ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Increasing demand factors in residential
by tortuga - 03/28/24 05:57 PM
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 19 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 14 of 14 1 2 12 13 14
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 337
S
Member
"Every config of device is available in TR, and WR, including GFI's" is correct. But, not in every grade (the WR rating is hard to find in the higher grade devices with TR). At least that is my experience and may have changed lately.

Stay up to Code with the Latest NEC:


>> 2023 NEC & Related Reference & Exam Prep
2023 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides

Pass Your Exam the FIRST TIME with the Latest NEC & Exam Prep

>> 2020 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides
 

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,445
Likes: 2
Cat Servant
Member
FWIW, I did propose that the TR requirement be dropped because of the difficulty this presents to someone testing a receptacle with their meter probes.

The committee did not consider that to be an issue, and rejected the proposal.

As for the "WR" requirement, one might, just maybe, argue that there has always been a requirement that devices be appropriate for their environment, and more corrosion-resistant devices have been available for some time. There have been industry-standard exposure tests for at least 50 years.

Of course, things are never that simple. The first question is: how good is good enough? Do we want the device to last 100 years or 1? I've replaced falling-apart economy devices that had managed to hold together for 25 years; I can't really fault the device after all that time. So deciding where the $20 devices were to be used has been a judgement call, usually reserved for industrial settings. The code change removes some of the discretion from the matter. To be fair, the devices are now (amazingly) available for a much more reasonable price.

The other matter is: How can you tell a corrosion-resistant device from an ordinary one? Well, that's what the marking is for.

Is "WR" the same as what was marketed as 'corrosion resistant?" I don't know; it's possible that there is a less demanding test. It should also be noted that the $20 devices were only a bit more expensive than the 'non rated' spec-grade devices they were based upon. The new "WR" devices are most certainly not spec-grade! Indeed, the industrial devices are NOT marked, and would not meet the code requirement - regardless that they are certainly up to the task.

Going back to the "TR" devices, the same issue applies. All previous tamper-resistant devices are meaningless without that "TR" marking. It matters not that you can actually see the protective mechanism.

Manufacturer driven? Inspector driven? More critical to me is that these requirements are another example of the code changing path. No longer does the code tell you WHAT you must accomplish; it tries to specify HOW the job will be done.

Such a trend really bothers me. That approach turns our entire context inside-out; the code will necessairily expand from one big book to something akin to the tax code, and (like the tax code) be chock full of confusing, contradictory requirements. Instead of order, chaos will result.

A certain road, paved with good intentions, comes to mind.

Joined: May 2005
Posts: 984
Likes: 1
G
Member
Reno, if you want an example of the "how...not what" philosophy of Code writing, pick up a copy of the Chicago Electrical Code.

Article 700/701/702 not only tells you what Emergency power to use, but exactly how to do it...down to telling you what points to connect to for your power.

Usually that does nothing for safety and reliability, but it sure runs the price up on every job.


Ghost307
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,381
Likes: 7
Member
Reno:

FWIW, talking to a mfg rep, the 'WR' designation refers to the 'plastic' that the device is made from. I don't know the tech features or descriptions, but the 'plastic' is supposed to be basically UV resistant.

Keep in mind I'm not a chemist,only a sparky & inspector, and this is what I was told.

The GFI protected, TR-WR receptacle living within the 'bubble cover'; how much more can we protect it.


John
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,923
Likes: 32
G
Member
If you really want to protect the receptacle, chuck that bubble cover when it breaks and put a set of snap covers on it.
I think the NFPA took a giant step backward when they removed the "unattended" language from this rule. Bubble make sense if you are plugging in a landscape timer or something else that will stay there but the convenience outlets around the house are darned inconvenient when there is a huge wasp nest in there. (dirt daubbers laying eggs in the ground pin hole etc) They also do a lousy job of keeping driving rain out. That is probably why they had to come out with the WR receptacle.


Greg Fretwell
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,445
Likes: 2
Cat Servant
Member
Sure, Greg ... let's go off an a tangent, and open another can of worms laugh

I think the 'bubble mania' was the first foray the NFPA took into design issues - and it's too bad it wasn't stopped right there.

John, I hope the rep was wrong. I've never had a device fail because of sunlight harming the plastic; I've had plenty corrode into a mush of electric rust, though. If these new ones continue to corrode their mounting screws to the Bell boxes, I have to wonder if we've improved anything at all.

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,381
Likes: 7
Member
Reno:
I doubt that WR will help the internal corrosion, but...after the upcoming holiday I'll reach out for the rep & see what he knows.

THe screws & the bell boxes is another can of worms. Heck, I used to figure a box replacement when it was an os receptacle, back in the days of flip covers.



John
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,923
Likes: 32
G
Member
This is related to the "screws" thread but I won't use anything but stainless screws on outside boxes these days if I know I am the next guy who will have to get into them.


Greg Fretwell
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,233
H
Member
John,

Did you see the new Code Communicator(CC)? There is a story in there about the Rehab Code. Now a friend of mine who sits on the IAEI in North NJ talked to Suzanne. There is a mistake with the article. Suzanne was out of state when the CC was published. Now if we read the CC and go by what Suz B. says, we are all in a mixed up state. smile We will not be sure which code to follow the '08 for new and the '05 for rehab or maybe the '08 for rehab? I have a call in for Ms. Suz B. Let see what she has to say.

Happy New Year to all out there! Let's all hope for a Happy and Healthy one!

Page 14 of 14 1 2 12 13 14

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