OK, back to the subject at hand. I'm assuming that you all agree with sticking to the #6 copper for this long of a run? Yes? No, I think the consensus was that #8 copper would suffice. The reason that's somewhat tentative has to do with the power demands of HVAC motors (i.e., a heat pump--and trust me, we do understand how a heat pump works). Had this been a simple requirement for a 50-amp general purpose circuit, then I think #6 wire would have been the straight-up choice. However, HVAC equipment behaves a bit differently than a general purpose circuit in that it has both a minimum and maximum circuit ampacity rating and special code sections apply. Cutting to the chase (and at the risk of oversimplifying), the minimum circuit ampacity is what the equipment needs to run after it has overcome the starting surge of its major component--the compressor motor. The maximum circuit is to allow for the starting surge, which can be several times the running load, lasts only briefly and does not pose a significant threat of overheating the conductors. Thus, a heat pump is a specific situation where it is appropriate to use a larger OCPD (circuit breaker) than might ordinarily be used with a specific wire guage. But this isn't done by "guess and by golly"; it's based on the known faceplate ratings of the dedicated equipment. In the thread discussion above, you'll note that there was some variance of opinion. Because I couldn't locate info on the minimum circuit rating, I initially took the conservative tack of recommending #6. (Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think jmvd20 took a similarly "safe" route too.) At the very least, the OP would have a safe result that would be uncontroversial in the view of any inspector. Ron, on the other hand, being more familiar with the particular type of equipment, was certain enough that the MCA was low enough to be fed by #8CU under these environmental circumstances. After some discussion about that, I'm inclined to agree with him although, as someone who doesn't deal with this equipment frequently, I'd tend verify the manufacturer's specs (which were not available online) before opting in that direction. But I'd add that Ron's interpretation also satisfied my "common sense" test based on a rough guestimate of the approximate wattage consumed by a 5hp motor. Thus, it isn't at all certain that #6CU is required. I believe the consensus is that #8AWG/CU is adequate. "To allow for both voltage drop and terminal size problems that the larger diameter #2 aluminum would cause, per my bad experience!? With the entier distance in conduit as you all are "by the bookers", Right? In making our recommendations, both Ron and I (and perhaps others) considered voltage drop at the 200' distance. Using 35 amps as the estimated running load, here are my calculations: A 200' run of #8CU in conduit, delivering 35A at 240V yields a voltage drop of 4.9%, which is under the usual target of 5% (i.e., it's borderline, as I said, but acceptable). At 50A, the drop is about 6.5%--a drop that most motors can tolerate quite readily. Under the same assumptions, if we use aluminum wire instead of copper, it will need to be upsized to #6 in order to meet ampacity requirements. Again at 200', the voltage drop calculations for #6 aluminum are very close to those for #8 copper (4.7% @ 35A and 6.8% @ 50A). Any way you look at it, #2AL is way, way overkill for the OP's application. And that's why I called you on the statement that you used a chart that equated #2AL with #6CU due to the distance. That doesn't make sense to me and I'd love to see that chart. Now, if it was the only underground-rated AL wire that happened to be available from your supplier, then fine, just say so. Now here's what strikes me as particularly ironic: While you take issue with "going by the book" because, you contend, the book is mostly overkill, it was going by the book--strictly--that led the cost-saving recommendation to use a smaller and less expensive wire guage! OK, sorry, enough of that. 1. As I have stated in both previous thread entries. "I would NOT have attempted the project if I thought it was dangerous to anyone's safety"! So you all are saying that you "always" complete your "own" projects per the "letter" of the law and not the "spirit" of it. Meaning, on your own land when you know that if you where to deviate from the law/code, the chances of the "risk" taken is a billion to one shot of going wrong that you would still ALWAYS go by the letter of the law? In my opinion, The code is an "overkill" guide so that people that have very little common sense will not get themselves or others injured or killed. Agreed? No, not agreed. In fact, the less you know, the less capable you are of assessing the risks and, therefore, there's all the more reason to adhere to code strictly. Personally, I'll admit to doing some pretty half-a$$ed things in the past but, honestly, the older I get (I'm 62 now), and the more I learn, the more I do, in fact, "complete [my] 'own' projects per the 'letter' of the law." As for the code being "an 'overkill' guide so that people that have very little common sense will not get themselves or others injured or killed", I agree only to the extent that there are certain safety margins built in, much like there is a over-design requirement when engineering a bridge. And I'd also agree that a few of the requirements seem like unnecessary nuisance and expense--child proofing all the receptacles in an adult-only home comes to mind. But even there, standard requirements contemplate not only your personal requirements and tolerance for risk, but those who may occupy the premises at a later time. As the code evolves, with new editions coming out every three years, a great many of the new requirements are based on actual documented experience. That is, there is statistical evidence of a problem that caused actual fires, actual injuries and actual deaths. Since there are only about 300 million people in the U.S., these problems are not in the order of one in a billion or they would not have statistical support. 3. The thick plastic around the wire & plastic conduit for that matter becomes very brittle and is degraded very quickly from the sun / UV rays, due to the 100 plus degree temps in summer and 320 days of sun a year. SO the best place for the wire IS underground. And metal conduit would just melt any plastic sheathing on wire from the suns heat. No one here disputes that the OP's proposal to run the conduit underground is a good idea and I certainly didn't hear anyone suggest metal conduit. Interestingly, if you familiarize yourself with the code, you'll discover that all these factors are well-accounted for. Ambient temperature, for example, is a definite factor in selecting cables and wires. So, too, is sun exposure. Where conditions fall outside normal expected ranges, there are wire types and methods specifically designed for such conditions. BTW, if you post for advice here, make sure to mention that your project is in the desert where the temperatures and light exposure are very high and you'll get competent advice for those conditions. In sum, there is no real reason to "choose the 'illegal' way." Jes my 2c and a "good day" to you too, sir.

I'm replacing the pool motor, and never wired up the 2 speed aspect of my motor, which I now intend to do oen way or the other. So, I have the following, hopefully, simple questions: 1. Since this Emerson motor EB-982 is designed to have one of the Line voltage 220s, L1, on EITHER the high speed, OR the low speed lugs in the motor, I'm assuming that: a. you can't connect that L1 220 line to BOTH high and low lugs at the same time -- right? b. You CAN, while the motor is spinning in one of the two speeds, SWITCH the L1 from low to high, or high to low, without stopping the motor, using some switch/ relay c. I cannot leave power applied to the L2 side of the motor if L1 is not connected to the high or low speed lugs On the timeer, I wanted to see if I could use what I have, and add as little hardware as possible. Unfortunately, Intermatic 104s don't come with a complete schematic for us electronics guys. What I couldn't find on anyone's site, or on the company's website, how ALL the switches are wired to the lugs! For instance, Lug "A" --- WHAT is IT wired to?? the only reference I find is this: " "277/480 VOLT CONNECT MOTOR LEADS TO TERMINALS "A" AND 1 AND SUPPLY NEUTRAL TO TERMINAL "A" " I know how the other lugs are wired to which switches, because it is shown. But some parts of many devices must be deemed to be "common knowledge" to electricians, NOT showing how some parts are wired into the whole system, leaving us electronics guys that can fix TVs and computer, totally in the dark!! Anyway, ignore my rant, but this one bugs me --- I know I can either take it apart or test it with an ohm meter to figure it out. But it sure seems that it should be clear what that lug goes to. I'd hate to guess and be wrong about what it does go to. Here is a link that might be useful: Intermatic 104 wiring diagram

What should I look for to find info on 'heat pump mini split'? Any particular brands of other considerations? My walls are 74" high. I will be hanging ceiling joists on top of the cap rails at 16" oc and covering top with plywood or osb for loft storage. That will probably only be about 4' deep on each side of the building leaving me with 8' of overhead to play with. I don't really want to wack my head on lights, so I can embed them between ceiling joists or recess them or whatever. I don't want to have any question about seeing anything, or safety. So I will not skimp on them. However, I don't want to go overboard cost-wise. So I would like good bang-for-the-buck... Where possible, I will do my best to comply with NEC2011 above and beyond my inspector's requirements. I don't see anything they are requiring that is above what is in NEC so far. Now that once again the idea of home runs to each outlet has been raised, what does that suggest about the size of panel I need? In theory, I could put a box (4 gang?) every 16" with a single 250 outlet above it or perhaps 6 gang and have them all together. So I could have 4 120's plus 1 240 every 16". But wait there's more! Initially I wanted to have knee level outlets as well as counter top level outlets, and what the hell, how about a ceiling one as well. That would come to 12 120 outlets and 3 240 outlets every 16 inches (with the exception of the wall with the double door and where the single door is (and the windows, would not really have a counter top level position. That would add up to a severely ridiculous number of outlets, and if they were all home runs, I thing would require a panel the whole size of one of the walls. That said, 'you can never have too many' is probably incorrect, though idealistically I can agree. Realistically, I need to come up with a reasonable number somewhat less than that. :) It seems reasonable that I can get a panel that has 22 slots. I assume that gives me up to 44 circuits on 120 tandems, or up to 11 240 circuits, or more likely some combination thereof. because I am a cheap b*d, and I had to yank 2 perfectly fine 15 amp cutler hammer breakers to put in a tandem so that I could even fit a 100 amp breaker in the house panel, I will be purchasing a cutler hammer panel, and using those 2 15 amp breakers. I assume they would be fine to run lights and perhaps a smoke/fire alarm. I think I would have to be running a bunch of 500 watt halogen work lights to toss the breakers on that, and I don't really intend on running halogens in there anyway. I will wire the runs with 12/2 or 12/3 anyway, so when those breakers do give up the ghost I will not feel bad replacing them with 20's... just because. That does away with 2 slots leaving me with 20. If I put in 6 240 circuits that would leave me 8 slots and I could tandem them to 16 120 circuits. Obviously, I could have multiple outlets still on such a layout, but I obviously could not use them all simultaneously without going over the 100 amps. But, let's see where I can go with this. If I go to 4 gang plus 1 per placement that would give me 4 circuits per box duplicated above and below and on the ceiling and same for the opposite side of the room. This could be repeated 4 times down the length of the building giving me a plug point every 32" that will give me a choice of 4 different circuits or a 240, with the understanding that so long as nothing else is plugged along that 'longitude' it will not share the same circuit. This also leaves me with 2 additional placements of 240's that perhaps could be reserved for special purpose things, such as a welder, or climate control unit or something of that ilk. That is not counting the GFCI, but that is a detail. So we are talking about 48 split duplex 20 amp outlets, and at least 12 20 amp 240 outlets and perhaps a 30 or 50 for good measure. That is the closest I can get to overkill and still feel like I am describing a somewhat sane layout. Still, it seems almost double what I will more likely do. I assume there is a limit to the number of wires that I can fit through a hole in a 2x4, and again, if I am using 4 gang boxes to put 4 separate circuits in each one, I am not sure I have the confidence that I can fit all the pigtails and wire nuts inside the boxes and still have room for the outlets themselves. Is there a tool for planing the layouts/runs online or on the computer other than just pencil and paper? Am I just getting silly, or would someone actually wire a shop like this?

Jadriance, We have wired set ups like this before, and some of them were Bryants requiring (2) circuits going to the interior furnace/air handler unit. The box on the furnace was not a sub-panel and it was not intended for only one circuit to be split inside of it. The reason for different circuits from the panel is that one circuit (the 20 amp you mention) is used for the controls only and the other (60 amp as mentioned) is simply a back up heater in case the heat pump cannot keep up with the heating demand. To directly answer your question here is what I would recommend you do: Run your feeders from your main panel to a junction box on the wall, this way you can use NM cable to that point. Install flexible conduit from the wall junction to the furnace and route THHN feeders from the wall junction through the single flex conduit and into the furnace. Most of the units I have seen like this have a large enough knock-out to accomodate the required wiring. The exact number of conductors and size of them would depend upon how far the run is from the main panel and the exact requirements from the manufacturer. As a side note I am really not sure what all the fuss is about. This seems to be a pretty cut and dry issue to me.