# Range Outlet Receptical Wiring - PICS



## Stubbie (Jan 7, 2007)

Nave 

Most free standing ranges are 120 volt in combination with 240 volt and require 2 hots and neutral plus a ground wire. Typically shown on the name plate as 120/240 volts.

If some cases if the supply cable is three wire you are allowed to use it. However your cable is not one of those unless your old range is 240 volt only. If your old range is 240 volt only you have the wrong receptacle.

Can you tell us if your range is one of those old 240 volt ranges or does it require 120 and 240 volts?

I am assuming here that you are not replacing the old range.


----------



## Speedy Petey (Feb 1, 2004)

A) That is the wrong cable for a typical range circuit. That cable can supply a STRAIGHT 240v circuit, or a 120v circuit. It CANNOT supply the 120/240v circuit that a range requires. If it did before it was quite illegal and quite unsafe!
DO NOT sue this circuit for a standard free standing residential range. 

B) That is COMPLETELY the wrong box for that receptacle. That is a fixture box, NOT a device box. 

You need to run a new "3-wire" circuit to a new 4-prong range receptacle.


----------



## troubleseeker (Sep 25, 2006)

I am not an electrician, nor do I play one on TV, but that needs to be rewired correctly. If that is not a DIY Saturday morning job, I don't know how it passed inspection. Follow the advice of Speedy Pete, call a licensed electrician and get it done to current code.

There is no fun in touching an appliance while bare footed and getting the crap knocked out of you (best case scenario) or being awakened at 2 am by a smoke alarm.

If you mess up a DIY plumbing job you get wet feet; mess up a DIY electrical job, and you get lots of easels of flowers, capiche?


----------



## nave (Jan 22, 2008)

I am replacing the existing range with a new GE range. Specs available here: http://www.ajmadison.com/cgi-bin/ajmadison/JSP42.html

So it looks like I'll have to re-wire the whole thing. I have a contractor coming for some other work so I'll leave it alone and add it to his list. For extra charge I'm sure. Thanks for the warnings though. Happy I didn't just wire it up.


----------



## cheyenne (Jan 28, 2008)

As several posters have said, the box you have is not the correct one. The plug you have is not the correct one for the branch circuit cable you show. What size breaker was feeding this wire? What is the name plate rating of your range (volts and amps/kilowatts)? You CAN use an existing three wire cable to feed a range if it has sufficient ampacity and meets the requirements of NEC 250.140 exceptions 1-4. One of those exceptions is the grounded conductor, in this case your bare copper wire, must be not smaller than #10 copper. Your's looks to be a # 12. You are looking at a re-wire to be safe and legal. Today's ranges use the neutral and tap one leg of the 240 volts in a four wire cable for control boards, control transformers and of course the light bulb. If your cable was legal, the equipment ground and the grounded conductor(neutral) of the range would bond at the range connection point (ususally a strap) and be carried back to the panel on the ground(bare wire) in your cable. Get a professional to help you out. You mess up plumbing you get wet, you mess up electrical, you can get killed.


----------



## 220/221 (Oct 9, 2007)

Sorry guys.

You are *NOT* required to run a new circuit :no: 

250-140


Ranges USED to only require a 3 wire circuit with ground.

The old set up used black/hot, white/hot, bare ground/(possibly neutral)

You can replace ranges/dryers without the 4 wire circuit that is now required.:yes: 

You will need to change the box though. 2 gang plastic will work nicely.

Black and white wires to the top terminals (farthest from your thumb) ground to the bottom (by your thumb) You will notice that the ground terminal has a strap built in that connects to the metal part of the device.


----------



## nave (Jan 22, 2008)

I was planning on installing a new box too. So are you saying that I can wire the black (hot) & white (hot) to the two hot connections on my plug and the bare ground to the neutral?

I'll ask my contractor regardless.

This is what the specs are on the new range:

*Technical Details*
*Oven Wattage:* 3600
*Amps:* 40
*Voltage:* 240/208 Volts


----------



## cheyenne (Jan 28, 2008)

You could *IF* your wire was legal. It is not.


----------



## Speedy Petey (Feb 1, 2004)

220/221 said:


> Ranges USED to only require a 3 wire circuit with ground.
> 
> The old set up used black/hot, white/hot, bare ground/(possibly neutral)


NO, NO, NO!

Ranges USED to have circuits with no GROUND. The NEUTRAL served as the ground. This is why you see the ground wire connected to the neutral of the circuit in older ranges and dryers. 

A bare copper wire like the one see in that NM cable CAN NOT, repeat NOT,and NEVER could, carry circuit current. 
In the installation as shown it will most definitely carry current. 

Here is the NEC Handbook commentary following 250.140:



> The exception to 250.140 applies only to existing branch circuits supplying the appliances specified in 250.140. The grounded conductor (neutral) of newly installed branch circuits supplying ranges and clothes dryers is no longer permitted to be used for grounding the non–current-carrying metal parts of the appliances. Branch circuits installed for new appliance installations are required to provide an equipment grounding conductor sized in accordance with 250.122 for grounding the non–current-carrying metal parts.
> Caution should be exercised to ensure that new appliances connected to an existing branch circuit are properly grounded. An older appliance connected to a new branch circuit must have its 3-wire cord and plug replaced with a 4-conductor cord, with one of those conductors being an equipment grounding conductor. The bonding jumper between the neutral and the frame of the appliance must be removed. Where a new range or clothes dryer is connected to an existing branch circuit without an equipment grounding conductor, in which the neutral conductor is used for grounding the appliance frame, it must be ensured that a bonding jumper is in place between the neutral terminal of the appliance and the frame of the appliance.
> The grounded circuit conductor of an existing branch circuit is still permitted to be used to ground the frame of an electric range, wall-mounted oven, or counter-mounted cooking unit, provided all four conditions of 250.140, Exception, are met. In addition, a revision in this provision for the 2005 Code permits application of the exception only where the existing branch-circuit wiring method does not provide an equipment grounding conductor. There are many existing branch circuits in which nonmetallic sheath cable with three insulated circuit conductors and a bare equipment grounding conductor was used to supply a range or clothes dryer. The bare equipment grounding conductor was simply not used because it was permitted to ground the equipment with the insulated neutral conductor of the NM cable. This ``extra'' conductor was on account of the fact that the bare conductor in a Type NM cable is to be used only as an equipment grounding conductor and cannot be used as a grounded (neutral) conductor in the same manner as is permitted for an uninsulated conductor in the service entrance.
> In addition to grounding the frame of the range or clothes dryer, the grounded circuit conductor of these existing branch circuits is also permitted to be used to ground any junction boxes in the circuit supplying the appliance, and a 3-wire pigtail and range receptacle are permitted to be used.
> Prior to the 1996 Code, use of the grounded circuit conductor as a grounding conductor was permitted for all installations. In many instances, the wiring method was service-entrance cable with an uninsulated neutral conductor covered by the cable jacket. Where Type SE cable was used to supply ranges and dryers, the branch circuit was required to originate at the service equipment to avoid neutral current from downstream panelboards on metal objects, such as pipes or ducts.


----------



## Speedy Petey (Feb 1, 2004)

You can't simply pick and choose what you want to apply. ALL the conditions of the exception in 250.140 MUST be met.

_*250.140 Frames of Ranges and Clothes Dryers*
Frames of electric ranges, wall-mounted ovens, counter-mounted cooking units, clothes dryers, and outlet or junction boxes that are part of the circuit for these appliances shall be grounded in the manner specified by 250.134 or 250.138.

Exception: For existing branch circuit installations only where an equipment grounding conductor is not present in the outlet or junction box, the frames of electric ranges, wall-mounted ovens, counter-mounted cooking units, clothes dryers, and outlet or junction boxes that are part of the circuit for these appliances shall be permitted to be grounded to the grounded circuit conductor if all the following conditions are met. 
(1)	The supply circuit is 120/240-volt, single-phase, 3-wire; or 208Y/120-volt derived from a 3-phase, 4-wire, wye-connected system. 
(2)	The grounded conductor is not smaller than 10 AWG copper or 8 AWG aluminum. 
(3)	The grounded conductor is insulated, or the grounded conductor is uninsulated and part of a Type SE service-entrance cable and the branch circuit originates at the service equipment. 
(4)	Grounding contacts of receptacles furnished as part of the equipment are bonded to the equipment._


In red above: "grounded to the *grounded circuit conductor*". 
In plain English: Grounded to the neutral.
This grounded conductor MUST be either insulated or part of an SE cable.


----------



## cheyenne (Jan 28, 2008)

Speedy is right relative to this cable because it is NM. If the bare(uninsulated) conductor were part of a three wire SE cable, and it met ampacity requirements he most definetly could use it. Thanks for the clarification, Speedy.


----------



## 220/221 (Oct 9, 2007)

No no no. Speedy is wrong.




> Ranges USED to have circuits with no GROUND. The NEUTRAL served as the ground. This is why you see the ground wire connected to the neutral of the circuit in older ranges and dryers


Nope.


Ranges USED to have circuits with no NEUTRAL. The GROUND served as the neutral. This is why you see the neutral wire connected to the ground of the circuit in older ranges and dryers.


_(3) The grounded conductor is insulated, or the grounded conductor is uninsulated and part of a Type SE service-entrance cable and the branch circuit originates at the service equipment. _


The only difference between NM and SE is that the BARE conductor is wrapped around the insulated conductors in the SE. It lays paralell in the NM. That is the only difference. 

Worst case it's a technical issue, not a real life issue. It ALWAYS passes inspection here.

If I HAD to argue it, I say it was a groundING conductor.



> So are you saying that I can wire the black (hot) & white (hot) to the two hot connections on my plug and the bare ground to the neutral?


 
Exactly. You are supposed to "identify" the white conductor as a "hot". Black tape will work.


----------



## junkcollector (Nov 25, 2007)

220/221 said:


> It ALWAYS passes inspection here.


It would never fly here. The only way it would be compliant is if the range was 240 only (2 hots and ground) NM with only 2 insulated wires can either power 120 OR 240. Not both. 

I looked at a job the other day where a subpanel was running off a 10/2 cable. The Black was hot, The white was hot, and the ground was neutral / ground. Never did it see the light of an inspector's flashlight. I don't see a difference between that and this.


----------



## Speedy Petey (Feb 1, 2004)

I CANNOT believe you are saying this. Please tell me you are kidding.
You would honestly let a bare ground from an NM cable carry circuit current??????

Did you not read the code sections DIRECTLY quoted above?

He is the handbook commentary again. Just the first paragraph. That's all that's needed:


> The exception to 250.140 applies only to existing branch circuits supplying the appliances specified in 250.140. *The grounded conductor (neutral) of newly installed branch circuits supplying ranges and clothes dryers is no longer permitted to be used for grounding the non–current-carrying metal parts of the appliances.* Branch circuits installed for new appliance installations are required to provide an equipment grounding conductor sized in accordance with 250.122 for grounding the non–current-carrying metal parts.



I don't know how this can be ANY clearer. The NEUTRAL is no longer permitted to be used for grounding.


Nave, PLEASE ignore ANYTHING 220/221 is saying in this thread!


----------



## 220/221 (Oct 9, 2007)

> You would honestly let a bare ground from an NM cable carry circuit current??????


As opposed to a bare ground from an SE cable carrying current?


What is your logic here?






> I don't know how this can be ANY clearer. The NEUTRAL is no longer permitted to be used for grounding.


 
Except in EXISTING circuits. There are millions of existing circuits. That's why they wrote rhe exception. Why the limited it to SE makes no sense. Both SE and NM have BARE conductors.


----------



## Speedy Petey (Feb 1, 2004)

220/221 said:


> As opposed to a bare ground from an SE cable carrying current?
> 
> 
> What is your logic here?


1) The bare/braided grounded conductor of SE cable is SUPPOSED to carry current. 90% of the homes in this country use it for services.

2) Mr. NEC SAY SO! Right up there under Exceptions. See #3?

If you are saying the grounded conductor of SE cable and the bare grounding conductor in NM cable are the same you are worse off than I thought.

Use your twisted logic all you want to break code. Just DO NOT tell others to do the same!


----------



## 220/221 (Oct 9, 2007)

To quote you......whatever.


----------



## Stubbie (Jan 7, 2007)

The suggestion to use an NM-B cable 2 conductor with EGC (equipment ground wire) to serve this range would create by my count at least 5 code violations. I to am shocked that this is being suggested. 

The reason for not allowing this NM cable is a result of concentrated effort beginning in 1996 by the NEC and the NFPA to not allow anymore 3 wire range connections that are not existing SE cables for range circuits or cables using an insulated neutral. The SE type cable (they were usually aluminum btw) was used due to a copper shortage that extended over a few decades...so most SE used in 3 wire range connections is a very old installation. Why not 3 wire?... because of the deaths reported due to electrocution from energized metal frames from ranges fed with 3 wire connections. The exception for SE is due to the millions of installations prior to 1996 and would not be reasonable to require them to be changed....the task would be overwhelming. But they needed to start somewhere. This is no different than when the NEC required nm cable to have a egc ran with the conductors. It increases safety and prevents deaths from touching metal parts that have become energized. The fact that the ground or the neutral was bare, which ever way you want to look at it, was secondary to having neutral to ground connections on the load side of the service equipment. The dangers of making a connection like this should be common knowledge to any electrician. Se cable when used as a service entrance cable as Speedy said is intended to carry current and the bare concentric braided wire is identified as the ground for purposes of service entrance use. However the use of SE on range circuits would violate that identification due to load side connection of ground to the neutral. Believe me the NEC wishes the problem didn't exist with all these SE cables out there. It was allowed out of necessity and the statistics for household electrocutions because of it prompted the NEC to change the code in 1996.

The presence of that NM cable in that ceiling box to serve a range branch circuit would cause any inspector to reach for his red tags. To suggest otherwise as a trained electrician is rather hard to swallow. This simply is not allowed for a range branch circuit and frankly never was allowed. You would have two huge code violations and a few safety concerns immediately upon hooking that nm to a range cord and receptacle. 

NAVE


Don't use that cable it is not what you want. Your stove based on the link you supplied is 120/240 volt range and will require it to be treated as a new installation mandating a 4 wire branch circuit replacing the non-compliant existing cable. If you look you can see that the cable was ran thru drilled out holes in the ceiling fixture box. A sure sign this was done by a person without proper knowledge of what he was doing ... thus the incorrect cable. 

BTW... the specifications you listed are for the oven only not the requirements for the entire range as a unit appliance. 

You need a minimum 40 amp branch circuit ran for your new range. You will follow the 4- wire connection diagram in the instructions that came with your range. I took the liberty to include some of those instructions in the third image below. First I am going to show what your connection to the range terminal block is going to look like and then point a few things out to you. This image by the way is a GE range terminal block and should be very similar to yours. The white wire connected to the center terminal is the neutral wire. The black and red are your hot conductors. The green of course is your equipment ground. This is showing the correct connection for your application. For a 3 wire connection there will be a metal strap from the white wire connection to where you see the green wire only that green wire is not present in a 3 wire range cord connection. So if it is installed you must remove that metal strap and that procedure is shown in the image after this one. The second image is the correct junction box using what is called a 1/2" raised double gang mud ring on a 4x4 by 2 1/8" metal box with a receptacle like yours installed. We can help you with the wiring if you like..... just ask.


----------



## 220/221 (Oct 9, 2007)

> to serve this range would create by my count at least 5 code violations


List them, keeping in mind that this is an existing circuit installed in 1985. The only thing you will find is 250.140 (3) which says it must be SE.

Explain the difference between NM and SE. Both have 2 insulated conductors and a bare ground. NM has a solid ground (#10 in this case) and SE has a stranded ground wrapped around the insulated conductors.

Someone suggested earlier that the SE was DESIGNED to be a neutral but offered up nothing to back this up.

The bottom line is that with either SE or NM installations you have what is considered an unsafe installation by modern standards. Current will be carried thru the appliance in question IF there is a 120v circuit in it. If the conductor carrying that current is broken, the current could pass thru someone who comes in contact with it while it is operating.

The 4 wire requirement for new installations is a VERY GOOD thing. The 3 wire system always seemed wrong to me, even in the 70's when I first started wiring. The 3 wire system is acceptable for existing circuits IF it is SE. If someone can explain to me why SE is any different that NM in this application I am all ears and would change my stance in a heartbeat.


----------



## Speedy Petey (Feb 1, 2004)

220/221 said:


> Explain the difference between NM and SE. Both have 2 insulated conductors and a bare ground. NM has a solid ground (#10 in this case) and SE has a stranded ground wrapped around the insulated conductors.
> 
> Someone suggested earlier that the SE was DESIGNED to be a neutral but offered up nothing to back this up.


I triple-dog-dare you to go over to Mike Holts site, ElectricianTalk, ECN, or any other reputable TRADE site and ask this question. :thumbsup: 

Be sure to tell them you are a seasoned electrician doing this since the 70's. 

We'll let those guys explain. 
Let us know the results. :laughing:


----------



## Stubbie (Jan 7, 2007)

What if one of them is an undersized neutral since this is a cable assembly? And if this is an old black NM_b it is way to small for the neutral and what if I told you the neutral must be full sized in this application. What if I told you that you cannot use an equipment ground wire as a neutral nor can you reidentify it as one. And of course the one you proclaim the NEC to be ridiculous about. The neutral must be insulated unless it is an SE cable and you would be connecting a bare equipment ground to a neutral connection of a listed receptacle. And just for thought how about the one that requires you as a professional to adhere to the proper wiring requirements and code requirementsof the NEC. 

MY question to you is why are you waging this argument? You have one obvious code violation you have already admitted to why do you feel you need to violate others to justify the one?


----------



## 220/221 (Oct 9, 2007)

> The neutral must be insulated unless it is an SE cable and you would be connecting a bare equipment ground to a neutral connection of a listed receptacle


 
You would be connecting a bare equipment ground to a neutral with SE cable. What is the difference?




> MY question to you is why are you waging this argument?


 
I am SIMPLY looking for a SIMPLE answer. 

What is the difference in this case between SE and NM and why is NM considered dangerous and SE is not? I am looking for a REAL answer.....a physical answer. Something to do with safety, heat, electron flow....anything. Hell, just throw a THEORY out there. I might be missing something.


----------



## Stubbie (Jan 7, 2007)

Somehow I don't think anything I could say or any other professional is going to make any difference to you. You seem to think everyone has to prove things to you. Your argument is like saying the world is flat and refusing for what ever reason to admit you are wrong. Which I don't think is a word in your vocabulary. I really don't know how things can be much more simple than what has been said already.
Now having said that why are you trying so desperately to steer the issue in another direction by talking about cable differences? I suspect even the op of this thread can figure that out by now.
Last thing I will say is... you have not had the respect to climb off that pedestal of yours and provide one ounce of reasoning why you are correct and we are wrong. There is no reason I or anyone else should be demanded by you to prove anything. YOU are the one who placed all the shaking head smilies in your posts and loudly proclaimed we were in error. The proof is in your court not ours. I regret having wasted my time with this. I thought I was dealing with another professional and I see I was mistaken.


----------



## 220/221 (Oct 9, 2007)

> you have not had the respect to climb off that pedestal of yours and provide one ounce of reasoning why you are correct and we are wrong.


Sure I have. 

I explained EXACTLY why I think I am right.

Again, I think SE and NM are basically the same thing. SE has been around longer than the larger sized NM but they are BOTH two insulated conductors with a BARE ground surrounded by a thermoplastic sheathing.

Why they allow the 3wire SE circuit and not the 3 wire NM circuit is beyond my comprehension. If you don't know why, I can certainly understand. If you are touting the dangers of such an installation it seems that you would have at least some idea of WHY it is dangerous.

When I asked you to offer even a theory why my logic is incorrect all you can do is try and insult me. That doesn't do anybody any good.



> There is no reason I or anyone else should be demanded by you to prove anything.


 
I demanded you to prove something? :laughing: 

I asked for an opinion.

If you have one I'd be glad to hear it. I ALWAYS want to know "why". It's my nature.


----------



## Stubbie (Jan 7, 2007)

> Sure I have.
> 
> I explained EXACTLY why I think I am right


.

Yes and it is your opinion that NM-b is the same as SE and the NEC is incorrect that they limit the pre existing range circuits to SE cable and if not SE limited to insulated neutrals and neutrals that must be at least #10 awg cu. So you are telling the OP that it is all nonsense what the NEC requires and go ahead and use that cable cause you say it's ok.


Lets start this way. If NM-b is the Same as SE like you so proudly proclaim to be the case. Would it be all right with you if I issue the 221 proclamation of equality to the electrical industry so we can start using NM-b for service entrance? They are the same after all.

Last question....was NM-b 2 conductor with ground code compliant for a 120/240 volt range circuit prior to 1996 or modern times as you put it? Remember to bear in mind that this circuit is pre existing.....sound familiar? 

Be careful how you answer this one because a heck of a lot of professionals are now watching this thread. I assume you will have the respect to answer it.

By the way your use of laughing Icons to represent your intelligence tells me you have not now or ever cared about the WHY of anything.



> Why they allow the 3wire SE circuit and not the 3 wire NM circuit is beyond my comprehension.


So your ability to comprehend is now the basis for abiding by the electrical codes??

I'll be sure to remove that page about pre existing range circuits from my handbook and code book..after all who needs it.


----------



## Speedy Petey (Feb 1, 2004)

220/221 said:


> I am SIMPLY looking for a SIMPLE answer.


At the risk of a severe headach trying to explain simple things to you, and agaist my better judgement, I will try and give you a simple answer.

- Do you agree that the bare wire in NM cable is the "_equipment grounding conductor_"? Please say yes. It is the ONLY correct answer. 
_Hint: See *NEC Art. 334 III. Construction Specifications 
334.108 Equipment Grounding*
In addition to the insulated conductors, the cable shall have an insulated or bare conductor *for equipment grounding purposes only*.
_
- Do you agree that the proper name for a neutral is the "_grounded conductor_"? Again, the only correct answer is yes. See NEC Art. 200 for details.

Now......

_NEC Art. 100
*Grounded Conductor.* A system or circuit conductor that is intentionally grounded.

*Grounding Conductor, Equipment.* The conductor used to connect the *non–current-carrying metal parts of equipment*, raceways, and other enclosures to the system grounded conductor, the grounding electrode conductor, or both, at the service equipment or at the source of a separately derived system._

So tell me you still think they are the same thing.......this is the best I could do on such short notice.


----------



## Speedy Petey (Feb 1, 2004)

Here's more:
_
*ARTICLE 338 Service-Entrance Cable: Types SE and USE
338.10 Uses Permitted
(A) Service-Entrance Conductors* Service-entrance cable shall be permitted to be used as service-entrance conductors and shall be installed in accordance with 230.6, 230.7, and Parts II, III, and IV of Article 230.
Type USE used for service laterals shall be permitted to emerge from the ground outside at terminations in meter bases or other enclosures where protected in accordance with 300.5(D).
*(B) Branch Circuits or Feeders
(1) Grounded Conductor Insulated* Type SE service-entrance cables shall be permitted in wiring systems where all of the circuit conductors of the cable are of the rubber-covered or thermoplastic type.
Branch circuits using service-entrance cable as a wiring method are permitted only if all circuit conductors within the cable are fully insulated according to 310.13. The equipment grounding conductor is the only conductor permitted to be bare within service-entrance cable used for branch circuits.
(2) Grounded Conductor Not Insulated Type SE service-entrance cable shall be permitted for use where the insulated conductors are used for circuit wiring and the uninsulated conductor is used only for equipment grounding purposes.
*Exception: Uninsulated conductors shall be permitted as a grounded conductor in accordance with 250.140*, 250.32, and 225.30 through 225.40._


----------



## 220/221 (Oct 9, 2007)

> Yes and it is your opinion that NM-b is the same as SE and the NEC is incorrect that they limit the pre existing range circuits to SE cable and if not SE limited to insulated neutrals and neutrals that must be at least #10 awg cu. So you are telling the OP that it is all nonsense what the NEC requires and go ahead and use that cable cause you say it's ok.


That is correct.




> Lets start this way. If NM-b is the Same as SE like you so proudly proclaim to be the case. Would it be all right with you if I issue the 221 proclamation of equality to the electrical industry so we can start using NM-b for service entrance? They are the same after all.


Knock yourself out. In the end we are all responsible for our own work.

In my opinion using SE for a service entrance conductors, although legal, is dangerous and shows a total lack of quality. Who the hell would run unprotected conductors inside a feaking house? Lot's of people I guess. I don't care if the code says it's safe. I say it's not and I wouldn't do it.





> Last question....was NM-b 2 conductor with ground code compliant for a 120/240 volt range circuit prior to 1996 or modern times as you put it? Remember to bear in mind that this circuit is pre existing.....sound familiar?
> 
> Be careful how you answer this one because a heck of a lot of professionals are now watching this thread. I assume you will have the respect to answer it.


I don't know 100% the answer to this. It would require some research. All I know is that NM over #10 wasn't available here so we always used SE. When #8 and #6 NM became the standard it seems to have replaced SE as the cable of choice. I am basing this solely on my experience and all the wotrk I have seen thru the evoltion of electrical systems.





> By the way your use of laughing Icons to represent your intelligence tells me you have not now or ever cared about the WHY of anything.
> 
> So your ability to comprehend is now the basis for abiding by the electrical codes??
> 
> I'll be sure to remove that page about pre existing range circuits from my handbook and code book..after all who needs it.


Dude, I have been nothing but civil to you but you continue to try and drag me into the mud with you. Obviously I am sending the wrong message by ignoring the personal tone. This could have and should have been a peaceful discussuion ...but it is not, at least between us.


I have been sucking it up and taking your crap long enough. Maybe this will set us on the same path.

You are the classic internet tough guy....let me guess....about 5'6". Always felt that people didn't like you? Maybe you drink a little too much and it fuels your anger? There is a reason people don't like big mouthed punks. It's because you are a douchebag. You have a LOT to learn little man, you might want to start soon. If you were half the man I am, you would be one hell of a person.

Since you like the little guys so much ---------> :laughing: 


If the original poster is still around, don't be concerned, be entertained. It's only a message board.:thumbsup:


----------



## Speedy Petey (Feb 1, 2004)

220/221 said:


> Dude, I have been nothing but civil to you but you continue to try and drag me into the mud with you. Obviously I am sending the wrong message by ignoring the personal tone. This could have and should have been a peaceful discussuion ...but it is not, at least between us.
> 
> 
> I have been sucking it up and taking your crap long enough. Maybe this will set us on the same path.
> ...


Sir (or Ma'am), this is OUT of line. YOU are the one being unprofessional. We are giving you PLENTY of logical explanation, yet you continue to blow it off. If you even owned or have ever read a code book you'd know how stupid you are looking right now. 

We could say the same about you, being the typical internet smart guy who knows better than hundred of experts and years of research. No, not me, but the guys who write the code and rules. Then when challenged you start calling others adolescent names.
If your feeling got hurt it is because the TRUTH hurts!

HAHAHA...YOU teach Stubbie something???????? HAHAHA :laughing: :laughing: 
Now THAT right there just made my night! Thanks! :laughing:


----------



## Stubbie (Jan 7, 2007)

You also have a license as a "seer" I see. As for this thread I consider it closed and your credibility also.

I seek to make this forum one that is respected for its answers both in safety and code compliance. Your agenda is not the same as mine.

As for my physical qualities I'm 6'3" 235 lbs 55 years old and you got the last part wrong too.... I am not a tough guy.


----------



## Speedy Petey (Feb 1, 2004)

220/221 said:


> In my opinion using SE for a service entrance conductors, although legal, is dangerous and shows a total lack of quality. Who the hell would run unprotected conductors inside a feaking house? Lot's of people I guess. I don't care if the code says it's safe. I say it's not and I wouldn't do it.


Yet...you would use the bare equipment ground of an NM cable to carry current. 
Pretty hypocritical, don't you think?






220/221 said:


> I don't know 100% the answer to this. It would require some research.


Yeah. It would require you to buy a code book. :whistling2:


----------



## wodman51jfk (Dec 16, 2007)

:bangin:..........:boxing:.....sumbody tag me in here...............:gun_bandana:


----------



## 220/221 (Oct 9, 2007)

Of COURSE it was out of line. That was the POINT.

I had been nothing but civil and as always was stating my opinion.

Stubbie felt the need to take things to a personal level over and over again so I simply joined his game. I was wrong about his stature and was certain he was younger. I am not sure WHAT drives his personal attacks.

Off topic but, Stubbie....your birthday is not tomorrow is it?


----------



## 220/221 (Oct 9, 2007)

> Yet...you would use the bare equipment ground of an NM cable to carry current.
> Pretty hypocritical, don't you think?


Apples and oranges.


You say using a bare conductor in SE is OK but not in NM.

Pretty hypocritical, don't you think?


BTW, how long have you and Stubbie been dating?:laughing:


----------



## Speedy Petey (Feb 1, 2004)

woodman51jfk said:


> :bangin:..........:boxing:.....sumbody tag me in here...............:gun_bandana:


TAG!
I'm going to bed.:turned:


----------



## 220/221 (Oct 9, 2007)

I asked around for opinions on why SE is acceptable while NM is not but haven't recieved any replies.

Seriously....If anyone has a thought I still would really like to hear it.

I am assuming that no one here has any idea or they would have offered it up at some point between the drama. Pete is stuck on the bare conductor even though SE also has a bare conductor. Stubbs refuses to even think about it.

Anyone else???


----------



## cheyenne (Jan 28, 2008)

I queried six people on this topic, two inspectors and four masters and got one answer. Five of the guys had no idea why the bare conductor in the SE is acceptable and the bare in the NM is not. One inspector, who has sat on NEC committee's, stated this: If the reason involves the bare conductor, and I'm not saying that is the reason, but if it is I would think it is because in an SE cable the bare conductor is insulated by the outer covering but in an NM cable the ground is wrapped with paper, a flammable substance. The paper is put on to protect the insulated conductors during the manufacturing process. It's the paper covering that might be the factor limiting the exception to SE only.
I'm just throwing it out there. Have at it!


----------



## 220/221 (Oct 9, 2007)

Thanks Cheyenne :thumbup: I appreciate the effort!


----------



## HouseHelper (Mar 20, 2007)

220/221: While it may not satisfy your quest for theory, etc., I was always under the impression SE was acceptable for ranges and dryers (and only when fed from the main service panel) prior to 1996 because SE is listed for use with the bare conductor as a neutral when used as a service entrance conductor. So by extending that use for those two applications, with the restrictions imposed, it was an acceptable alternative to three individual insulated conductors.
The use of two conductor NM w/g has never been an acceptable wiring method for ranges and dryers as the bare conductor is not approved as a current carrying conductor. But others have already pointed this out to you.


----------



## 220/221 (Oct 9, 2007)

> prior to 1996 because SE is listed for use with the bare conductor as a neutral when used as a service entrance conductor. So by extending that use for those two applications, with the restrictions imposed, it was an acceptable alternative to three individual insulated conductors.


I think you are correct. It would have been easy for them to say no to a new product (6,8 NM) but difficult for them to go back and say that the SE that has been used for so many years is not acceptable.


----------



## lt2007 (May 29, 2008)

see...if the range DOESN'T have a ground prong, it won't fit to a newer "4 prong" receptacle, it varies on the manufacturer. 
If the range has 3 prongs, then:
HOT1 is the black wire, HOT2 is the white wire and NEUTRAL/GROUND is the bare wire because it (the receptacle) doesn't have separate ground and neutral prongs.

If the range has 4 prongs, then you need to run new, 8/3 wire and then:
HOT1 is the black, HOT2 is the red, NEUTRAL is the white, and GROUND is the bare or green.

It all depends on the range.....


----------



## lt2007 (May 29, 2008)

oops and the box is NOT acceptable. You need a 4X4 or "square junction" box
sorry speedy but, even pros make omissions.


----------



## lt2007 (May 29, 2008)

cheyenne said:


> in this case your bare copper wire, must be not smaller than #10 copper. Your's looks to be a # 12.


holy camole! 12!!!!! the builder must have been out of his mind!!:laughing::whistling2:! jeez! you need 8 AWG minimum for 50 amps!


----------



## Speedy Petey (Feb 1, 2004)

lt2007 said:


> see...if the range DOESN'T have a ground prong, it won't fit to a newer "4 prong" receptacle, it varies on the manufacturer.
> If the range has 3 prongs, then:
> HOT1 is the black wire, HOT2 is the white wire and NEUTRAL/GROUND is the bare wire because it (the receptacle) doesn't have separate ground and neutral prongs.
> 
> ...


It actually does NOT depend on the range. It depends on the receptacle in place and you install the cord to match. 
Ranges do NOT come with cords attached. Someone must install one before placing the range.


----------



## Speedy Petey (Feb 1, 2004)

lt2007 said:


> you need 8 AWG minimum for 50 amps!


Actually #8NM is only good for 40A. 
#8THHN conductors in conduit are good for 50A.


----------

