commercial receptacle limits

[roger]

Re: commercial receptacle limits

Hillbilly, you're a brave soul.

Roger

 

[hillbilly]

Re: commercial receptacle limits

I just went back and re-read this post from front to back, you're right, I'm brave or not real bright. No offence meant to anyone. I still say that this post was informative.

[ August 11, 2003, 09:59 PM: Message edited by: hillbilly ]

 

[ronaldrc]

Re: commercial receptacle limits

OK Roger, I admitted 12 would be the correct answer for the question the way it is worded I have no problem with that. Why can't you admit it is legal to use 13 now?
I think you all are just giving me a hard time .

I think you might have the record on replies on this one now roger I'm not sure.

Ronald

 

[charlie b]

Re: commercial receptacle limits

ronaldrc: I, for one, did admit that it is legal to use 13 now, though I used a different way of making that declaration. What I said (and I believe this amounted to agreeing with you) was that today we would ask the question differently. We would ask about receptacles in a 120 volt circuit, and the answer would be 13.

Perhaps we have on our hands another one of those differences of opinion that amount to ?I say the sky is blue.? ?I say that you are wrong, for I insist that the grass is green.?

 

[roger]

Re: commercial receptacle limits

Ronald, you know I wouldn't give you a hard time.

I too agree that if we use 120 v in the question 13 would be correct and if we used 130 v 14 would be correct.

Roger

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: commercial receptacle limits

Rogger,
How can we put 130 volts on a device listed for 125 volts? I have been waiting for some one to make this comment about my posts that said you can use 14 on a 126 volts.
Don

[ August 12, 2003, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: don_resqcapt19 ]

 

[charlie b]

Re: commercial receptacle limits

But Don, please go back and read the original question (page 1). It does not restrict the receptacles to being of the 125V rated type. I've been waiting for someone else to read more into the question than was written in the question.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: commercial receptacle limits

Charlie,
Good point. It appears that the 180 va applies to all general use receptacles no matter what the voltage is.
Not to get this started again, but does the requirement in 220.3(B) to use "nominal branch-circuit voltages" to calculate the load, over ride the permission in 220.2(A) to specify a voltage?
Don

 

[ronaldrc]

Re: commercial receptacle limits

Dag gon it Charlie and here all along I thought the sky was blue and Kentucky has blue grass.

Ronald

 

[charlie b]

Re: commercial receptacle limits

Originally posted by don_resqcapt19:? but does the requirement in 220.3(B) to use "nominal branch-circuit voltages" to calculate the load, over ride the permission in 220.2(A) to specify a voltage?

I don?t think 220.2(A) is granting us permission to specify a voltage. I think that it is telling us that somewhere in the NEC there might include statements that specify different voltages. So my answer is that receptacle load calculations must be based on a voltage of 120V.

 

[roger]

Re: commercial receptacle limits

Donn, remember this.

Don, I absolutely agree that if the question used a higher or lower voltage the calculation would have to use that voltage.
I don't see the issue with the question.

The NEC? has decided the wording "Unless other voltages are specified " has a reason to be in the article. With that said, who is going to be available to champion the exam taker when he / she uses the argument that the question is bogus per the experts on these forums?

If we changed the wording of the question to say "Using all the applicable articles but substitute 115v for 120v" ; would it change the math? Would it change the fact that there is a limit to receptacles per circuit in a commercial facillity and not in a dwelling? These are the real reasons the question would be given.

Roger

I worded the above knowing you were "fishing" :roll:

Roger

 

[ryan_618]

Re: commercial receptacle limits

Alright, this whole thread is becoming tenuos nexus!

 

[ronaldrc]

Re: commercial receptacle limits

I'm

 

[ronaldrc]

Re: commercial receptacle limits

It would be 13 today wouldn't it: :roll:

[ August 26, 2003, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: ronaldrc ]

 

[roger]

Re: commercial receptacle limits

Ronald,

Roger

 

[ronaldrc]

Re: commercial receptacle limits

But as you can see it goes up from 12 to 13,

 

[jasons]

Re: commercial receptacle limits

bennie
I see what you are saying about droping the fraction of an ampere.

But 220.3(B)(9) states
Except as covered in 220.3(B)(10) (which is dwelling occupancies)receptacle outlets shall be computed at not less than 180 volt-amperes for each single or for each multiple receptacle on one yoke.

By dropping the fraction of an ampere you have computed the receptacle outlet at LESS than 180 volt-amperes.

 

[Guest]

Re: commercial receptacle limits

I took the question literally from the get go and immediately got the "right" answer to pass the test.

Fat lot of good that would have done me in the field.

Why doesn't the NFPA stand behind the NEC handbook? The code should be the rules, and the handbook should be the official interpretation & practical application. The NEC and the NEC Handbook should both be gospel & we should be able to rely on both of them. If they are written clearly and there are lots of illustrations, how can we go wrong?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: commercial receptacle limits

Wayne,
Why should the handbook be the "official interpretation" of the NEC? The only "official interpretations" are the ones that come through the "formal interpretation" process as required by 90.6 and shown in Section 6 of NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects. The writing of the handbook does not even come close to following the rules for a formal interpretation.
Don

 

[roger]

Re: commercial receptacle limits

Handbook disclaimer, to follow Don's post.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice Concerning Liability: Publication of this handbook is for the purpose of circulating information and opinion among those concerned for fire and electrical safety and related subjects. While every effort has been made to achieve a work of high quality, neither the NFPA nor the contributors to this handbook guarantee the accuracy or completeness of or assume any liability in connection with the information and opinions contained in this handbook. The NFPA and the contributors shall in no event be liable for any personal injury, property, or other damages of any nature whatsoever, whether special, indirect, consequential, or compensatory, directly or indirectly resulting from the publication, use of, or reliance upon this handbook.
This handbook is published with the understanding that the NFPA and the contributors to this handbook are supplying information and opinion but are not attempting to render engineering or other professional services. If such services are required, the assistance of an appropriate professional should be sought.
Notice Concerning Code Interpretations: This ninth edition of the National Electrical Code? Handbook is based on the 2002 edition of NFPA 70, National Electrical Code. All NFPA codes, standards, recommended practices, and guides are developed in accordance with the published procedures of the NFPA by technical committees comprised of volunteers drawn from a broad array of relevant interests. The handbook contains the complete text of NFPA 70 and any applicable Formal Interpretations issued by the Association. These documents are accompanied by explanatory commentary and other supplementary materials.
The commentary and supplementary materials in this handbook are not a part of the Code and do not constitute Formal Interpretations of the NFPA (which can be obtained only through requests processed by the responsible technical committees in accordance with the published procedures of the NFPA). The commentary and supplementary materials, therefore, solely reflect the personal opinions of the editor or other contributors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the NFPA or its technical committees.
?Registered Trademark National Fire Protection Association, Inc

bold type is simply highlighting by me.

Roger

[ October 06, 2003, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: roger ]