OK, that's a bit extreme .... but think for a moment ... just how many of our new code requirements address risks introduced by previous requirements? Perhaps the best example is the AFCI, which was advertised to address the pinched cord from the receptacle that was behind the bed's headboard .... and that outlet's placement was directly caused by using the '6 ft. rule' as a design principle. We started the code saying 'this is not a design manual,' then a few pages later deliver a design rule on a silver platter.
well Reno, the point you raise could be viewed as the NEC being self correcting, which really is about as much so as any other faction of the market
Heat at the point where the plug enters the receptacle, or an apliance using too much power. Would these concerns not be more easily, and accurately, addressed by simply putting a fuse in the plug?
i would think addressing
point of use would be more efficent than relying on a devive that could be any given length away , especially if the problem
IS at the user end
even something as simple as the method of termination , which seems to be, by grace of our foriegn corespondends something less apreciable a design
wag the dog eh?
still, i'm interested in these aforementioned devices, do they exist? has a manufacturer actually produced and marketed them? what does UL say?, etc
~S~
