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 (), 255 guests, and 16 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 368
M
Member
The more I look at the original picture I wonder if the manufacture expects to have a gap between the box and fixture because of stucco, brick, etc that could be used to allow the wire to enter the box.

I know that the light fixture boxes on my house (built in 1950) are not flush with the finished stucco by maybe 3/16 of an inch. That would allow me to use this fixture and run the wire into the box without pinching the wire depending on how long the mounting screws are.

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: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,923
Likes: 32
G
Member
As an inspector I still have a problem with this because nothing says it won't be installed on a combustible wall, like T1-11 or clapboard. There is also no abrasion resistance guaranteed with conductors going over the edge of a box.

Both of these luminaires are very troubling to me.

I fired off a note to an engineer at U/L. Let's see what he says


Greg Fretwell
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 764
K
Member
I'm sort of wondering what the difference is between the design of this wall mount light fixture and any typical ceiling mount light fixture as far as obtaining a UL listing would be?
Aren't the wires from the bulb sockets on most standard round ceiling fixture laid in the void between the ceiling [which could be made from combustible material like wood] and the fixture canopy and then enter through the opening of the box as opposed to through a KO or connector?
With the fixture in question, as long as the splices themselves are contained within the box and you caulk or otherwise seal around the base of the fixture to provide a weatherproof seal, don't you now have a fixture suitable for a damp location?
Generally even the instructions for listed wet location boxes state that appropriate sealing must be provided by the installer to obtain the damp or wet location rating. I guess it's up to the installer to determine the type or method of seal to be used.

Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,923
Likes: 32
G
Member
I wonder how this would comply with 314.25(B)

Quote
(B) Exposed Combustible Wall or Ceiling Finish. Where a luminaire canopy or pan is used, any combustible wall or ceiling finish exposed between the edge of the canopy or pan and the outlet box shall be covered with noncombustible material.


Greg Fretwell
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,445
Likes: 2
Cat Servant
Member
KJay, at the risk of beating a dead horse ....

Most fixtures have a little bracket that bridges the gap between the back of the fixture and the attachment to the box. This, IMO, allows for both solid support and a reliable ground even when the box is somewhat recessed.

I'm comfortable with that arrangement.

I'm not comfortable with any arrangement where the rear pan of the fixture is deformed as you tighten down the mounting screws, in effect acting like a lock washer over the gap.

That's what you have if my fixture is installed on a flat wall; you have a 3/8" (or is it 1/2") gap between the back of the fixture and the wall. You'd have the fixture secured in place only by the tension of that back pan; the screws will never be 'tight.'

The alternative is to have the pan tight to the box - which raises the question of how the wires will enter the box.

Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,923
Likes: 32
G
Member
In a canopy fixture, the canopy is always spaced away from the box, held by the spring tension of the canopy. That is why they come with long screws.


Greg Fretwell
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 764
K
Member
Greg, I'm wondering if technically it wouldn't have to comply. My only guess would be that 314.25 refers specifically to covers and canopies, so don't know if the back plate of a wall mount fixture would actually be considered a canopy or cover in itself. I don't think I've ever even seen a listed wall mount fixture for any type of location with the factory installed non-combustible insulation like you see on ceiling mount fixtures that have an actual canopy per say.

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 764
K
Member
Reno, obviously I don't have the answer, but without seeing the installation instructions, I think maybe the presence of the recessed lip around the perimeter of the fixture indicates that the manufacturer intended the fixture be installed with the space available for the wiring. Although, I'm thinking a similar comparison might be when we tighten down the screws of a ceiling fixture where there is normally a gap between the actual strap and the canopy, if the screws are tightened excessively, the canopy could also possible bow or distort and damage the wiring in that scenario as well.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the design, but it just seems pretty standard arrangement as far as wall mount fixtures go.

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,445
Likes: 2
Cat Servant
Member
The irony is that the fixture that started this thread would never be questioned by an inspector, no matter what horrors lay behind the backplate.

My 'temporary' room lights, though, would cause a massive attack of the vapors among the HI crowd, as they're not 'listed luminaire assemblies.' Likewise, the same folks who object to shop-made extension cords ("the boxes were never evaluated for this use") would get all upset. Yet, I'd rather have one of my 'unlisted horrors' on my porch, than use the listed product that I started the thread with:

[Linked Image from i143.photobucket.com]

Yea, I'm missing the cage, too laugh

And, no, the CFL doesn't count towards 'energy code' compliance laugh

Last edited by renosteinke; 09/22/12 03:07 PM.
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,923
Likes: 32
G
Member
The only problem I could possibly see with your light is if the other end was hard wired. (Cords as building wiring). If it is C&P you might get an argument that the assembly was not listed for C&P but not from me. BTW extra credit for a real cord connector and not a romex connector. wink

Actually for a similar use (attic lights) I am using jelly jars. At first mine were C&P too but when I was up there doing some other wiring I went ahead and ran Romex. That does give you some protection from damage to the bulb and from burning yourself but the CFL conversion mitigated that.
I doubt a jelly jar is much more than the lamp holder you have.

BTW a Home Inspector had no problem with this closet light

[Linked Image from gfretwell.com]


Greg Fretwell
Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

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