Bits & Pieces

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

LeftieBiker

Well-known member
Staff member
Joined
May 22, 2013
Messages
19,990
Location
Upstate New York, US
We need a topic where people can post a comment or bit of news that doesn't really need a topic of its own. In this case, my news is that, after ten plus years of driving Leafs, I have finally installed a L-2 charging station. It's a Clipper Creek HCS (or maybe LCS - I forget) 25, meaning it's only 20 amp, which is good because I wired it to a garage with 50 year old non-metallic cable and a late model fuse box (in which I use only screw-in breakers). It took me two weeks, mainly because I decided (with some nudging from my housemate) to use plastic conduit to protect the cable, and also ran a new circuit through half of it for the portable heatpump I'm now using in the garage for most heat.

Pro Tip: if you want to run a 10-3 and a 12-2 cable together through conduit, use at least 1" pipe. It does not work well with 3/4" pipe. Also, find a non-toxic silicone lubricant to use.

Charging times for our cars have been cut by about 3/4. It also, with its better location and longer cable than the Nissan unit, can reach both of our cars when parked in their usual spots. Yes, I'm closing out the Twentieth Century in style!
 
LeftieBiker said:
Pro Tip: if you want to run a 10-3 and a 12-2 cable together through conduit, use at least 1" pipe.

The NEC has rules about stuffing conduit with wire at
https://up.codes/viewer/minnesota/nfpa-70-2020/chapter/9/tables#9

40% fill of 3/4" schedule 80 PVC is 0.16 square inches of its cross sectional space, while in schedule 40 it is 0.2 square inches . Each #10 THHN is about 0.02 square inches and #12 THHN is about 0.01 square inches for a total of 0,02*4+0.01*3 = 0.11 square inches, so your conduit choice was fine unless you had a lot of bends. NEC allows 360 degrees, but past 180 degrees becomes increasingly difficult, fast. Long(er) runs have the same effect.

Two tips:
1, Buy and use a fish tape. Really. Use electrical tape to cover any sharp edge that can get caught. When the fish tape is through the conduit, wrap the conductors and the fish tape into a smooth bundle.
2, Insert the fish tape from the side where the joints let the fish tape slide over rather than get caught on a lip

ADDENDUM: Lefty pulled ***Romex***. My post had presumed he pulled conductors. Conduit fill rules are violated here big time. No wonder he had a bear of a time.
 
I have and used fish wire. I had the best result on the long straight pull using my housemate to pull (after the fish wire came through) while I pushed. On the bends I had to use silicone spay on several. This wasn't my first romex pull - it as just my hardest.

Fortunately, this wasn't required conduit - it was allowed under the 'protecting the cables' clause, but not mandated.
 
LeftieBiker said:
This wasn't my first romex pull

Err ... what ?!?? Why did you pull Romex in conduit instead of just the conductors ? I don't even know the x-sectional area of Romex. :lol: :lol:

Addendum -- from the internet
14-2 NMB .1018
12-2 NMB .1320
10-2 NMB .1917
8-2 NMB .2942
6-2 NMB .3664
14-3 NMB .0740
12-3 NMB .0946
10-3 NMB .1399
8-3 NMB .2507
6-3 NMB .3318

Sheeeit
 
I told you - the conduit was just to protect the cable from physical damage. It was going to be passing through a storage loft. The original plan was just NM cable (which I had bought years ago) for the rest of the run, but my housemate as uneasy with that. Even if I didn't have the cable already, I'd have no desire to pull SEVEN wires at once. Now, don't you have some children to bully, somewhere? I think they may be walking on your lawn...
 
You do you.

For everybody else who want to remain sane, pull individual conductors in a bundle when using conduit, NOT Romex. And use a fish tape for all but easy, short runs. This also probably* lets you choose the ampacity of the wire from the 75C column of Table 310.16 in the NEC instead of the 60C column.

One other tip: it would be a rare (and crappy) EVSE that uses a grounded conductor (AKA "neutral.") Just get a decent EVSE and hardwire it with two hots and a ground (EGC.) This also saves the considerable cost of a GFI breaker in those jurisdictions that require modern NEC compliance for GFI protection of 120/240V receptacles.

*Verify that your terminations are 75C or 60/75 rated...
If yes, then e.g. in Lefty's case he could ***almost*** have run #12 Cu in conduit for the EVSE. The arithmetic works out like this:
His load is 20Amps, but requires wire ampacity of 25A for a continuous load. He has to derate the wire ampacity to 80% from the 90C column for THHN because he is running 4 - 6 current carrying conductors in conduit. Absent the heat pump, this would have been doable because he would not have had to adjust for # of conductors.

THHN #12 conductors in conduit with 75C terminations has an ampacity of 25Amps in the 75C column. Good to go
THHN #12 has an ampacity of 30 Amps in the 90C column, which derates to 24 Amp based on # of current carrying conductors in conduit. Off by one Amp for this EVSE application

For the skeptics: https://up.codes/viewer/minnesota/nfpa-70-2023/chapter/3/wiring-methods-and-materials#310.14
NEC 110.14.(C) to choose which column of Table 310.16 to apply
GFCI for EVSE receptacle: NEC 625.60

uc
 
He has to derate the wire ampacity to 80% from the 90C column for THHN because he is running 4 - 6 current carrying conductors in conduit.

If you are going to randomly berate people for random reasons, at least try to get your facts straight. I ran one 10-3 (+G) cable and one 12-2 (+G) cable. That's a total of four current carrying conductors, not "4-6." The Neutral in the 240 volt cable isn't counted as current carrying because it isn't used. If I ever decided to use the outlet for a 240 volt appliance that uses Neutral, I could just disconnect the 120 volt circuit and re-run it the whole 12 feet outside of the conduit. I can also disconnect the unused Neutral at the service.Given the 'cowboy' nature of most wiring outside of urban areas, this isn't a big concern for me.

Now, about your demeanor here: whatever is happening in your life to make you continually angry, it isn't being perpetrated by anyone here. This should be a place we come to for friendly discussion, not unprovoked attacks and general Trollery. It's easy enough to find that atmosphere all over the Web, so please stop trying to create it here.
 
LeftieBiker said:
He has to derate the wire ampacity to 80% from the 90C column for THHN because he is running 4 - 6 current carrying conductors in conduit.

If you are going to randomly berate people for random reasons, at least try to get your facts straight. I ran one 10-3 (+G) cable and one 12-2 (+G) cable. That's a total of four current carrying conductors, not "4-6."
The requirement to derate to 80% is for more than 3 and less than 7 current carrying conductors. Most write that as 4 - 6.

Kapisch ? See the table in article 310.14 of the NEC if you are still confused.

Regarding your whining and personal attacks: I was not attacking you, I thought you would appreciate a little information. You are welcome to DIY in any goofy way you want**. Others may be happy to know that much easier, safer and cheaper ways to do the work are available. You spent weeks, when a normal approach would take a couple of hours. That is not trolling. I honestly did not catch on to the Romex use when I read your OP because it is so ... "unusual." You surprised me, and I find your installation methods more than a little outlandish, and definitely amusing.

Chill, dude

** But don't kid yourself -- your installation violates the NEC conduit fill rules. Those rules are mostly there as an aide for installers, but they also have a safety aspect: the NEC knows that excessive fill leads to grunting on the wires, which can damage them. Only you know how much you twisted, kinked and stretched the wires. If you used any power tools on the wire pull, then reconsider using that run.
 
It sounds to me like this is a case of adding a 'sleeve' to the cables to protect them. This is different than running wires through a 'raceway', which is a continuous conduit with appropriate connections at every junction. I don't know the code requirement differences between raceways and sleeves but IMHO, if you can get the cables through the sleeve easily it should be fine.

Of course, as ALWAYS, the final say is left to the AHJ (authority having jurisdiction). That's why I pay the small fee and get a permit when I'm doing anything that I'm not sure about or that could affect the resale value of my house, etc.
 
Table 1 applies only to complete conduit or tubing systems and is not intended to apply to sections of conduit or tubing used to protect exposed wiring and cables from physical damage.
https://up.codes/viewer/texas/nfpa-70-2020/chapter/9/tables#9

Far as I know, sleeving is exempt from fill rules. I have sleeved lots of romex through concrete pours with zero inspector comments.
 
I tried to explain that this is the exception for cases where avoiding physical damage is the situation, not mandated conduit, but trolls on a rampage don't always read so well. Anyway, back in the filter with that one. If he continues with this behavior, let me know. Life is too short, as they say.

This topic got derailed. It was intended to be a place to mention smaller things we do, Leaf related or not, that interest us enough to want to share them. Please carry on with that.
 
MikeinPA said:
Table 1 applies only to complete conduit or tubing systems and is not intended to apply to sections of conduit or tubing used to protect exposed wiring and cables from physical damage.
https://up.codes/viewer/texas/nfpa-70-2020/chapter/9/tables#9

Far as I know, sleeving is exempt from fill rules. I have sleeved lots of romex through concrete pours with zero inspector comments.

Very fair point. Your application sounds like what the NEC had in mind. Another example would be buried cable that is put in conduit for the few feet it exits the ground until it enters an enclosure.

A friend reminded me that Romex 10/3 comes in an "elliptical" shape and a round shape. The former has a diameter of about 0.65", while the latter and 12/2 have diameters of about 0.41". The fill rules work out to 1 1/2" schedule 40 for the former, and 1 1/4" for the latter. :roll:
 
Pulled four 6 ga through 3/4 EMT and that was a struggle. Got the EMT and cable for free for pulling out a hot tub for my brother. 14-50 outlet for future vehicles that might need more than my Leaf.
pulled 6 12ga through 1/2" PVC and that wasn't a cake walk either.
I pulled 1/0,1/0, 1/0, 2, though 1 1/2" PVC and was expecting a fight, but it was easier than the lighter stuff, plenty of lube and one pulling and one feeding it slipped right though two 90's and a buried run.
When it comes to wiring, know or look up the code, and do it right, no problems down the road. You can get away with a lot and still retain function, but if something goes wrong, a fire or someone gets hurt and they are going to be looking for who did it.
I am dealing with an old farm house and have seen all kinds of nightmares, in the process, Previous owners had a pension for running 12-2 or 10-2 NM with ground, then snipping off the ground! One outlet had hot and neutral, then a jumper between the neutral and ground terminal!
One of the runs with the snipped off ground ran through the metal siding and, because of no safety ground and nick in the insulation, made the whole building siding "hot". Could have easily caused a death.
I am not an electrician by trade, and will not say only they can run wire, but if you are going to DIY, be careful and mindful, the code is there for a reason, following or coming as close as possible will be cheaper than having to pull it all back out or worse.
What was acceptable at one time may no longer be. When my out buildings were wired, they had three (two hots and neutral) with a ground rod (s) for each "separate derived" building with enough space between. Now a ground conductor is required to tie all together. Any repairs, the new cables needed the ground.
Fill requirements on conduit is not just because if you over fill it is hard to pull, it also has to do with heat, same for running NM inside conduit, bundled together makes them hotter.
I'm not picking on anyone, but please be safe.
BTW I played it safe and used an expensive 50 amp GFI breaker, cost was soon forgotten and should have no problems on future inspections.
 
cornbinder89 said:
ground rod (s) for each "separate derived" building with enough space between. Now a ground conductor is required to tie all together. Any repairs, the new cables needed the ground.

'Separately derived system' is NEC lingo for a transformer. That is not a typical residential setup, where the homeowner has a secondary transformer downstream from the utility transformer

If I recall correctly,
If e.g. a detached garage is fed from a feeder, then NEC current rules require a ground rod at the sub-panel, and the ground rod has to be tied into the electrode system that starts from the first disconnect
 
Most certainly is required now, out here, and I may have used the wrong terms, but here it is common to see three wire cable to widely spaced outbuilding, with a ground rod at each. Not saying it was right, just what was done in the past here. Everything now has a ground conductor to tie the rods together.
Originally the buildings had 2 wire overhead from yard poles with neutral (entrance cable) when it was switch to buried 3 wire was used. I don't know the dates, prior to my ownership. I still am finding remnants of K&T from I think DC days (prior to REA). (Dead/ not connected)
Lot of the old stuff left on the walls when new was run When run overhead, the grounding was at each building, and they were not interconnected, just the way it was back then. You see a lot of older small farms with a yard pole and 2+ neutral overhead to each of the out buildings. Bigger/newer farms often have 3 phase.
My Brothers house still has live K&T in the basement.
Not digging out working old installs to run new grounds with it, The electrician that replaced the sections between JCT boxes didn't replace the working sections either, and I asked if they saw anything in need of attention when I contracted the work. I had all buried feeds run in conduit in case of future need of replacement, so not going the cheap route of direct burial.
Code has progressed and as I make repairs, I upgrade to the newer requirements, but it is not practical to rip out what was done prior (and acceptable at that time). if working.
Anyone running new would be well advised to follow current code requirements even if older work does not.
 
A couple of weeks ago we upgraded a sub-panel in a detached garage supplied by a feeder from the home's main service panel. To be compliant, you have to follow electrode grounding system rules which require a larger wire than an EGC, but in this case the feeder was in buried IMC which acted as the electrode grounding conductor after we added grounding bushings to each end of the conduit in the panels.

As you say, the sub-panel is also grounded to a new electrode -- two in this case, because NM requires two because of the dry ground.

It sounds like you did OK. My first post was meant as a clarification of the meaning of 'separately derived system.'
That part of the NEC code that discusses electrode requirements of detached bldgs is not an easy read.
 
Some of the stuff pulled out of service dates to the late 40's early 50's. 2 rubber insulated cables covered with a bare braided "neutral" with a woven cloth cover. That was acceptable then, not now.
Anything inside I do runs in EMT (not required here) and has a separate ground wire pulled through and bonded (attached) to every metal box along the run. Code says EMT is a ground if bonding fittings are used, I am more comfortable with copper wire as the primary EGC and the EMT as a secondary.
All I am saying to DIY'er is be mindful and careful, what I have seen in this house has been an eye opener.
 
Back
Top