Receptacle screw in adapter in light socket Legal?

[kwired]

Legal and code compliant are different.

I say no you can not use them.

406.4 General Installation Requirements.

Violate at least (A) (B) (C).

:thumbsup:

Receptacle. A receptacle is a contact device installed at the
outlet for the connection of an attachment plug. A single
receptacle is a single contact device with no other contact
device on the same yoke. A multiple receptacle is two or
more contact devices on the same yoke.

Call it an adapter or call it whatever it meets the definition of a receptacle to me.

If you are using the adapter in place of a required outlet I think you have a good point. Otherwise the adapter isn't exactly premises wiring methods any more than an extension cord is. If these are so taboo why are they even manufactured? If they are listed they must have some intended purpose included with the listing.

 

[K8MHZ]

406.9 Receptacles in Damp or Wet Locations.

Help me I am missing your point.

In the 2008 NEC, 406.8 is for damp or wet locations. 406.9 is Grounding-Type Receptacles, Adapters, Cord Connectors and Attachment Plugs.

The NEC does not require adapters to be of the grounding type. If the ARE of the grounding type, they must be grounded on the proper terminal.

 

[iwire]

In my opinion an NEC violation to use a lamp holder to supply a receptacle.

VIII. Installation of Lampholders
410.90 Screw Shell Type. Lampholders of the screw shell
type shall be installed for use as lampholders only. Where
supplied by a circuit having a grounded conductor, the
grounded conductor shall be connected to the screw shell.

I will also point out that most lamp holders have low ratings, under 600 watts and have 16 or 18 AWG leads on them.

Not a good situation if you start drawing 10-15 amps on them.


As far as the 'not installed argument' I don't buy it.

 

[K8MHZ]

In my opinion an NEC violation to use a lamp holder to supply a receptacle.




I will also point out that most lamp holders have low ratings, under 600 watts and have 16 or 18 AWG leads on them.

Not a good situation if you start drawing 10-15 amps on them.


As far as the 'not installed argument' I don't buy it.

You do have a good point and illustrate a common sense reason not to use the adapters. However, from an NEC point of view, I am curious....


Is there a difference between 'shall be installed only for use as a lampholder' and 'shall only be used as a lampholder'? I say yes, there is. The former is a part of the NEC, the latter is not.

What's the difference between an adaptor allowing 15 amps on a 16 or 18 ga. lamp lead and an extension cord end allowing for 15 amps on a 16 or 18 ga. extension cord? The adapters I have seen are marked as for their limitations. They also have a UL logo on them.

Here is a pic. It's hard to see the print on the top, but it indicates a 550 watt maximum.

Now, while I cringe at the thought of John Q. Public using these, I don't see the NEC prohibiting it any more than I see the NEC prohibiting an 18 ga. extension cord to be plugged into a 15 amp receptacle.

Plus, I use them too. They are handy and if used properly, like a thin extension cord, safe.

 

[K8MHZ]

Oh,

I forgot to mention the adapters are called 'pig nosed adapters'.

 

[PetrosA]

My question would be, are the screw-in adapters like the one pictured above even rated for lampholder use? I know of a few houses here that still have Edison receptacles in them, hot and working, where one of these would make perfect sense. In a true, original Edison receptacle, the socket would be fed with 14 AWG and is probably rated for 10 or 15 A @ 110-115V.

 

[jxofaltrds]

In my opinion an NEC violation to use a lamp holder to supply a receptacle.




I will also point out that most lamp holders have low ratings, under 600 watts and have 16 or 18 AWG leads on them.

Not a good situation if you start drawing 10-15 amps on them.


As far as the 'not installed argument' I don't buy it.

Thank you for explaining it better.

 

[K8MHZ]

From the 2009 White Book

Lampholders, Adapters (OLDZ)

This category covers screw-shell lamp adapters. Included are male-to-female screw-shell adapters and screw-shell adapters provided with attachment plug blades or receptacles.

------

The rest is on page 251 if anyone wants to see the entire article.

 

[jxofaltrds]

From the 2009 White Book

Lampholders, Adapters (OLDZ)

This category covers screw-shell lamp adapters. Included are male-to-female screw-shell adapters and screw-shell adapters provided with attachment plug blades or receptacles.

------

The rest is on page 251 if anyone wants to see the entire article.

So what does it say?

 

[K8MHZ]

So what does it say?

I had to hand type all that. I don't have a way to cut and paste from a real book, but my point is, there ARE UL listed adapters and they are legal.

Here is what I found in the archives, on this very site. Bold added by me for emphasis. Please read it closely and all the way to the end.

(Lampholder outlet adapter)



Question: Why does Underwriters Laboratories ?List? lampholder outlet adapters (lamp-socket-to-receptacle)? I believe theses adapters are also used with track lighting systems. What Code rule prohibits the use of lampholder outlet adapters?



Mike Holt?s Comment:
Section 410-47 states that ?Lampholders of the screw-shell type shall be installed for use as lampholders only. Where supplied by a circuit having a grounded conductor, the grounded conductor shall be connected to the screw shell.?
UL Response:



UL does not ?List? track lighting receptacle adapters. You may have seen a device that looks similar to track lighting that is provided with receptacles. This was most likely a Non-Metallic Surface Extension (PZMX) or a Non-Metallic Extension Fitting (PYYZ), see page 66 and 67 of the 1999 White Book. These devices are intended for installation in accordance with NEC Article 342 Nonmetallic Extensions.



Regarding lampholder outlet adapters, as I'm sure you are aware these devices have been around for a long time, at least since the 1930's. The verbiage in the NEC in Section 410-47 has probably been around since the 1940's. We believe the intent of the Code requirement was that in the original installation of an electrical system, that a lampholder should only be installed as a lampholder. A lampholder with an outlet adapter installed ?should not? be considered as a required receptacle outlet to comply with Section 210-52.



This is somewhat of a gray area, because an adapter is an after market add-on and not addressed by the NEC. It seems these were originally developed to provide a means to tap electricity from a branch circuit in old occupancies before the NEC required receptacles in basements. There was a need a long time ago for these devices and apparently the need still exists in older occupancies.



The devices still serve a purpose to provide a means to tap a branch circuit in older occupancies where there is an unfinished basement or other unfinished area where receptacles are not provided. This would most likely be more convenient and less of a concern than routing extension cords through doorways, down stairs or all over the place to obtain electricity in those older houses.



In addition, it is a certainty that if UL chose not to List these devices, that manufacturers would continue to produce non-Listed devices, because there remains a use for these devices today. At least with a UL Listed adapter, UL requires that the products meet a level of performance that has shown that there should not be a problem with these devices. An un-listed device has not met any requirements.

To the best of my knowledge, as long as these devices have been around, there have been no field problems.



Tom Lichtenstein, Ext. 42160
Staff Engineer, Regulatory Services
Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
(847) 272-8800
Thomas.R.Lichtenstein@us.ul.com

---

I rest my case.

 

[jxofaltrds]

I had to hand type all that. I don't have a way to cut and paste from a real book, but my point is, there ARE UL listed adapters and they are legal.

Here is what I found in the archives, on this very site. Bold added by me for emphasis. Please read it closely and all the way to the end.



I rest my case.

TY.

Now what about the equipment grounding conductor?

 

[K8MHZ]

TY.

Now what about the equipment grounding conductor?

From my post #22

The NEC does not require adapters to be of the grounding type. If they ARE of the grounding type, they must be grounded on the proper terminal.

Since a screw shell is only a two conductor connection, a screw shell adapter must be of the non-grounding type, which is not prohibited by the NEC.

 

[jxofaltrds]

From my post #22



Since a screw shell is only a two conductor connection, a screw shell adapter must be of the non-grounding type, which is not prohibited by the NEC.

If you want to use it as a receptacle then yes it does.

I mean if you are changing it to a receptacle 'outlet'.

 

[K8MHZ]

If you want to use it as a receptacle then yes it does.

I mean if you are changing it to a receptacle 'outlet'.

Not that it applies, but non grounding receptacles are allowed by the NEC when there are only two wires supplying the outlet. In fact, they are required (unless replaced with a GFCI) to be used when replacing existing two wire receptacles with no grounding means available.

 

[jxofaltrds]

Not that it applies, but non grounding receptacles are allowed by the NEC when there are only two wires supplying the outlet. In fact, they are required (unless replaced with a GFCI) to be used when replacing existing two wire receptacles with no grounding means available.

You are correct that it does not apply.

 

[kwired]

If it is listed or labeled, how can it be rejected as long as any instructions included in the listing or labeling are followed? 110.3(B).

Seems like I must be committing some horrible crime when I use one of those to connect my circuit tracer to a lamp socket:blink:

 

[jxofaltrds]

If it is listed or labeled, how can it be rejected as long as any instructions included in the listing or labeling are followed? 110.3(B).

Seems like I must be committing some horrible crime when I use one of those to connect my circuit tracer to a lamp socket:blink:

If you are using it for testing and removing it I do not think that it falls under the NEC. It is not installed.

With my contractor hat on I'd say pound sand - I'm troubleshooting.

With my inspector hat on if it is not 'installed' it does not concern me.

Could involve OSHA but that is another topic.

 

[kwired]

If you are using it for testing and removing it I do not think that it falls under the NEC. It is not installed.

With my contractor hat on I'd say pound sand - I'm troubleshooting.

With my inspector hat on if it is not 'installed' it does not concern me.

Could involve OSHA but that is another topic.

Those adapters aren't marketed/sold as testing equipment either though, and can be found in the general hardware areas of many retailers. Do people use them beyond their intended application - yes, but they do that with a lot of other things also, maybe it is a NEC violation, but it is not necessarily a fault of some installer that installed the premises wiring, as it is kind of no different than running an extension cord from some other receptacle to supply the same equipment. It can in a way be considered a little like installing a 100 watt lamp in a socket only intended to have a 60 watt max lamp installed.

You can warn users about the potential dangers associated with using some things like this but that doesn't mean they are going to listen. As a contractor I am only going to tell them the dangers, if I just remove it without their approval it makes me a bad guy and I may not be called back for other work. You as an inspector can be the bad guy, they don't have much choice about you ever coming back, and they very well may remove it to make you happy and when you are gone they will put it back - that kind of thing happens all the time whether you like it or not.

 

[jap]

We had one of these on our front porch light when I was little. My Dad used it to plug in the Chrismas Lights that he hung on the front eave of the house at Christmas time every year. Please dont ruin this for me now, 40 Years later that this may have been a code violation......:weeping:

 

[GoldDigger]

We had one of these on our front porch light when I was little. My Dad used it to plug in the Chrismas Lights that he hung on the front eave of the house at Christmas time every year. Please dont ruin this for me now, 40 Years later that this may have been a code violation......:weeping:

I am reasonably confident that it was not a code violation 40 years ago!