ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals

>> Home   >> Electrical-Photos   >> Classifieds   >> Subscribe to Newsletter   >> Store  
 

Advertisement:-Left
Recent Gallery Topics:
What in Tarnation?
What in Tarnation?
by timmp, September 10
Plumber meets Electrician
Plumber meets Electrician
by timmp, September 10
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 169 guests, and 12 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#165614 07/01/07 05:04 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,476
Likes: 3
Cat Servant
Member
210.63 requires an accessible receptacle for servicing HVAC equipment.
210.70(A)(3) and 210.70(C) require a light for servicing the equipment.

Does the use of a 'keyless' lampholder, with a receptacle in the base, fulfill both of these requirements?

[Linked Image]

Horizontal Ad
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 141
L
Member
I think it meets code but I still don't like it, Ive seen too many of them mangled and pulling away from the box which could be solved by installing properly. Id rather see a duplex receptacle.

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 939
F
Member
that kind of switch i am not too conftable with it but i know it do meet the code but really IMO it should have real duplex repectale with GFCI that is more safer and also with the lumiaiare i think it will be more even safer have the lumiaire enclosed instead of bare bulb there in case some hit it by accident and light go out.

Merci, Marc


Pas de problme,il marche n'est-ce pas?"(No problem, it works doesn't it?)

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 946
Likes: 4
N
Member
If it has a pull chain, it not a keyless then.... grin )

Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 50
H
Member
I would say it TECHNICALLY meets requirements, but I don't like it.

I see three problems:
One, the bulb is not protected from breakage.
Second, the socket on those dinky things are sometimes not rated for even 15A.... 660W is common.
Last but not least: GFCI would have to be provided by an expensive breaker.

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 946
Likes: 4
N
Member
Originally Posted by hardwareguy
I would say it TECHNICALLY meets requirements, but I don't like it.

I see three problems:
One, the bulb is not protected from breakage.
Second, the socket on those dinky things are sometimes not rated for even 15A.... 660W is common.
Last but not least: GFCI would have to be provided by an expensive breaker.



Since when are attics required to have GFCI protection?

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 152
A
Member
Requirements have been met, yes

Horizontal Ad
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 7,520
P
Member
At least it appears that somebody shortened the chain. I wouldn't want to have the full chain dangling down right in front of an open disconnect.

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,476
Likes: 3
Cat Servant
Member
Hardwareguy, I believe that UL would test that receptacle to the same standard as any other receptacle ... which is not the same thing as using a screw-in adapter to the light socket.
IF such an adapter were used ... I think your point about the 600 watt limit would be on target, ant the receptacle would not qualify.

Paul - Sharp eye! Actually, over here the fixtures come with a short chain (as seen in the pic), and a simple string that attaches to the chain if you want a longer tail.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 821
S
Member
Yes, this installation meets the requirements of 210.63 and 210.70(A)(3). The pullchain w/ grounded receptacle is a quick and easy way to meet code. You're in, you're out, especially when that attic is HOT!!

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Featured:

 Electrical
 Clearance

 *
 Tools
 *

 Books

 *

 Test Equipment

 

Advertisement:-Right
Member Spotlight
noderaser
noderaser
Portland, Oregon, United States
Posts: 404
Joined: March 2007
Top Posters(30 Days)
davey 1
dsk 1
Popular Topics(Views)
554,541 Are you busy
428,778 Re: Forum
398,709 Need opinion
New Page 2
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5