Probably yes, with Method C and a B16. However, I have to ask again (and even though it was compliant with 433.1.1) are you suggesting that we should do it despite the fact that most people would regard is as "fairly obvious" that the intent of the regs was to forbid it?
Absolutely.
As I've said, it makes absolutely no sense to me. I just can't think of any sensible reason why they should want to single out "lighting circuits" (even if they managed to define them properly) to be allowed to have smaller cable than any other type of circuit (given there is already a requirement for any cable, in any circuit, to satisfy 433.1.1 {or 433.1.204}).
You tell me. As we are agreed, the absence of a definition of a "lighting circuit" means that any number of interpretations are possible - and, even with a definition, I still don't see why they would want to single out a 'lighting circuit' (however defined) to be allowed smaller cable than any other type of circuit!
Although...
Quite so - that's essentially what I've been saying. However, as I've also been saying, I think I would have to 'give up' if I were asked to suggest the probable reason for that intent!...I think I'd be able to have a good guess at the intent of Table 52.3 were I answering a question in a 2382 exam.
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
