I can't believe it!

[finhead]

I guess this settles the argument. Anyone see any loopholes?

Submitter: Brian J. Dolan, IBEW/NECA Technical Institute
Recommendation: Add the following FPN after 220.14(l):
FPN: The load calculation in 220.14(l) does not limit the number of
receptacles on a single branch circuit.
Substantiation: This section is a perennial topic of misunderstanding, and
deserves clarification. The proposed wording is similar to the FPN following
410.151(B).
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The material proposed is not appropriate for a FPN since it
contains an interpretation. In addition, the submitter is incorrect in that
220.14(I) does limit the number of receptacles on a branch circuit for
applications other than dwelling units covered in 220.14(J) and banks and
office buildings covered in 220.14(K).
Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12

 

[iwire]

Panel Statement: The material proposed is not appropriate for a FPN since it
contains an interpretation. In addition, the submitter is incorrect in that
220.14(I) does limit the number of receptacles on a branch circuit for
applications other than dwelling units covered in 220.14(J) and banks and
office buildings covered in 220.14(K).
Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12

Charlie B is going to have an issue with that I think. :smile:

 

[charlie b]

Charlie B is going to have an issue with that I think. :smile:

He might, but what does he know? :grin:

 

[cowboyjwc]

He might, but what does he know? :grin:

I know, he's such a trouble maker.:wink:

 

[Sierrasparky]

I guess i'm still foggy this morning as I really don't get the problem.

 

[raider1]

I guess i'm still foggy this morning as I really don't get the problem.

The question has always been, does 220.14(I) limit the amount of receptacles that can be installed on a single branch circuit or does it only apply to the calculated loads for feeders and services.

Chris

 

[charlie b]

All other discussions and disagreements aside, I will suggest that 220.14(I) does not, BY ITSELF, establish any such limits. You don't get into the debate over limits until you bring another article or two to the party. Some would point to article(s) within 210, and speak of 80% limits, and toss the numbers 20 amps, 80%, and 180 VA into a mixer, and come up with a maximum number of receptacles on a 20 amp circuit. But I hope we can all agree that you can't come up with a limit by looking at 220.14(I) alone. So in this sense, the code committee has missed the boat.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Why do you suppose they are so stubborn .
Why not create a limit in words based on that section,
To me clarity is always better than obscurity. That is unless you are the one always trying to bend the rule to benifit oneself.

 

[tom baker]

Charlie uses logic. In many of his 2011 proposals he points out poor language and incorrect wording, example look at his ROP on 250.122 FPN.

 

[charlie b]

Thanks for the kind words, Tom. Did you happen to notice that every single one of my proposals was rejected?

 

[JohnJ0906]

Charlie uses logic. In many of his 2011 proposals he points out poor language and incorrect wording, example look at his ROP on 250.122 FPN.

Thanks for the kind words, Tom. Did you happen to notice that every single one of my proposals was rejected?

That's what you get for trying to inject logic into the NEC. :roll: :grin:

 

[iwire]

That's what you get for trying to inject logic into the NEC. :roll: :grin:

Sad but seemingly true at times.

 

[cowboyjwc]

Charlie, do you submit you proposels on your own or do you try to go through the local IAEI chapter? We submitted a few through the section. Sometimes if you have more support they stand a better chance.

 

[al hildenbrand]

. . .Did you happen to notice that every single one of my proposals was rejected?

[irony]Laughing[/irony]

Settling to a chuckle, as I recall being a foil in our parrying and banter in the "Big Oops, Need Suggestions" thread.

Wordsmithing is such a challenging task.