Receptacle screw in adapter in light socket Legal?

[K8MHZ]

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

And I am reasonably confident that it still isn't.

 

[jap]

I'm feeling better already.

 

[kwired]

And I am reasonably confident that it still isn't.

Do they make them with GFCI, TR receptacle, WR receptacle, and a WP in use cover?

 

[K8MHZ]

Do they make them with GFCI, TR receptacle, WR receptacle, and a WP in use cover?

Now there's an idea! Take a common, inexpensive, reliable, proven safe over time device and add electronics and plastic to make it expensive, larger, more difficult to use all for a questionable amount of added safety and most definitely less reliable.

Why didn't I think of that?

 

[kwired]

Now there's an idea! Take a common, inexpensive, reliable, proven safe over time device and add electronics and plastic to make it expensive, larger, more difficult to use all for a questionable amount of added safety and most definitely less reliable.

Why didn't I think of that?

You forgot something: make it a code requirement to use it

 

[iwire]

Now there's an idea! Take a common, inexpensive, reliable, proven safe over time device and add electronics and plastic to make it expensive, larger, more difficult to use all for a questionable amount of added safety and most definitely less reliable.

Why didn't I think of that?

Proven safe?

I want to see the source of this proof

 

[kwired]

Proven safe?

I want to see the source of this proof

First we need to define what is safe:happyyes:

Those adapters probably did originate many many moons ago as a legitimate product and intended to be used as adapters in edison wall sockets, or even lampholders. Many of those older lampholders were built better than today when it comes to their current carrying ability, and there was no aluminum shells and really cheap connecting devices like many edison lampholders have today. Look at a new edison base fuseholder - yes you can find some out there, and they are not built as poorly as a typical lampholder as they need to be able to carry more current then what is usually demanded from a lampholder.

 

[K8MHZ]

Proven safe?

I want to see the source of this proof

This is what I was going by, the last part of the UL letter in my post #30.

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

 

[K8MHZ]

First we need to define what is safe:happyyes:

Those adapters probably did originate many many moons ago as a legitimate product and intended to be used as adapters in edison wall sockets, or even lampholders. Many of those older lampholders were built better than today when it comes to their current carrying ability, and there was no aluminum shells and really cheap connecting devices like many edison lampholders have today. Look at a new edison base fuseholder - yes you can find some out there, and they are not built as poorly as a typical lampholder as they need to be able to carry more current then what is usually demanded from a lampholder.

Let me qualify this by applying it to people that would actually read the ratings on the sockets and devices and adhere to them. Those would be the same people that would know that putting an 1800 watt space heater on an 18 ga. extension cord would be overloading the cord.

Those people are few and far between, granted, but we aren't discussing the ignorance of the user, we are discussing the 'legality' of the adapter.

Marked on the edison lampholder sockets is the wattage. I checked two, one in a table lamp and one in a ceiling fan. The table lamp was rated at 250 watts. The ceiling fan was 660 watts.

The UL listed adapters are 550 watts. So, if the 550 watt adapter is used in the 250 watt socket, the lower wattage must apply. Just like putting a receptacle rated for 20 amps can be used on a 15 amp circuit, so long as the 15 amp is used as the max, not the 20 from the rating on the receptacle.

Use properly they are safe. Heck, most people use them improperly and I have never seen one cause a problem.

 

[charlie b]

I am coming in to this one late. My view is that the adapter does not meet the NEC definition of ?receptacle,? despite the appearance of the ability to plug something in to it. By definition, a receptacle is installed at the outlet. This adapter is connected to (I won?t use the word ?installed,? but Bob and I have disagreed on that point in the past) a thing that is itself installed at the outlet. The lampholder is connected at the outlet. The outlet is the 4x4 box that is nailed to a 2x4 and that has wires coming into it from a branch circuit. The adapter is not touching the 4x4 box, and the branch circuit wires are not touching the adapter. Thus, the adapter is not at the outlet, and is therefore not a receptacle.

 

[jxofaltrds]

I am coming in to this one late. My view is that the adapter does not meet the NEC definition of ?receptacle,? despite the appearance of the ability to plug something in to it. By definition, a receptacle is installed at the outlet. This adapter is connected to (I won?t use the word ?installed,? but Bob and I have disagreed on that point in the past) a thing that is itself installed at the outlet. The lampholder is connected at the outlet. The outlet is the 4x4 box that is nailed to a 2x4 and that has wires coming into it from a branch circuit. The adapter is not touching the 4x4 box, and the branch circuit wires are not touching the adapter. Thus, the adapter is not at the outlet, and is therefore not a receptacle.

Agreed. No yoke no receptacle.

406.7
(B) Connection of Attachment Plugs. Attachment plugs
shall be installed so that their prongs, blades, or pins are not
energized unless inserted into an energized receptacle or
cord connectors.

 

[K8MHZ]

Agreed. No yoke no receptacle.

406.7
(B) Connection of Attachment Plugs. Attachment plugs
shall be installed so that their prongs, blades, or pins are not
energized unless inserted into an energized receptacle or
cord connectors.

That is interesting.

If deemed not a receptacle, it's OK to screw it in, just not to plug anything into it.

The definition of 'receptacle' doesn't say anything about a yoke. It's the definitions of single vs. multiple that have the word in it.

So, are the places one plugs a cord into a corded power strip receptacles? What is considered a yoke?

If the device IS a receptacle, it must follow 406.2, requiring voltage and ampere ratings, not just watts. They also shall be rated at not less than 15 amperes for both 125 and 250 volts.

If it is NOT a receptacle, then one cannot 'install an attachment plug so that their prongs, blades or pins are not energized unless inserted into an energized receptacle or cord connector'. It gives no exception for adapters. I dug out three different UL adapters. 2 that go from 2 to three slots, and a multi-tap that goes from a single receptacle to three. All were marked 15A 125 volts.

Good find, Mike!!

 

[charlie b]

406.7 (B) Connection of Attachment Plugs. Attachment plugs shall be installed so that their prongs, blades, or pins are not energized unless inserted into an energized receptacle or cord connectors.

That article is all about the attachment plug. The point is that you can't build one that gets energized by having something other than the plug itself inserted. Specifically, this is the article that prohibits the "widow maker," as it is sometimes called. That is the thing with a male plug on both ends, and is sometimes used to (illegally) connect a portable generator to a dryer outlet, so as to power the whole house. I would say that inserting an attachment plug into one of the adapters under discussion is the same as inserting it into a cord connector. You are just missing the cord. Again, the article is not about the receptacle or the cord connector, and it doesn't prohibit the use of the adapter. The article is all about the exposed metal prongs of an attachment plug being energized by virtue of a power source being connected somewhere else.

 

[jxofaltrds]

That article is all about the attachment plug. The point is that you can't build one that gets energized by having something other than the plug itself inserted. Specifically, this is the article that prohibits the "widow maker," as it is sometimes called. That is the thing with a male plug on both ends, and is sometimes used to (illegally) connect a portable generator to a dryer outlet, so as to power the whole house. I would say that inserting an attachment plug into one of the adapters under discussion is the same as inserting it into a cord connector. You are just missing the cord. Again, the article is not about the receptacle or the cord connector, and it doesn't prohibit the use of the adapter. The article is all about the exposed metal prongs of an attachment plug being energized by virtue of a power source being connected somewhere else.

If you build one Article 400 (UL 62) applies not Article 406.

Now this Chapter is confusing but this is how I understand it.

 

[kwired]

Agreed. No yoke no receptacle.

406.7
(B) Connection of Attachment Plugs. Attachment plugs
shall be installed so that their prongs, blades, or pins are not
energized unless inserted into an energized receptacle or
cord connectors.

That is interesting.

..
The definition of 'receptacle' doesn't say anything about a yoke. It's the definitions of single vs. multiple that have the word in it.

So, are the places one plugs a cord into a corded power strip receptacles? What is considered a yoke?

Power strip maybe a bad example as it is kind of same classification of a device as portable cords and adapters, but many receptacles mounted in multioutlet assemblies (particularly Plugmold) do not have a yoke.