Does anybody know....
IF Porcelain lampholders WITH receptacle are not in compliance with the NEC??
IF they are 'non-code' now, WHEN was the prohibition?? (Code cycle please)
John
I'd have to say that if said lamp holder/ pullchain/ receptacle is UL listed there is no NEC violation.
Now I'll step aside and let the really knowledgable people take a crack at it.
I don't think that there is a direct NEC rule against them- but you can be 'tiptoeing through a minefield' with them.
Like... does the ground pin do anything? Stick one on an old K&T box, and there still is no ground.
Basements and such will still require it to be on a GFCI.
Some places actually require receptacles to be on different circuits from lights, so that might be an issue.
As for attics, where the same fixture will both provide light AND power for servicing equipment ... meeting two code requirements with one device ... well, some AHJ's might thing that's a bit TOO clever.
I'd say if it's a 2-prong, no, but if it's a 3-prong, it's OK. The problem is that if it's accessible, you can't have a bare bulb, but if it's inaccessible to protect the bulb, it's not much use for the plugs. Also, cords shouldn't be in close proximity to the bulb. So even though the fixture itself might be OK, it would be hard to find a legal application...
If they're not illegal, they should be! I put one in my attic, though. Right above the access hole, so you can reach up and pull the cord. I know, I'm a bad boy, but it's too convenient not to!
[This message has been edited by SteveFehr (edited 11-30-2006).]
Gentlemen:
We are/were having a debate (AHJ's) regarding this item.
One AHJ seems to remember an NEC prohibition (my word) on the recept/lampholder "a while back"
Locally, the consensus is "yea", but no one can pin an NEC year on the supposed change.
I agree, two prong, no; gfi'd ???, and a gray area in an attic as the service outlet and light. Cord on the bulb envelope?? Hey, it's UL; as to the validity of the ground pin?? the tester knows!
John
As we all know, the NEC bans 'keyless' lampholders in clothes closets.
I suspect that, prior to the code actually making that change, some mis-information circulated in the code seminars as to "upcoming changes."
This would not be the first time folks "though" the code said something that it did not. For example, I once encountered some folks who just "knew" that Flammables Storage cabinets "had" to be yellow!
That's why ... whatever your own opinion may be ... code doesn't say it unless you can cite it.
Indeed - and I know this is not often the case - every inspector ought to be able to cite his authorities EVERY time, and refrain from 'shooting from the hip.'
Reno-
Maybe start a movement to have inspectors carry codebooks in their vehicle while inspecting?
Wouldn't leave home without my code book. I also would not talk about a violation I couldn't cite and explain. That is what made the inspector job interesting.
When I read the comment in the handbook it appears they are saying you can't install a screw shell lamp holder with the intent of using a 2-15 adapter in it. I don't see anywhere where it says you can't have a receptacle and a screw shell in the same device.
The real question might be how can U/L list the screw shell to receptacle devices in light of 410.47
OK, based on the above comments, and that the device is mfg, and it has a UL label, and there is NO NEC Article prohibiting use, it's acceptable.
OK, no winners in our local debate; no one can put a Code cycle on the 'supposed' outlawing.
John
Thanks to all!
Just because something is listed doesn't make it legal.
The current wording in 410.47 is in my 1950 NEC but, the next earlier one I have, 1940 list the different sizes of standard lamp bases. Some time during that ten years the Code changed. (As did much of the World)
Not many places where the combination could be used unless it is on a GFI circuit.
Alan--
OK, 410.47 is again noted, but not the question.
Ryan, yes, we all agree, listing does not make it "legal".
I'm refering to the porcelain lampholder, with the 3 prong recept 'built in'.
John
Ryan What you are really saying is just because something is listed doesn't mean it is "approved".