ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Increasing demand factors in residential
by gfretwell - 03/28/24 12:43 AM
Portable generator question
by Steve Miller - 03/19/24 08:50 PM
Do we need grounding?
by NORCAL - 03/19/24 05:11 PM
240V only in a home and NEC?
by dsk - 03/19/24 06:33 AM
Cordless Tools: The Obvious Question
by renosteinke - 03/14/24 08:05 PM
New in the Gallery:
This is a new one
This is a new one
by timmp, September 24
Few pics I found
Few pics I found
by timmp, August 15
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 260 guests, and 20 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#165614 07/01/07 06:04 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,445
Likes: 2
Cat Servant
Member
210.63 requires an accessible receptacle for servicing HVAC equipment.
210.70(A)(3) and 210.70(C) require a light for servicing the equipment.

Does the use of a 'keyless' lampholder, with a receptacle in the base, fulfill both of these requirements?

[Linked Image]

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 141
L
Member
I think it meets code but I still don't like it, Ive seen too many of them mangled and pulling away from the box which could be solved by installing properly. Id rather see a duplex receptacle.

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 939
F
Member
that kind of switch i am not too conftable with it but i know it do meet the code but really IMO it should have real duplex repectale with GFCI that is more safer and also with the lumiaiare i think it will be more even safer have the lumiaire enclosed instead of bare bulb there in case some hit it by accident and light go out.

Merci, Marc


Pas de problme,il marche n'est-ce pas?"(No problem, it works doesn't it?)

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 943
Likes: 2
N
Member
If it has a pull chain, it not a keyless then.... grin )

Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 50
H
Member
I would say it TECHNICALLY meets requirements, but I don't like it.

I see three problems:
One, the bulb is not protected from breakage.
Second, the socket on those dinky things are sometimes not rated for even 15A.... 660W is common.
Last but not least: GFCI would have to be provided by an expensive breaker.

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 943
Likes: 2
N
Member
Originally Posted by hardwareguy
I would say it TECHNICALLY meets requirements, but I don't like it.

I see three problems:
One, the bulb is not protected from breakage.
Second, the socket on those dinky things are sometimes not rated for even 15A.... 660W is common.
Last but not least: GFCI would have to be provided by an expensive breaker.



Since when are attics required to have GFCI protection?

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 152
A
Member
Requirements have been met, yes

Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 7,520
P
Member
At least it appears that somebody shortened the chain. I wouldn't want to have the full chain dangling down right in front of an open disconnect.

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,445
Likes: 2
Cat Servant
Member
Hardwareguy, I believe that UL would test that receptacle to the same standard as any other receptacle ... which is not the same thing as using a screw-in adapter to the light socket.
IF such an adapter were used ... I think your point about the 600 watt limit would be on target, ant the receptacle would not qualify.

Paul - Sharp eye! Actually, over here the fixtures come with a short chain (as seen in the pic), and a simple string that attaches to the chain if you want a longer tail.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 821
S
Member
Yes, this installation meets the requirements of 210.63 and 210.70(A)(3). The pullchain w/ grounded receptacle is a quick and easy way to meet code. You're in, you're out, especially when that attic is HOT!!

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5