# Armored Cable replace?



## zephed666 (Jan 25, 2011)

Hello:

I am renovating some areas of my house and have some questions about old armored wire that I have. The armored cable has only the black and white wires in it, no others. I have only one circuit in my house with the armored wire. It supplies two rooms on the second floor. Right now, I have access to replace the armored wire from the panel to the first outlet in the chain. So I have several question if I do this:

1 - Is it ok to mix the armored cables with the new 14 gauge (black, white, green) wire?

2- The armored cables in several outlet boxes are so short that the receptacle can only be pulled out about 1 inch. Can I pigtail the armored cable in the metal box and then connect to the receptacle?

3- If I can pigtail armored cable, I assume it will still be grounded to the metal box. Is there a need to attach a ground from the receptacle to the metal box?


Thanks for the help!


----------



## Saturday Cowboy (Nov 29, 2009)

The armored cable you are talking about (if is is old) is most likely BX. BX relies on the armor for the ground. Yes you can pig tail any wires that are too short in a box. Yes romex can be use as a replacement and I recommend it if you have access, It must be sized according to the size of the breaker 15a=#14 20a=#12. 
Since the bx relies on the jacket and metal boxes for grounding you need to insure that connection, by installing a jumper between the bare wire of your new romex to the box


----------



## zephed666 (Jan 25, 2011)

Saturday Cowboy said:


> The armored cable you are talking about (if is is old) is most likely BX. BX relies on the armor for the ground. Yes you can pig tail any wires that are too short in a box. Yes romex can be use as a replacement and I recommend it if you have access, It must be sized according to the size of the breaker 15a=#14 20a=#12.
> Since the bx relies on the jacket and metal boxes for grounding you need to insure that connection, by installing a jumper between the bare wire of your new romex to the box


so the new romex to the box needs to be grounded in the box. Should it also be grounded to the receptacle by pigtailing it?


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

I can find nothing the allows the shield of old BX cable to be used as an equipment grounding conductor. That was the problem with it and why it was redesigned to it's current style of manufacture.


The old BX (actually AC in code jargon) was created before 3 wire circuits were used. Then when an equipment grounding conductor became required and the shield was getting used as that, it was realized the shield and installation methods were not adequate. 

this is from Mike Holt's forum in a thread about BX and using the shield as an egc:



> I've seen the old bx or ac without the grounding strip in a lot of old homes around here.
> 
> I've seen cases of fault current on the armor that would cause the armor to glow a dull red color in a dark attic,but the breaker would not trip.
> 
> ...


simply put; if you are where you can replace the old BX, do it.

If you are using metal boxes, yes, the egc must be bonded to the box. If you are using self grounding ddevices and a metal box, you do not have to bond the egc to the device but I do it anyway. In a self grounding device, the screws and yoke are listed as an acceptable means to bond the egc to the device.


----------



## zephed666 (Jan 25, 2011)

nap said:


> I can find nothing the allows the shield of old BX cable to be used as an equipment grounding conductor. That was the problem with it and why it was redesigned to it's current style of manufacture.
> 
> 
> The old BX (actually AC in code jargon) was created before 3 wire circuits were used. Then when an equipment grounding conductor became required and the shield was getting used as that, it was realized the shield and installation methods were not adequate.
> ...


I am going to try to replace as much as the old BX cable as possible, but I do not want to start ripping out walls. Attached are two images on what I plan on doing. One is the new romex with a graound wire, the other is the exisiting BX wires that need to be pigtailed in order to pull the receptacle out. Are these diagrams the correct way?


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

no. You cannot do that. The metal shield is not listed to be used as an EGC so that means you cannot extend the circuit, at all. You can only extend a currently legal circuit which means one with an egc already.

and legally, you cannot add onto the wires to make them long enough. Most inspectors I know will turn a blind eye to it in an existing installation such as what you are doing but that doesn't make it legal.

and with the bottom pic; not legal. either a two wire recep or a GFCI would be the only legal device there.

and same thing for the top recep.


----------



## zephed666 (Jan 25, 2011)

nap said:


> no. You cannot do that. The metal shield is not listed to be used as an EGC so that means you cannot extend the circuit, at all. You can only extend a currently legal circuit which means one with an egc already.
> 
> and legally, you cannot add onto the wires to make them long enough. Most inspectors I know will turn a blind eye to it in an existing installation such as what you are doing but that doesn't make it legal.


 
So both of those are unacceptable? How am I suppose to connect the new romex to exisitng BX cable then? I thought that was the correct way. And I can;t pigtail the BX cables inside the metal box? Am I suppose to use all 4 screws on the receptacle? And one of my receptacles has 3 BX cables running into it, shouldn;t that be pigtailed regardless?

thanks again!


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

> zephed666;581754]So both of those are unacceptable? How am I suppose to connect the new romex to exisitng BX cable then?


you can't.

.


> And I can;t pigtail the BX cables inside the metal box?


 there is a requirement the free wire entering the box must be 6" long. If it is not 6" long there is no way to splice onto it to make it legal. As I said, a lot of inspectors will overlook adding onto a too short wire in an existing installation though. They aren't all heartless.



> Am I suppose to use all 4 screws on the receptacle?


you can pigtail for the purposes of adding in for the recep and such. The only issue I was speaking to was the adding onto a too short wire to make it long enough.



> And one of my receptacles has 3 BX cables running into it, shouldn;t that be pigtailed regardless?


again, pigtailing is fine (and actually how I prefer to do things). it's the free length of the incoming and outgoing wire that is the only problem I was addressing with the pigtail issue.


----------



## brric (Mar 5, 2010)

Is the romex in the top diagram the circuit supply from the panel?


----------



## zephed666 (Jan 25, 2011)

nap said:


> you can't.
> 
> . there is a requirement the free wire entering the box must be 6" long. If it is not 6" long there is no way to splice onto it to make it legal. As I said, a lot of inspectors will overlook adding onto a too short wire in an existing installation though. They aren't all heartless.
> 
> ...


Please bare with me. 

I wanted to replace the BX from the panel to the 2nd floor since i have access at this time. But I cannot replace all the other BX wire since I do not have access. So from what I understand, I cannot mix romex wire with BX cable. So if I wanted to replace the BX cable, it's either all or nothing? (I did read that you can connect romex to BX as long as the ground from the romex is connected to the BX clamp screw.)

As for the pigtailing, if i have 2 BX cables running into a box, can I pigtail them to the recpetacle? Right now they are just screwed directly to the receptacle. 

And I understand that there needs to be 6" of wire, but this wiring is from the 50's and there is not 6" of wire in any of my receptacles. But what is the difference from what you mentioned - adding into a receptacle? Isn't that pretty much the same thing? I mean, adding a pigtail to the bx wires that are only 3" long. So instead of them connected directly to the receptacle, I'll connect them with the pigtail...

thnaks again for the help!


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

> zephed666;581765]Please bare with me.


no problem




> I wanted to replace the BX from the panel to the 2nd floor since i have access at this time.


 :clap:



> But I cannot replace all the other BX wire since I do not have access. So from what I understand, I cannot mix romex wire with BX cable. So if I wanted to replace the BX cable, it's either all or nothing?


 you cannot extend a circuit that is fed with BX. In other words, where you are running the NM to, you can attach a new 3 wire circuit there. If there is BX running out of that box, you cannot extend the _other _end of the BX run.

basically; consider the BX as a 2 wire circuit and the NM as a 3 wire circuit.

You can extend a 3 wire circuit. You cannot extend a 2 wire circuit. Once your 3 wire circuit drops down to a 2 wire circuit, you cannot extend that part of the circuit.



> As for the pigtailing, if i have 2 BX cables running into a box, can I pigtail them to the recpetacle? Right now they are just screwed directly to the receptacle.


yes



> And I understand that there needs to be 6" of wire, but this wiring is from the 50's and there is not 6" of wire in any of my receptacles. But what is the difference from what you mentioned - adding into a receptacle? Isn't that pretty much the same thing? I mean, adding a pigtail to the bx wires that are only 3" long. So instead of them connected directly to the receptacle, I'll connect them with the pigtail...


there is no difference and as a result, the over all installation is still illegal because there is not 6" of free wire on the incoming and outgoing cable.

As I said though; a lot of inspectors tend to overlook existing installs with too short free wire. It still doesn't make it legal though.


----------



## zephed666 (Jan 25, 2011)

nap said:


> no problem
> 
> 
> :clap:
> ...


So i should leave everything as is. From what you are saying, I cannot run a new romex NM cable from the panel to the 2nd floor to replace the current BX wire. Are there any options to replace that wire or no need?


----------



## brric (Mar 5, 2010)

zephed666 said:


> So i should leave everything as is. From what you are saying, I cannot run a new romex NM cable from the panel to the 2nd floor to replace the current BX wire. Are there any options to replace that wire or no need?


 I see no possible reason code or otherwise why this would not be acceptable.


----------



## zephed666 (Jan 25, 2011)

brric said:


> I see no possible reason code or otherwise why this would not be acceptable.


 
So I can use romex cable and BX armored cable (2 wire) together? I am getting 2 differing opinions now...


----------



## brric (Mar 5, 2010)

The first recep as in the first diagram would be code compliantly grounded. The downstream receps with the BX would of course not be compliantly grounded through BX sheating and should NOT be three prong receps unless fed from the load side of a GFCI at the first recep and then appropriately labeled "no equipment ground".


----------



## zephed666 (Jan 25, 2011)

brric said:


> The first recep as in the first diagram would be code compliantly grounded. The downstream receps with the BX would of course not be compliantly grounded through BX sheating and should NOT be three prong receps unless fed from the load side of a GFCI at the first recep and then appropriately labeled "no equipment ground".


Ok, so I can use the romex from the panel to the first receptacle and make that a GFCI receptacle and then everything downstream can be the 3 pronged outlets. My house is old and there are three light switches wired into the outlets as well. There are 3 pronged outlets on the BX line now and they all say they are properly grounded with my tester. From what you are saying, they are not and I should add the GFCI outlet. Can the first receptacle on this circuit be wired like the diagram?


----------



## brric (Mar 5, 2010)

Yes. If metallic, bond the box with a ground screw or clip.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

zephed666 said:


> So i should leave everything as is. From what you are saying, I cannot run a new romex NM cable from the panel to the 2nd floor to replace the current BX wire. Are there any options to replace that wire or no need?


no, just the opposite. It is a good thing to run the new NM, replacing the old BX. Since you are running it from the panel to some point upstairs, that means from that point you can run 3 wire circuits.

when you reach a point where you are not or cannot replace the BX, you cannot extend that portion of the circuit beyond the existing BX.

your drawing in #16 is perfect.

along with that, if you feed from that box with 3 wire nm, you can carry the egc along with that and use 3 prong receptacles utilizing the grounding connection as intended.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

brric said:


> The first recep as in the first diagram would be code compliantly grounded. The downstream receps with the BX would of course not be compliantly grounded through BX sheating and should NOT be three prong receps unless fed from the load side of a GFCI at the first recep and then appropriately labeled "no equipment ground".


yes. In the first pic, top recep, I was assuming the NM was not the in feed but extending the circuit. 

that was my misunderstanding.
If you are bringing the egc from the panel, you can use the egc as long as you continue the 3 wire circuit.

In the bottom recep, it is not proper to bond the recep to the box as there is no legal egc to the box. you would have to protect that with a GFCI.


----------



## zephed666 (Jan 25, 2011)

nap said:


> yes. In the first pic, top recep, I was assuming the NM was not the in feed but extending the circuit.
> 
> that was my misunderstanding.
> If you are bringing the egc from the panel, you can use the egc as long as you continue the 3 wire circuit.
> ...


Ok. To clarify things in my head. 

-So I can use the romex from the panel up to the second floor. (I only have access to replace that section of it right now)
-Romex to BX is ok to do, what is not ok to do is Romex to BX back to romex.
-The new romex line will feed a GFCI outlet connected as in the drawing in post #16.
-I can connect 3 prong outlets downstream from that GFCI a well as the light switch without modifying the existing BX wire


I do not understand what it means if the box is metallic bond it with a ground clip. 
The box is metallic and the new romex line's gorund will be connected to the GFCI outlet. Does it need to be pigtailed to the box and the GFCI?


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

> -So I can use the romex from the panel up to the second floor. (I only have access to replace that section of it right now)


yes



> -Romex to BX is ok to do, what is not ok to do is Romex to BX back to romex.


well... not to confuse you but you can BUT you cannot use the egc in the NM after the BX section. If you have metal boxes, it would ultimately be using the BX sheath for an egc which is not proper.



> -The new romex line will feed a GFCI outlet connected as in the drawing in post #16.


ok




> -I can connect 3 prong outlets downstream from that GFCI a well as the light switch without modifying the existing BX wire


but there is no need to connect the egc to those receps (see answer 2nd up)




> I do not understand what it means if the box is metallic bond it with a ground clip.


they make a little clip that you clip onto the side of the box. If you do not have a 10-32 threaded hole in the box, that was used in place of having to drill and tap one.




> The box is metallic and the new romex line's gorund will be connected to the GFCI outlet. Does it need to be pigtailed to the box and the GFCI?[


see the two questions above referring to the same issue.

I will say though that most people simply connect the egc's as they go along. The problem with that though is if you look back to post #4, you will be creating a system that could result in that situation. That is why I say to not connect the egc to anything beyond the section of BX.


----------



## zephed666 (Jan 25, 2011)

nap said:


> yes
> 
> well... not to confuse you but you can BUT you cannot use the egc in the NM after the BX section. If you have metal boxes, it would ultimately be using the BX sheath for an egc which is not proper.
> 
> ...


Ok, I think I have it all now. My plan is to just replace the BX from the panel to the one outlet and leave the BX feeding from the outlet in place. The romex will be direct from the panel to the GFCI outlet. So every outlet connected to the GFCI downstream with the BX can be a 3 pronged outlet. I updated my drawing to ground the box to the romex. Is that the correct way or is there no need to pigtail the ground and just leave as is in post #16? And should all the receptacle downstream from the GFCI be grounded to the box then?

Again thanks for all the help!!!


----------



## zephed666 (Jan 25, 2011)

brric said:


> Yes. If metallic, bond the box with a ground screw or clip.


Hi brric:

do you mean to clip to the box as in my post #22? I cannot bring the ground from the romex to the GFCI?

And should all other outlets downstream with the BX cable be grounded to the box in that fashion?

Thanks!


----------



## brric (Mar 5, 2010)

Bond the metallic box as you have it shown in post #5.


----------



## zephed666 (Jan 25, 2011)

brric said:


> Bond the metallic box as you have it shown in post #5.


 
Thanks! Both those images are correct in post #5 then? the new romex should be bonded that way and the existing BX receptacles ahould be bonded how I drew it in the bottom image?


----------



## brric (Mar 5, 2010)

No need to bond at the BX locations as the BX does not provide a code compliant grounding means. Bond at the first locatioon only where the new NM cable provides an equipment ground back to the panel.


----------



## zephed666 (Jan 25, 2011)

brric said:


> No need to bond at the BX locations as the BX does not provide a code compliant grounding means. Bond at the first locatioon only where the new NM cable provides an equipment ground back to the panel.


thanks so much!


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

In all your diagrams you have the wires reversed on the receptacles. The white goes to the wide slot which has silver colored screws. The black goes to the brass colored screws.


----------



## zephed666 (Jan 25, 2011)

Jim Port said:


> In all your diagrams you have the wires reversed on the receptacles. The white goes to the wide slot which has silver colored screws. The black goes to the brass colored screws.


 
thanks. the wires were just FPO. It was easier to draw that way at the time...


----------



## Saturday Cowboy (Nov 29, 2009)

Let me hijack this thread. Tho I will agree that the solution arrived at is by far a better solution. I would like to explore why the first two diagrams where not correct, because I say that they were. I know that BX has a bad rap for not handling fault current, but that it was designed to be used as such and that AC is still designed without a separate EGC today. Tho I have been wrong in the past so if you could supply a code reference or a thread that discuss the matter inn more depth.


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

Cowboy, 

I think you may be overlooking the bond strip that type AC cable has that the older BX did not. Older BX sheath was not listed for use as a EGC.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

Saturday Cowboy said:


> Let me hijack this thread. Tho I will agree that the solution arrived at is by far a better solution. I would like to explore why the first two diagrams where not correct, because I say that they were. I know that BX has a bad rap for not handling fault current, but that it was designed to be used as such and that AC is still designed without a separate EGC today. Tho I have been wrong in the past so if you could supply a code reference or a thread that discuss the matter inn more depth.


What people call BX (actually a first generation AC cable) was designed before an egc was required. I cannot find anything stating original AC (BX) was designed to actually carry the fault current via the sheathing. Since an egc was not required until 1962, I suspect, since it was designed in 1899, it was not designed to carry fault current. AC of today is designed to carry fault current through the sheath. It has a bonding wire; a bare solid wire that lays on the inside of the metal sheath. This eliminates the impedance problem found in BX that caused the sheath to become a resistance heater when exposed to current.

there is a ton of information available via simple searches in the internet.

code required bonding strip in AC: 1959.

egc required in all branch circuits: 1962

BX, actually called “Greenfield Flexible Steel-Armored Conductors,” patented in 1899 (yes, that Mr. Greenfield was one of the inventors). Sprague Electric Co. of New York is apparently the company he worked for at the time.

BX was apparently an internal designation. There was an AX and BX with the X designating "experimental" (much like the government used). Apparently nobody knows what happened to AX cable. BX went on to become what was later classified in the NEC as AC cable.


----------



## Saturday Cowboy (Nov 29, 2009)

nap said:


> *I cannot find anything* stating original AC (BX) was designed to actually carry the fault current via the sheathing.


Heres my problem with your argument. I can't find anything saying you can't. Because it was old install. OP only wanted to update visible home run, I ask why he then couldn't have left the old parts if he transitioned from wiring method to method properly? Are we required to bring the whole circuit up to new code if we only touch part of it?




Jim Port said:


> I think you may be overlooking the bond strip that type AC cable has that the older BX did not. Older BX sheath was not listed for use as a EGC.


let me say thank goodness AC does have a bond strip.
However I don't see a need for our BX it to have one or to be listed. It was already installed therefore legal under rules in effect when it was installed. Does not the BX sheath weather rated for it or not still form a EGC? I am under the impression that it was considered a EGC when installed and only later found out how poor it was.


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

I don't know the whole history on this subject, but since most circuits were still 2 wire and 3 prong receptacles did not exist, I would suspect that it had not been considered that the sheath was needed as a ECG. Might have changed after people had seen the non-bonded sheath glowing and fuses not tripping that the change to require a bond strip was added.

The issue about using the old non-bonded as a grounding means probably goes back to the listing and labeling. NEC 110.3 requires products to be used in accordance with its L&L. Using the old BX as an EGC would violate this.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

> =Saturday Cowboy;583062]Heres my problem with your argument. I can't find anything saying you can't. Because it was old install. OP only wanted to update visible home run, I ask why he then couldn't have left the old parts if he transitioned from wiring method to method properly? Are we required to bring the whole circuit up to new code if we only touch part of it?


he is leaving the old parts. I never suggested he couldn't. 


l


> et me say thank goodness AC does have a bond strip.
> However I don't see a need for our BX it to have one or to be listed. It was already installed therefore legal under rules in effect when it was installed. Does not the BX sheath weather rated for it or not still form a EGC? I am under the impression that it was considered a EGC when installed and only later found out how poor it was


legal at the time. Unless you had an egc system at installation, legal means : circuit without an egc. Adding an egc is altering the system so unless you can prove early style AC cable was listed as an egc, you have now altered your system to be an illegal installation.

If that was prior to 1962, there was no requirement for an egc. If you had 2 terminal receps, there was no intent to include an egc in your system.

sounds like you will have to do some research (like patents, historical UL listings, historical NEC recognition) of how old style AC cable was thought of and treated.

Personally, regardless of whether it was legal or not, due to the problems associated with it, I surely would never suggest using it as an egc system.


----------



## zephed666 (Jan 25, 2011)

nap said:


> he is leaving the old parts. I never suggested he couldn't.
> 
> 
> llegal at the time. Unless you had an egc system at installation, legal means : circuit without an egc. Adding an egc is altering the system so unless you can prove early style AC cable was listed as an egc, you have now altered your system to be an illegal installation.
> ...


Just reiterating what I has been said so I understand. To be code compliant, I can run new romex to the first outlet in the chain. that outlet will be the GFCI outlet that is grounded to the metal box. The existing outlets downstream can be three pronged receptacles but should be labled "No equipment ground". This is the diagram of the proper wiring at the GFCI outlet...


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

looks good other than your hots and neutrals are swapped (which I know you already know)


----------



## zephed666 (Jan 25, 2011)

nap said:


> looks good other than your hots and neutrals are swapped (which I know you already know)


 
thanks nap! I had asked this question in another forum but wanted to get your opinion since the answers kind of stopped. -
I wanted to know if I could run two a/c wall units on 1 20amp circuit? The wall units state they run at 7.5 amps. (The circuit is a dedicated circuit for one of the units now, but I wanted to add one to the bedroom next to it).


thanks again!


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

That's a tough one. They will likely run at the same time BUT when they start or the compressor cycles, you might have some problems. A motor (either fan or compressor) draws a lot more current on start. Obviously, the two together add up to 15 amps which should be fine but that if one is running and the other one starts, it might be a problem.

I presume these are simple little plug in units, right? If you have them now, give it a try.


----------



## zephed666 (Jan 25, 2011)

nap said:


> That's a tough one. They will likely run at the same time BUT when they start or the compressor cycles, you might have some problems. A motor (either fan or compressor) draws a lot more current on start. Obviously, the two together add up to 15 amps which should be fine but that if one is running and the other one starts, it might be a problem.
> 
> I presume these are simple little plug in units, right? If you have them now, give it a try.


only have one now so I can't really give it a try. Just figured since I was going to be in the attic I could drop another line in the wall of the other bedroom for a future A/c this summer. So even if I have the 20Amp circuit it could cause a problem when they are both going?


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

zephed666 said:


> only have one now so I can't really give it a try. Just figured since I was going to be in the attic I could drop another line in the wall of the other bedroom for a future A/c this summer. So even if I have the 20Amp circuit it could cause a problem when they are both going?


it might but then again, it might not. It all depends on the start up current of the units and how long that current remains high. A 20 amp breaker can often take about 10 times rated load but it will only hold for about a half of a second. It will hold 5 times rated current for about 3 seconds. 

a motor starting can often draw 5 times normal run current so, if you have 2 units @7.5 amps each, 5 times that would be 37.5 amps. Double that (2 units) would be 75 amps or 3 3/4 times name rating. A trip curve for a square d qo 20 amp shows that the breaker should hold from 1 3/4 to 6 seconds at that load. (all figures are approximate and guesstimates) 

High ambient temp (around the breaker) will generally reduce that time. A bad motor will often increase load which would mean a reduced time. A weak breaker will not hold as well.

It might hold but I wouldn't bet on it.


----------



## COLDIRON (Mar 15, 2009)

NOTE: regarding the 7.5 amp number. It's to close to call follow the advice of the other sparks in this forum, why.

Because for one thing regardless of the amp rating as soon as wall/window air conditioners start getting a little dirt on the condenser coils and the fan blades the amp readings start rising until they go out on overload. Point do not cut it that close. Run 2 - 12-2s with 15 amp breaker then if you ever wanted to up the BTU rating and get a larger A/C you have the capability to install a 20 amp breaker with the 12 already there.


----------



## zephed666 (Jan 25, 2011)

COLDIRON said:


> NOTE: regarding the 7.5 amp number. It's to close to call follow the advice of the other sparks in this forum, why.
> 
> Because for one thing regardless of the amp rating as soon as wall/window air conditioners start getting a little dirt on the condenser coils and the fan blades the amp readings start rising until they go out on overload. Point do not cut it that close. Run 2 - 12-2s with 15 amp breaker then if you ever wanted to up the BTU rating and get a larger A/C you have the capability to install a 20 amp breaker with the 12 already there.


Thanks for the help. I may have just lucked out. I found that there is a dedicated 20Amp outlet in another room upstairs. No idea why, but I am going to take that line and use it for the A/C. Now my question is, why do you suggest putting a 15Amp breaker on 12/2? Is there a savings of doing that?


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

There would be no savings putting the 15 amp breaker on #12 wire. The breakers cost the same. In fact you would incur additional cost down the road if you changed it to a 20 amp.


----------



## COLDIRON (Mar 15, 2009)

zephed666 said:


> Thanks for the help. I may have just lucked out. I found that there is a dedicated 20Amp outlet in another room upstairs. No idea why, but I am going to take that line and use it for the A/C. Now my question is, why do you suggest putting a 15Amp breaker on 12/2? Is there a savings of doing that?


" I was thinking it be closer to the amp rating you were looking for, of course you would like to use the amp rating closer to the equipment on that circuit. If you already have a 20 there go for it. I wasn't thinking about cost I was thinking of what fit your circumstance. 2runs 12-2 with 15 amp breakers for each A/C then if you want to up-size the A/Cs you already have the 12 installed just up the breakers to 20, no need to have 20 amp breakers on what you described. Of course if you want put 20s in."


----------



## zephed666 (Jan 25, 2011)

brric said:


> No need to bond at the BX locations as the BX does not provide a code compliant grounding means. Bond at the first locatioon only where the new NM cable provides an equipment ground back to the panel.


Hi brric:

I am starting to wire this run and wanted to make sure that this was the proper setup at the first outlet (GFCI) of the armored cable run...


----------

