to breakdown the code requirement to full understand it. There are two statements in the one sentence.

Terminals for more than one conductor and terminals used to connect aluminum shall be so identified.

Terminals for more than one conductor and terminals used to connect aluminum shall be so identified.

Unless the terminal is identified for more than one conductor, then only one conductor is allowed.
The other half is unless it is identified for use with aluminum, it can only be used for copper.

I agree, this possibly should be written as two sentences, just because of someone mistaking it the way it apparently has been, but I also don't see it too hard to understand either.

Or they could replace the "and" with "as well as" and maybe it is more clear. After all adding a second sentence will just end up adding another page to the NEC and there are too many as it is

 

[Smart $]

Terminals for more than one conductor and terminals used to connect aluminum shall be so identified.

I agree, this possibly should be written as two sentences, just because of someone mistaking it the way it apparently has been, but I also don't see it too hard to understand either.

Or they could replace the "and" with "as well as" and maybe it is more clear. After all adding a second sentence will just end up adding another page to the NEC and there are too many as it is

Having a subject (terminals) both before and after the 'and' makes the sentence grammatically correct. The conditions stated apply only to their respective subjects.

However, I agree it could be written better. Perhaps...

Terminals shall be identified for use with:

• more than one conductor
• aluminum conductor(s)

 

[jxofaltrds]

Having a subject (terminals) both before and after the 'and' makes the sentence grammatically correct. The conditions stated apply only to their respective subjects.

However, I agree it could be written better. Perhaps...

Grammatically it is correct. It is not grammatically correct.

 

[Smart $]

Grammatically it is correct. It is not grammatically correct.

Are you referring to the NEC requirement text or my sentence?
I used two grammar-checking websites to check my sentence structure, and they found no error...:?

 

[jxofaltrds]

Are you referring to the NEC requirement text or my sentence?
I used two grammar-checking websites to check my sentence structure, and they found no error...:?

Picking on you. English Major. Majored in English. One served the Queen. One studied in it college.

Might not be a bad idea to have a teacher write the code. Tell her what we mean then let here write it.

 

[Smart $]

Picking on you. English Major. Majored in English. One served the Queen. One studied in it college.

Might not be a bad idea to have a teacher write the code. Tell her what we mean then let here write it.

The following is Grammarly.com's report on your reply text.

FWIW, Grammarly.com's report on my sentence indicates one spelling error. I retried removing the quotations marks around the 'and', which resulted in green (100 of 100) across the board.

Additionally, if you majored in English, I can surmise with reasonable certainty that you had stated on several occasions you were an 'English major' while you were in college... and no one mistook you for a Major in Her Majesty's service.

And the last time I checked, it is not improper [American] English to use an adverb to modify an adjective. My sentence is [grammatically :thumbsup:] correct.

http://www.grammarly.com/handbook/g...bs-modify-verbs-adjectives-and-other-adverbs/

 

[petersonra]

Mike Holts code and grammar forum.

 

[Smart $]

Mike Holts code and grammar forum.

:lol:

 

[jxofaltrds]

What if I were an English student.

Canada Geese or Canadian Geese?

 

[jxofaltrds]

:thumbsup:

Mike Holts code and grammar forum.

:lol:

 

[Smart $]

What if I were an English student.

Canada Geese or Canadian Geese?

Who cares?

 

[kwired]

Picking on you. English Major. Majored in English. One served the Queen. One studied in it college.

Might not be a bad idea to have a teacher write the code. Tell her what we mean then let here write it.

Third word from end of post caught my attention more than grammatical errors.

My opinion from a lot of what I read these days is spelling and grammar are not important anymore, or at least the act of proofreading is not. We have spell checkers and other programs that check things but they can not catch everything. A word that is spelled correctly but used improperly gets through them all the time.