ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat Box
Recent Posts
New tool
by gfretwell - 10/22/20 12:08 PM
Where is Everyone?
by Bill Addiss - 10/17/20 07:04 PM
Beyond Belief
by gfretwell - 09/27/20 12:03 AM
Questioning the electrical norms
by LongRunner - 09/23/20 06:38 AM
New in the Gallery:
Facebook follies, bad wiring
FPE in Germany pt.2
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 18 guests, and 15 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 9 of 14 1 2 7 8 9 10 11 13 14
Re: Tamper resistant: 406.11 [Re: dougwells] #180154 08/15/08 12:31 AM
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 625
S
SolarPowered Offline
Member
My "when I was about 5 years old" story is that I got a blade of a pair of "safety" children's craft scissors across a plug that was plugged into an extension cord. I don't actually remember the event, but I remember my parents rushing into my room, greatly concerned (I think I must have blown a fuse), and I remember the black hole in the edge of my scissors forever after that.

I don't recall being injured, or even being aware that anything significant had happened.

I note that tamper-resistant receptacles would have made absolutely no difference.

2017 / 2014 NEC & Related Books and Study Guides
Re: Tamper resistant: 406.11 [Re: SolarPowered] #180155 08/15/08 12:38 AM
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,533
G
gfretwell Offline
Member
I had been bit a lot by the time I was 6 or 7 and I was allowed to wire anything I wanted on my Loinell transformer. By 8 they would let me wire up Christmas tree lamps and such and plug them in. I am not sure why my parents thought a C-7 was safer than a toaster.


Greg Fretwell
Re: Tamper resistant: 406.11 [Re: leland] #180405 08/24/08 06:53 PM
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 362
Obsaleet Offline
Member
Has anyone attempted use a wiggy or voltage tester on one of these things?

Not to change topic, but I understand that the NEC people put the verbage in for the AFC circuit breakers before the combo units have been designed. The combo units are supposed to work on the multi-wire circuits.

They keep making new codes and here in Pa we have no lisence requirments, would it not be safer to have a minimum standard for installers than make the codes and products restrictive. Just a thought.
We can then have anual electrical inspections, like car insections or physicals. I see $$$$$ and the state can collect some $$$ and the Township and then inspectors checking the repairs and while there, they can inforce all the other violations, like house #s to small, wrong kind of locks, extention cords, clearances, etc.

Ob


Choose your customers, don't let them choose you.
Re: Tamper resistant: 406.11 [Re: Obsaleet] #180464 08/26/08 09:28 PM
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 127
S
Sir Arcsalot Offline
Member
Though I'm not advocating it- I think one of the main reasons I respect electricity today is the fact I got bit several times as a kid. My dad never seemed to care at all if I was messin' around with line-voltage stuff... Can't figure it out but something just ain't quite right with that picture...

Following, is just my opinion.

I think the tamper-resistant receptacles are a good idea in child nurseries, et cetera where the little troglodytes can get into too much mischief, but they are NOT needed EVERYWHERE! If it were me I would exempt them where not readily accessible or greater than 32 inches AFF. Is the NEC now trying to protect people from themselves (much like modern highway transportation safety enhancements)?

Just my opinion and nothing more...


No wire bias here- I'm standing on neutral ground.
Re: Tamper resistant: 406.11 [Re: Sir Arcsalot] #181483 10/11/08 02:16 PM
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,233
H
harold endean Offline
Member
I agree with Air Arcsalot, but that is not what the 2008 NEC says. If you read it, I believe it means anywhere there is a required outlet, (as per 210.52) you would need a tamper proof receptacle. I think that is not a realistict requirement. Also since a lot of the people are becoming senior citizens, I think it might not help them. The TP receptacle that I saw, needed an extra push to get the plug in. I think that too many manufactures are sitting on the code making panels and they are pushing for their own products.

Re: Tamper resistant: 406.11 [Re: harold endean] #181488 10/11/08 02:54 PM
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,211
HotLine1 Offline
Member
Harold:
THe points made by Sir Arcsalot are basically what I heard when I gave the Article 400 section of the '08 Changes CEU. I have sample TR devices and I see no difference in the required effort to insert a male plug. (P&S brand) I have noticed that some 'resi-grade' devices going into developements are tough to get the 'bug-eye' tester into, and they are not TR. (Offshore products, no doubt).

This (TR) was a hot topic back in January, and it probably will be 'hot' again at the next CEU Changes course.

Hopefully, everyone here (NJ) will not be complaciant, and vent their opinions to DCA.




John
Re: Tamper resistant: 406.11 [Re: HotLine1] #181616 10/20/08 07:38 AM
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,233
H
harold endean Offline
Member
John,

I had the 11 hour course this weekend. I kept on Suzanne to not push for Arc Fault and TP recp. but she keeps saying that the NJ EC's have to write an E-mail to the state. I told several EC's but no one has been writing. They talked about the AF breaker and she said that if we have a multi branch circuit, then we don't have to use AF breakers because they don't have a Combo AF breaker out yet. SO all of the EC's at class stated that they will all run 3 wire branch circuits from now on. they said it would be cheaper to run the 14-3 and not use the red leg (Or just put 1-5 things on the red leg) than it would to use an AF breaker. Go figure!

Re: Tamper resistant: 406.11 [Re: harold endean] #181626 10/20/08 07:21 PM
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,211
HotLine1 Offline
Member
Harold:
I read what you posted above, and now I HAVE to read the AFCI article/requirements. I don't seem to remember an exception/exemption for MWBC in what I read....
Is that a Suzanne opinion? Or is it in fact in the 'good book'?



John
Re: Tamper resistant: 406.11 [Re: HotLine1] #181630 10/20/08 09:07 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,316
renosteinke Offline
Cat Servant
Member
I think ... and this is just a guess ... that some might be taking the approach of "there's no code compliant device available, so the rule ought not be enforced." There is some justice in theat argument.

The 2008 code also placed sundry restrictions on the use of MWBC's. It's almost as if they wanted to ban the practice - without saying so. If so, they are being dishonest .... and KNOW they've exceeded their mandate.

November is fast approaching. Get those proposals in!

Re: Tamper resistant: 406.11 [Re: renosteinke] #181652 10/21/08 05:20 PM
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,233
H
harold endean Offline
Member
John,

Suzanne just said, "There are no combo arc fault 2 pole breakers out right now" so therefore you can not meet the 2008 NEC requirement for AF breakers with MWBC's. So the guys in class all started to say that they would run the 3 wire circuit in order to get around that code section. The key was "COMBO AF breakers", the breakers that detect both series and parallel AF circuits.

Page 9 of 14 1 2 7 8 9 10 11 13 14

Featured:

2020 National Electrical Code
2020 National Electrical
Code (NEC)

* * * * * * *

2020 Master Electrician Exam Preparation Combos
2020 NEC Electrician
Exam Prep Combos:
Master / Journeyman

 

Member Spotlight
Trumpy
Trumpy
SI,New Zealand
Posts: 8,337
Joined: July 2002
Show All Member Profiles 
Top Posters(30 Days)
BigB 3
Popular Topics(Views)
270,730 Are you busy
204,963 Re: Forum
193,074 Need opinion
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3