210.52(B)(1) Ex. 1 and 210.52 (B)(2)(a)

[George Stolz]

Re: 210.52(B)(1) Ex. 1 and 210.52 (B)(2)(a)

Originally posted by jwelectric:
If you prefer I will stay out of it.

JW, I didn't mean to be a jerk. I was concerned that a rehash would happen. I apologize.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 210.52(B)(1) Ex. 1 and 210.52 (B)(2)(a)

Originally posted by jwelectric:
I think you would be better advised to approach this from a different direction such as;

...Switches shall be permitted for small appliance receptacles.

I think JW is right--two coordinating proposals would make sense. I would word the statement "Small appliance receptacles shall be permitted to be switched."

In my cross-eyed mind, I can see a kitchen full of switches "serving the countertop." "Hey, man, the code says I can use switches instead of receptacles!"

 

[physis]

Re: 210.52(B)(1) Ex. 1 and 210.52 (B)(2)(a)

Are we thinking that adding permission for switching SA receptacles is needed now?

I don't think the original wording prohibits it but I could see an inspector pointing at the it and saying you can't put a switch on an SA recept.

So then I have three thoughts.

[1] When we try to write this stuff, to what degree do we worry about someone who reads it as saying something it doesn't?

[2] If there were going to be specific permission for switching a receptacle I would not want it in 210.52(B)(2) No Other Outlets. I would maybe put into 210.52(B)(1) Receptacle Outlets Served.

[3] If there is a problem I think the best thing to do is tighten up the original proposal language.

Being as how my anawer to [1] is "it should be super duper clear", maybe I'll look at changing the wording.

 

[physis]

Re: 210.52(B)(1) Ex. 1 and 210.52 (B)(2)(a)

210.52(B)(2)(a) Where a wall switch controlled receptacle is used in lieu of a lighting outlet required by 210.70(A), that receptacle shall not be supplied by the two or more small-appliance branch circuits specified in 210.52(B)(1).

How's that?

Edit: I like this revision, it feels just right!

[ April 15, 2005, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: physis ]

 

[kturner]

Re: 210.52(B)(1) Ex. 1 and 210.52 (B)(2)(a)

Sam, if you eliminate B1Exc.1, the only circuit left in the dining room is the SA. Your new text says we can't use the SA circuit,so you're really saying it can't be done. I think you'll have to keep B1Exc.1 just to get a GPBC into the room.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 210.52(B)(1) Ex. 1 and 210.52 (B)(2)(a)

Sam, I think the "Where a" and "is" might confuse people into thinking they might have to wear a receptacle to plug in their dining room. And the motorcycle still ain't got no doors.

Painful as it is, kturner is right, I think. (B)(1) & (2) are now working together to keep that other receptacle out.

[1] When we try to write this stuff, to what degree do we worry about someone who reads it as saying something it doesn't?
Well, if faced with that hypothetical, I would have switched the SA receptacle, and others believe it's a moral outrage.

[ April 15, 2005, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]

 

[jwelectric]

Re: 210.52(B)(1) Ex. 1 and 210.52 (B)(2)(a)

Originally posted by georgestolz:

Originally posted by jwelectric:
If you prefer I will stay out of it.

JW, I didn't mean to be a jerk. I was concerned that a rehash would happen. I apologize.

just remember Mr. Bush my friend and a good debate makes it all worth while

 

[physis]

Re: 210.52(B)(1) Ex. 1 and 210.52 (B)(2)(a)

Painful as it is, kturner is right, I think. (B)(1) & (2) are now working together to keep that other receptacle out. I am so getting a migraine.

OOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHH. I completely missed that. I have no time right now (stinky, smelly, rotten General Contractors), but I'll be looking very closely at that when I get a chance.

Great catch kturner. I guess you can get a bit miopic from this stuff at times.

Talleho gents, off to make a GC's life better with little prospect of recompence. All in a days work you know.

 

[physis]

Re: 210.52(B)(1) Ex. 1 and 210.52 (B)(2)(a)

210.52(B)(1) Exception No. 1: In addition to the required receptacles specified by 210.52, switched receptacles supplied from a general-purpose branch circuit as defined in 210.70(A)(1), Exception No. 1, shall be permitted.

What if they simply don't care whether you put the switched receptacle on an SA circuit or a GP circuit?

I really don't care either way. After looking at this again I don't think CMP-2 has any intent on this one way or the other. Just switch a receptacle already.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: 210.52(B)(1) Ex. 1 and 210.52 (B)(2)(a)

If it stays, it should be modified along these lines:

210.52(B)(1) Exception No. 1: In addition to the required receptacles specified by 210.52, switched receptacles supplied from a general-purpose branch circuit for the purpose defined in 210.70(A)(1), Exception No. 1, shall be permitted.

What if they simply don't care whether you put the switched receptacle on an SA circuit or a GP circuit?

Then they'll adopt my proposal.

Just switch a receptacle already.

 

[physis]

Re: 210.52(B)(1) Ex. 1 and 210.52 (B)(2)(a)

It occuerred to me this morning that we may have been taking sides on a circle for the last three weeks or so.

 

[kturner]

Re: 210.52(B)(1) Ex. 1 and 210.52 (B)(2)(a)

You're exactly right. There's just the handbook thing.

 

[physis]

Re: 210.52(B)(1) Ex. 1 and 210.52 (B)(2)(a)

I've been thinking about it a little and there has to be something in the way that it's presented in the code to generate such a fuss.

The only thing I can think of is that some people want to consider the switched receptacle used for 210.70 to be a lighting outlet. I can at least understand that that.

But that doesn't account for all the opposing interpretations.Is it just too easy to read our own biases into it?

I'm at the point where I believe it "literally" says exactly what CMP 2 wants it to say. I mean as far as their intent being in the words somewhere.

The problem I have is, why does it take so much effort and meditation to get to the bottom of something so simple?

Maybe CMP 2's work is like a Beatles movie, you need a certain frame of mind to get it.

 

[kturner]

Re: 210.52(B)(1) Ex. 1 and 210.52 (B)(2)(a)

I think they're telling us that either way you go to do it has potential flaws and that the designer must choose the least flawed- you know "not intended as a design specification".