Temp light

[infinity]

Not the same thing. SABC can share a circuit or not. Temp power cannot be part of a branch circuit with temp lights. I understand you have done this a long time but IMO using Charlies Rule it is in fact an NEC violation.




Per the Article 100 definition of MWBC it is a 'a circuit' not 'circuits' Maybe the supplying the SABC is also a violation as written.

We can agree to disagree. A MWBC can be considered one circuit like when applying 225.30 but as in my example in post #36 not always.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...
There is nothing there that specifically overrides what is mentioned in 210.4(A).

Correct, so for all other code sections, the definition in Article 100 applies, and that definition says "a circuit". It does not say "circuits".
Even definitions that are in the xxx.2 sections of the various articles only apply to the article where they appear.

 

[kwired]

Correct, so for all other code sections, the definition in Article 100 applies, and that definition says "a circuit". It does not say "circuits".
Even definitions that are in the xxx.2 sections of the various articles only apply to the article where they appear.

In general though chapters 1-4 are the general rules and are only modified in chapters 5-8 when something is specifically mentioned.

However 210.4 does start off with "Branch circuits recognized by this article shall be". Does that mean all of 210.4, all of 210, just part I of 210, all of chapter 2... just what does "this article" mean?

I will have to say it may mean it doesn't apply to art 590, but at same time nothing in 590 says to disregard anything in 210.:?

 

[renosteinke]

I appreciate the citation of 590.4, regarding construction sites.

I do not follow Iwire's assertion that 'you would create an NEC violation." Iwire, were you referring to construction sites (590.4), or was that a general statement regarding mixing lighting and receptacles on any circuit? NEC bathroom rules clearly imagine placing the light and receptacle on the same circuit; the NEC rule against controlling a receptacle with a dimmer switch also clearly suggests lights and receptacles sharing a circuit.

An MWBC is only considered as a single circuit in regards to grounding at detached structures. Otherwise, an MWBC would be a code violation in itself, as the overcurrent protection often does not disconnect ALL the hot wires. Handle ties, even adjacent breaker placement, is required only for residences.

590.4 makes me wonder about all those UL-listed job-site lights that have receptacles on them. After all, a plug is a plug.

On balance, I believe 590.4 is bad code. Design desires aside, virtually all site lighting - even allowing for sites lucky enough to have temporary light strings hung - is powered by an extension cord. As such, it's likely to be plugged in anywhere. Since individual trades provide their own lights, it's completely unenforceable.

 

[L8TRG8TR]

Arent we all way off of the op

Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk

 

[kwired]

Arent we all way off of the op

Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk

I don't think so. OP asked what people use for temp lights, the latter part of the discussion is still an issue regarding temp lights.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...
However 210.4 does start off with "Branch circuits recognized by this article shall be". Does that mean all of 210.4, all of 210, just part I of 210, all of chapter 2... just what does "this article" mean?
...

This article means Article 210.

 

[kwired]

I appreciate the citation of 590.4, regarding construction sites.

I do not follow Iwire's assertion that 'you would create an NEC violation." Iwire, were you referring to construction sites (590.4), or was that a general statement regarding mixing lighting and receptacles on any circuit? NEC bathroom rules clearly imagine placing the light and receptacle on the same circuit; the NEC rule against controlling a receptacle with a dimmer switch also clearly suggests lights and receptacles sharing a circuit.

An MWBC is only considered as a single circuit in regards to grounding at detached structures. Otherwise, an MWBC would be a code violation in itself, as the overcurrent protection often does not disconnect ALL the hot wires. Handle ties, even adjacent breaker placement, is required only for residences.

590.4 makes me wonder about all those UL-listed job-site lights that have receptacles on them. After all, a plug is a plug.

On balance, I believe 590.4 is bad code. Design desires aside, virtually all site lighting - even allowing for sites lucky enough to have temporary light strings hung - is powered by an extension cord. As such, it's likely to be plugged in anywhere. Since individual trades provide their own lights, it's completely unenforceable.

I think at very least more examination and possible changes are needed in 590 regarding temp lighting.


Something tells me it was maybe intended to apply to non cord and plug connected temp lighting sets, but rather "hard wired" temporary lighting, which could be anything from NM cable temporarily ran with lampholders directly connected to it by any means permitted in 590, or HID or other discharge luminaires that are "hard wired" in a temporary manner acceptable by 590.

Now there are many cord and plug connected "lighting sets" out there, but find it hard to believe the CMP does not recognize these as being kind of no different than any other power tool or else they would probably be required to have at very least a receptacle configuration other than NEMA 5-15 or 5-20, or you will have a very difficult time keeping them separated in some cases from circuits powering other items.

But at same time some people may be amused at just how little a 20 amp circuit supplying 1500 watts of lights will trip on overload when you also have portable tools plugged into the same circuit. I've seen chop saws, table saws, air compressors plugged into same circuit and seldom have tripping issues, but anything that runs for longer than a couple minutes usually will end up tripping the breaker. Biggest problem is often table saws and ripping a fair amount of thick stock, the miter saws only run a few seconds at a time, so as long as the breaker holds for starting you seldom have problems with them.

 

[ActionDave]

An MWBC is only considered as a single circuit in regards to grounding at detached structures. Otherwise, an MWBC would be a code violation in itself, as the overcurrent protection often does not disconnect ALL the hot wires. Handle ties, even adjacent breaker placement, is required only for residences.

I hate 210.4(B) so much it is one of the few sections I know by heart and it says nothing about residences only. It applies to all MWBC.

 

[iwire]

An MWBC is only considered as a single circuit in regards to grounding at detached structures.

That is incorrect, please look at the defintion of MWBC in article 100.

 

[iwire]

I hate 210.4(B) so much it is one of the few sections I know by heart and it says nothing about residences only. It applies to all MWBC.

Well put.

 

[GoldDigger]

Well put.

And in answer to the original question about "separate" circuits which are both part of an MWBC, take a good look at 210.4(A) [2011]:

A multiwire circuit shall be permitted to be considered as multiple circuits.

Multiple, but not necessarily separate. Close.

 

[iwire]

And in answer to the original question about "separate" circuits which are both part of an MWBC, take a good look at 210.4(A) [2011]:
Multiple, but not necessarily separate. Close.

I am very aware of that section.

It applies only too article 210 and I have been discussing a rule in 590.

I am also aware the the wording 'multiwire circuit shall be permitted to be considered as multiple circuits' reenforces the argument that in most cases it is a single circuit.

Part of the problem is that IMO the NEC and the rest of us play fast and loose with the use of the word circuit.

The 30 amp 120/240 branch circuit supplying an electric dryer is commonly regarded as a single circuit. (IMO it is one circuit)

Take that same circuit, swap out the two pole 30 amp breaker with a two pole 20 amp breaker, remove the dryer outlet and install a split wired duplex in it is place and many would call it two circuits. I am not sure that is correct to call that two circuits.

 

[GoldDigger]

Take that same circuit, swap out the two pole 30 amp breaker with a two pole 20 amp breaker, remove the dryer outlet and install a split wired duplex in it is place and many would call it two circuits. I am not sure that is correct to call that two circuits.

How about one and one-half? That seems to work well in sports statistics.

 

[kwired]

I am very aware of that section.

It applies only too article 210 and I have been discussing a rule in 590.

I am also aware the the wording 'multiwire circuit shall be permitted to be considered as multiple circuits' reenforces the argument that in most cases it is a single circuit.

Part of the problem is that IMO the NEC and the rest of us play fast and loose with the use of the word circuit.

The 30 amp 120/240 branch circuit supplying an electric dryer is commonly regarded as a single circuit. (IMO it is one circuit)

Take that same circuit, swap out the two pole 30 amp breaker with a two pole 20 amp breaker, remove the dryer outlet and install a split wired duplex in it is place and many would call it two circuits. I am not sure that is correct to call that two circuits.

True, but (with 20 amp breaker) we can deliver either two 2400 VA circuits or one 4800 VA circuit - which is it, or is it kind of a hybrid of both?

 

[Joe Villani]

Stringers are made up of 12/3 NM cable with one lighting and one power circuit. Here's some regional lingo, the lamp is installed in a left handed socket and the power is from a laundry drop.

Why is it the laundry (receptacle) drop always a 14 or 16 awg cord tapped of the 20 amp circuit :?

 

[kwired]

Why is it the laundry (receptacle) drop always a 14 or 16 awg cord tapped of the 20 amp circuit :?

If I read the question right you are asking why the washer has a 14 or 16 AWG cord and are not aksing about a tap conductor supplying the receptacle.

Have you looked at the nameplate on most washers - especially newer ones, they usually don't take all that much energy, and when they do draw the highest amount is usually the spin cycle, unless maybe they have internal water heating.

That said NEC still recognizes the required laundry circuit as more than just the washer, and it can really be several receptacles in the "laundry area" that are on this laundry circuit. Some people do iron clothes in the laundry area while the washer is doing another load, and a single 20 amp circuit usually will handle this activity, a 15 amp circuit may or may not. JMO though.

 

[infinity]

Laundry drop is a slang term for molded receptacle on the end of a short piece of cord which is spliced onto a NM cable for temp power.

 

[kwired]

Laundry drop is a slang term for molded receptacle on the end of a short piece of cord which is spliced onto a NM cable for temp power.

Never heard that term, or seen that practice. I also don't see it being code compliant unless this "laundry drop" is an assembly listed for such purpose.

 

[mgookin]

Never heard that term, or seen that practice. I also don't see it being code compliant unless this "laundry drop" is an assembly listed for such purpose.

Ever seen the cord on a reel in an auto repair shop? They do it with both compressed air and line voltage. I had not heard the term "laundry drop" either but envisioned something to plug an iron into so you're not fighting the cord the whole time.

Legal? Who knows.
Convenient? Yes!