ECN Forum Forums General Topics of the Trade General Discussion Area 240v 50a convience outlets

The exception was to cover this exact situation, except that it is for circuits OVER 50 amperes, and in industrial occupancies. There is nothing wrong with using a portable welder at more than one location on the premises, all location receptacles fed by a single circuit.
Creighton.

Welcome Creighton: That's exactly what I meant by referencing the exception in the first reply to this message above.

Thanks for your reply.

Joe

[This message has been edited by Joe Tedesco (edited 05-20-2002).]

Welcome Creighton.
I guess we are befuddled by code verbage once again here, have you ever written anything on the topic?

The original post by joeh20 specified 50 amp circuit (outlets), not greater than 50 amp as the exception indicates.

Aside from the Code issue, I would think it would be more economical to put in only one 50 amp receptacle and buy a long cord, and drape it around the wall on nails or some other better hanger.

We must take into consideration - where branch circuits with multi-outlet receptacles are used the next larger O/C protection cannot be used. This may affect the installation design.

Creighton Schwan?

If so, would you please recount your recent editorial(including Code references) in EC Magazine which addressed why replacement of non-grounding receptacles with GFCI types is unacceptable in situations where the equipment is required to be grounded. I have misplaced the issue and think it is a good point of interest.

Thank you, and I look forward to your ongoing participation.

We seem to have drifted from the original post, but as requested: In the Feb. 2002 issue of Electrical Contraactor my Code Comments pointed out that although 406.2(D)(3)(b) permits replacing a 2-wire receptacle with a GFCI receptacle, it has three good reasons against it: 1. In 250.114(3) there are listed several applicances which must be grounded. These could not be served from this ungrounded GFCI receptacle, but the homeowner doesn't know this. 2. Th required marking "No Equipment Groound" would be meaningless to most homeowners. 3. The presence of the grounding opening would lead most of us into believeing that the receptcle provides a grounding means.

Still legal, but bad code in my opinion.

Creighton.

Thank you. It is a useful point of view.

In case there are one or two readers that live under rocks and haven't been out in a while, Creighton has a monthly article in the NECA magazine.

Go to http://www.ecmag.com/backsearch/ and type "Schwan" in the first field. It returned 41 hits today.

Creighton, it is an honor to have you offering advice here. {It’s safe to say Creighton is considered by many to be a true Electrical Kingpin in Northern California.}