ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Safety at heights?
by gfretwell - 04/22/24 10:36 AM
Old low volt E10 sockets - supplier or alternative
by gfretwell - 04/21/24 11:20 AM
Do we need grounding?
by gfretwell - 04/06/24 08:32 PM
UL 508A SPACING
by tortuga - 03/30/24 07:39 PM
Increasing demand factors in residential
by tortuga - 03/28/24 05:57 PM
New in the Gallery:
This is a new one
This is a new one
by timmp, September 24
Few pics I found
Few pics I found
by timmp, August 15
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 211 guests, and 10 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 853
L
Member
- I still can't find that only 1/2 of a general purpose lighting rec has to be switched.-

1) receptacles in a dinning room Shall be A SABC, no rule that ckt has to be Extended from anywhere.
2) This would meet all spacing requirements for the dinning area (IMO) Providing The said receptacles are AFCI protected.

Now we move along. We install a switched chandalier and a few other general purpose receptacles.

All requirements have been met.
KJay, I agree, there is nothing from stopping anyone from plugging in that fonduu (spell? I just eat it :)) dish or hot plate into the GP receptacle. But thats not "Our" worry.

Last edited by leland; 01/13/09 12:38 AM. Reason: AFCI,(HEE-HEE-HEE
Stay up to Code with the Latest NEC:


>> 2023 NEC & Related Reference & Exam Prep
2023 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides

Pass Your Exam the FIRST TIME with the Latest NEC & Exam Prep

>> 2020 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides
 

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 764
K
KJay Offline OP
Member
I'm assuming that since a single receptacle is all that would actually required, that this is generally why we can use a duplex receptacle to do double duty like this.
The beginning of 210.52 says, "the receptacles required in this section shall be in addition to any receptacle that is"... [2] Controlled by a wall switch.

Anyway, my purpose was mainly just to confirm as to whether or not my suspicion was correct, that being, although this would be a poor arrangement, it could actually be considered as a code compliant installation.
I think the whole matter could have easily been clarified with minimal effort in 210.52[B],1, Exception, by just adding something as simple as... "Receptacles installed using this exception shall not be considered as meeting the requirements of 210.51[A],1".

TKX

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,445
Likes: 3
Cat Servant
Member
The code requires at least one lighting outlet - in addition to a separate requirement for a receptacle every 12 ft. along the walls. There's the key: in addition.

Now, a duplex receptacle is just that: two receptacles. If the code requires one every 12 ft., and we install a duplex, then the other half of that duplex can be used to meet the additional requirement for a lighting outlet.

Hair splitting? Perhaps ... but that's a natural result of trying to meet "minimum" requirements.

Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 853
L
Member
I Have seen the light. smile

Thanx!

Page 2 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5