I hereby invoke "Charlie's Rule." :wink:
Read it again, and you'll find that it doesn't say that. Rather, it says essentially that "these are in addition to those." IMO, both the "these" and the "those" are "covered" by the statement.
I hereby invoke "Charlie's Rule." :wink:
Sort of. But as I say earlier, I really look at it from the opposite direction. If you put a receptacle in a DR wall, then the circuit that feeds it will become, by definition, an SABC. So if you put a receptacle 7 feet above the DR floor, intending it to be dedicated to the plasma TV installed at that location, then (1) It can't be fed from a 15 amp circuit, and (2) That circuit can't also feed lights.
If I were ever to become a stickler for precision in the application of words (?Nay, never, not he,? they all cry in unison!
Suppose the NEC authors, in their infinite wisdom, enacted the following rule: ?All receptacles that are painted yellow must be installed horizontally. Exception: The requirement does not apply to receptacles that are painted yellow but that have alternating blue stripes.?
Clearly, this rule would ?cover? the yellow receptacles. But does it not also ?cover? receptacles that are yellow with blue stripes? The fact that the rule does not impose requirement on the yellow/blue receptacles does not change the fact that the yellow/blue ones are covered by the rule.
So now let us look at receptacles that are ?covered by 210.52(A).? To be specific, let?s talk about Bob?s receptacle under the DR table. 210.52(A)(3) says that you can?t count this one as being one of the required wall space receptacles. That covers the subject, doesn?t it. The receptacle under the table can?t replace one on the wall, but it is covered by the rule.
Conclusion: The receptacle under the table, being ?covered by 210.52(A),? goes on an SA circuit. QED.
I agree with this. But there is a major difference in the way the two articles, 210.11(C)(3) and 210.52(B)(1), are written. In the first case, the wording is in terms of, "at least one." In the second case, the wording is in terms of, "all."
That is fine by me. Everyone is welcome to disagree with each other on this forum, so long as we keep it civil.
They are not players in this game. The opening line of 210.52 limits the discussion to 125 volt, 15 and 20 amp receptacles. But you knew that.
I may have to change my vote on that one.
Looking again at the wording of 210.52(B)(1), and re-invoking Charlie’s Rule, I see that the “shall server all” part of the rule speaks only of 210.52(A), and not of 210.52 as a whole. The items (1) to (4) to which you refer come into the story before we get to 210.52(A). So perhaps they are not “covered,” in the sense that I have been using that word, and they therefore are not required to follow the SABC rules. So go ahead, put that plasma TV receptacle 7 feet above the DR floor, put it on a 15 amp circuit, and connect the overhead light to the same circuit. I won’t mind.
That is fine by me. Everyone is welcome to disagree with each other on this forum, so long as we keep it civil.
They are not players in this game. The opening line of 210.52 limits the discussion to 125 volt, 15 and 20 amp receptacles. But you knew that.
I may have to change my vote on that one.
So, Paul, would you also agree that a kitchen island could have one or more receptacles below the 1' line and/or beneath a greater-than-6" overhang, as long as at least one compliant receptacle was also installed? We had that debate in the past.
Both, really.
I've never let that stop me.because I seem to be FULL of opinions people dont agree with these days...
wink, but he does explain stuff when he has the time. I've learned a lot from both of them, and I've found that our inspectors have great attitues and appreciate being consulted.
