Dining Room Receptacles

[tonyi]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

Originally posted by david:
Forget the reason they ask the bathroom circuits to be 20 amp was to handle the increased demand in these area?s.

IMO a 20A and a extra 15A on the wall near the floor somewhere are far more capable of handling any extra load than the minimum required single 20A that everyone typically installs.

20 is less than (20+15) (for all normal space/time continuum values of 15 and 20 )

 

[tonyi]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

Originally posted by david:
we could install rec. on 10 amp circuits as long as the conductors where 14 awg or larger.

Not if you wanted to put a common 15A receptical on it. That would violate loads not exceeding branch capability.

 

[ty]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

We routinely put 'other' outlets in bathrooms that are not on the 'required' 20amp circut. Mostly these are on a 15amp 'holiday circut' and the outlet is located under a window in the bathroom. They are GFCI protected. All of the 'holiday receptacles' are controlled by a switch normally near the front door. But it would be impracticle to put these on the 'required' 20amp circut that is for serving the vanity area. We have never had a problem with an inspector on this.

 

[ty]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

On the dining room issue: 20amp.

 

[david]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

Tonyi

Where does the code say that a 15 amp single rec. can not be on a 10 amp circuit supplied with 14awg wire?

The code says rec. outlet singular and rec. outlets plural. All rec. outlets in the bathroom are required to be supplied from a 20-amp circuit. There is no min requirement for outlets plural in a bathroom. There is only a min requirement for outlet singular.

The fact that the code section says outlets plural makes this argument mute. All rec. outlets in the bathroom have to be supplied from a 20-amp circuit

You danced all around this peragragh in my post. There is no getting around that the min to be code compliant all you need is two 20 amp circuits in a dinning room dinning room, wired done deal. But yet the code addresses all circuits in the dinning room to be 20 amp as stated by others. The two or more 20 amp required circuits will supply the rec. in the dinning room and you will need to lay them out so that no point along wall space will be further that six ft from a rec.

As Don said this is even clearer in bath rooms where the code min is one required rec. and goes further to address the rec. outlets (plural) will be supplied from the 20 amp circuit.

Ty

You may have been given passive permission to have a rec. under the bathroom window on a switched 15- amp circuit. But your inspector could have easily sited that violation. There is no provision in the

[ October 18, 2003, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: david ]

 

[Guest]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

I don't want to get into a donnybrook but we have overloaded a 15-amp circuit if we put a 1500 watt hair dryer on it. If we know somebody is going to plug a 1500-watt hair dryer we need to run a 20-amp circuit. I am basing this on a 15-amp circuit being limited to a 1440-watt load.

Even if we are right about it, I don't think we should put a 15-amp receptacle outlet in a bathroom unless it's out of reach, on a switch, not in the tub, and used for neon beer signs for mood lighting

[ October 18, 2003, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: awwt ]

 

[hurk27]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

Awwt:

we have overloaded a 15-amp circuit if we put a 1500 watt hair dryer on it

How are you going to run a hairdryer more than 3 hours?

Continuous Load. A load where the maximum current is expected to continue for 3 hours or more.

210.20 Overcurrent Protection.
(A) Continuous and Noncontinuous Loads. Where a branch circuit supplies continuous loads or any combination of continuous and noncontinuous loads, the rating of the overcurrent device shall not be less than the noncontinuous load plus 125 percent of the continuous load.

 

[Guest]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

Understood.

That's why I put my disclaimer on it. I don't like pushing things at code minimum. If a load is 1440 watts I'd rather see it on a 20-amp circuit.

Chances are there are already some other non-continuous & continous loads on the circuit anyway: clock; cordless shaver; shaving lather heater; cordless toothbrush; hot rollers; space heater; inonizer; cell phone charger; night light; radio; Glade plug-in; etc.

Also, I believe all receptacles in a bathroom are NEC required to be 20-amps. That's my final answer

 

[tonyi]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

Originally posted by david:
But yet the code addresses all circuits in the dinning room to be 20 amp as stated by others.

And this is where the disagreement comes - I read the title of 210.11 as saying "Branch Circuits Required".

Obviously, anything above code minimums is not "required".

As supporting evidence, I'll offer this -- all GFCI and AFCI requirements occur OUTSIDE the requirements of 210.11 They're in their own sections, not subordinate to 210.11 (hence they would apply to any extras as well as required minimums)

 

[roger]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

OK Tony, so what you're saying is anything we install beyond the minimum doesn't have to perform to minimum standards. Interesting philosophy.

This would mean any additional exit lights we may install wouldn't really have be exits.

Roger

 

[tonyi]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

Originally posted by roger:
OK Tony, so what you're saying is anything we install beyond the minimum doesn't have to perform to minimum standards. Interesting philosophy.

This would mean any additional exit lights we may install wouldn't really have be exits.

Roger

I strongly suspect in their general building codes most localities would have a problem with you installing an exit sign over say a cleaning supplies closet. Not to mention that the insurers would freak at the liability aspects of same.

I see neither of these type issues in installing extra general purpose branches as long as they meet the requirements for the areas they're installed in (GFCI or AFCI most typically in a residential setting).

210.11 is stated in terms of the minimum branch circuits required (and their sizes) for particular areas, NOT in terms of minimums for ALL branch circuits in an area. The title of 210.11 says it all - lacking definitions and language to the contrary, words mean what they say.

 

[iwire]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

Tony I do not understand why this is difficult to believe.

210.52(B)(1) Receptacle Outlets Served. In the kitchen, pantry, breakfast room, dining room, or similar area of a dwelling unit, the two or more 20-ampere small-appliance branch circuits required by 210.11(C)(1) shall serve all receptacle outlets covered by 210.52(A) and (C) and receptacle outlets for refrigeration equipment.

All means every one does it not?

 

[sjaniga]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

How does "at least one 20A" translate into a prohibition against exceeding code minimums with additional 15A? If 15A were prohibited, why not just say so in an explicit manner?

Tony, read your above statement over and over.

Tony, now read this:

210.52(B)(1) Receptacle Outlets Served. In the kitchen, pantry, breakfast room, dining room, or similar area of a dwelling unit, the two or more 20-ampere small-appliance branch circuits required by 210.11(C)(1) shall serve all receptacle outlets covered by 210.52(A) and (C) and receptacle outlets for refrigeration equipment.

Tony, the minimum is (2) 20-amp circuits for the above rooms. The "or more" part comes into play for those that want to exceed the code.

The code could not be clearer, 20-amp is the minimum no matter how many you install.

Scott

 

[roger]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

Hello Scott, you couldn't be more right.

Roger

 

[conmgt]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

Wow, four pages to answer one question. Well, let me jump in. My interpretation of the kitchen circuits is...Two 20A circuits for the countertops which MAY ALSO supply the pantry, dining room, nook,...if you didn't want to add more circuits. You can supply those rooms with other circuits and even have more than two 20A for the countertops. Basically for the WHOLE kitchen, pantry, dining room area, you can get away with only two 20A.

 

[david]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

This is my last stab at this then I am done with something so elementary.

Tonyi:

Your position is as long as you install what you call two small appliance circuits you met the code min. I like you to consider that this, small appliance circuits are dedicated circuits to rec. You believe you can install non- dedicated 15 and 20 amp rec. circuits in these areas. If your right then someone could wire the kitchen lights on what you call extra rec. circuits. I am thinking if you keep wiring this way you are going to end up in court when someone gets hurt working in a kitchen and a rec. on one of your extra circuits takes the lights out in one of these areas. You see the kitchen rec. are not allowed on a lighting circuit, that is another reason you have dedicated 20 amp small appliance circuits in the kitchen. This is so strict in the kitchen that the kitchen must have a ceiling light. I think you better reexamine your position before installing kitchen lighting on any of your so called extra rec. circuits

[ October 20, 2003, 01:14 AM: Message edited by: david ]

 

[Guest]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

One part of me says this is an NEC discussion forum. If there are questions, we need to discuss the answers. If an "easy" question can generate 5-pages of answers, then it's not really so easy after all.

The other part of me says we are riding a dead horse. There are a lot of things you can't do when you are riding a dead horse.

Either way, for this thread to go on so long may be an indication that the source of the confusion needs to be rewritten more clearly. If written clearly there would be no room for interpretation, and no room for loopholes.

Has a linguistic scholar ever looked over the NEC? If not, they would have a field day-- as we are.

../Wayne C.
(not a linguist)

[ October 20, 2003, 01:26 AM: Message edited by: awwt ]

 

[tonyi]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

Originally posted by david:
If your right then someone could wire the kitchen lights on what you call extra rec. circuits. I am thinking if you keep wiring this way you are going to end up in court when someone gets hurt working in a kitchen and a rec. on one of your extra circuits takes the lights out in one of these areas.

Easy fix for that - I don't put lights on branches with recepticals I don't want anyone to ever be in the dark because of something being plugged in somewhere. If a lighting branch I've wired up trips, you've got a genuine problem (or you're a boob who screwed 300W bulbs in everywhere )

In any case, what is the difference between that and someone in another room plugging something in and taking out the kitchen lights on you? Heck, in my mom's place, the original builder's job had half a bedroom's recepticals (including a light/fan, plus half the living room, plus the kitchen lights all on the same 15A branch. Anyone in either of those two rooms could "blindside" someone in the kitchen and take out the lights on an ordinary overload trip.

Real world usability and user friendliness comes not from doing what the code lets you "get away with" as a bare minimum, but from a bit of added care/thought and an extra few feet of wire and mabe an extra breaker or two. The "value add" to the users from a few small things exceeding the code in chosen places is tremendous compared to the trivial amount of added cost to put them in.

Alas, the code isn't about practicality or usability beyond the bare minimums required, and pretty much it says so right up front. I also believe the minimums are woefully inadequate these days which is the point of persuing this whole semantic excercise.

 

[tonyi]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

Originally posted by awwt:
One part of me says this is an NEC discussion forum. If there are questions, we need to discuss the answers. If an "easy" question can generate 5-pages of answers, then it's not really so easy after all.

Precisely. Its the circular reference, forward/back stuff that makes it so hard to determine real intent in many cases.

In this particular discussion, IMO the real issue is reading a passage without stepping back to appreciate the higher context in which it applies.

I can't see where 210.11 (and subordinates) apply to anything other than those branches dictated by the load calcs and a couple of other mandated things, because this is exactly what 210.11's intro paragraph talks about. ex. two for small appliance is the minimum, but a load calc for a larger very well equipped kitchen COULD wind up with 3,4, or more 20A branches being REQUIRED for "small appliance" branches. Indeed, if you're in Palm Beach county and have a couple of microwaves, each one is going to need its own dedicated branch by local amendment.

 

[david]

Re: Dining Room Receptacles

The difference is that contrary to your personal opinion the NEC is very clear that all 15 & 20 amp rec. installed in a kitchen and other specified area?s are to be wired on a 20- amp small appliance circuit that is dedicated to rec. in these specified area?s. Small appliances have a history of overloading a circuit and causing what some may refer to as nuisance tripping. An aggravation but not a hazard. Some where along the line some changes where made to prevent someone in the kitchen who is working with boiling water, hot grease and small appliances that are known historically to over-load a circuit from being connected to the lighting in the same room as the perceived hazard.
Just because you do not wire you lights on any rec. circuits does not make that the trade practice. The section that you are disputing mandates this arrangement. And you are telling 10,000 individuals that the NEC does not mandate this. You are wrong.
I cannot determine for the life of me why you can?t get it right.