Debate on language of NEC

[brother]

WAs having a conversation with some over articles NEC 210.21 (2), 210.23. I always believe that 210.21(2) "Total Cordand plug connected load" was dealing with all the loads from all of the receptacles that could not be over 80% . For example, you have a microwave plugged into one 20 amp receptacle and down the line you have a toaster plugged into another receptacle located somewhere else and their COMBINED loads go over 16amps on that branch circuit, creating a code violation.

But after reading that section again, I dont think it says that because of '.... a receptacle shall not supply a total cord and plug connected load in excess of maximum specified in table 2110.21(B)(2).

It says receptacle and NOT branch circuits. It just seems redundant of what 210.23 (A) (1) says. what do you think?? why do they need both sections??

 

[physis]

Welcome to CMP 2, the people who write article 210.

What about the first and second rows of Table 210(B)(2)?

Circuit rating of 15 or 20 amps is limited to 12 amps output,

but a cicruit rated at 20 amps is limited to 16 amps.

???? What?

It doesn't just contadict itself. You'd get an F for that in engineering school. Oh, I know, it actually makes sense, but it's stupid.

 

[infinity]

Table 210.21(B)(2) is dealing with one receptacle which may be half of a duplex which is two receptacles. So on a 20 amp circuit one receptacle could have a maximum load of 16 amps, the other could have a load of 4 amps.

 

[iwire]

Welcome to CMP 2, the people who write article 210.

Have you put in any proposals?

 

[physis]

Have you put in any proposals?

Almost, but I never did submit any. I was actually about two thirds through rewriting half of Article 210, although I thought it looked a lot better I'm sure that was a bit extreme.