I don't intend this to be a long thread

[paul32]

After seeing the argument about extra SA circuits being added to the feeder/service load calculation or not, I have a couple observations.

The code is not clear one way or the other, so the only correct answer is that it doesn't say. People were asking Mike to prove his position using only the code, when the other position also cannot be proven with only the code.

People were generally on one side against Mike, and a similar thing happened in this thread. The interesting observation is this thread while a different subject, has the SAME basic flaw in the code. Are the "extras" subject to some other rule or not? Some of the people that said NO in the SA load issue, said YES in the above thread (do extra receptacles beyond what are required need to be on the SA circuit).

My personal opinion for what it's worth, for the SA load, I can see both sides argument, but in general I think if you put in extra SA circuits, it is because you think there is more load than two can handle. It seems bad to me for the code to accept 2 circuits no matter how large the house is. On the older thread, I don't see the other side at all. To me to allow extra 15A receptacles between the required 20A ones is rediculous.

Sorry if any of this was mentioned already. I didn't have time to read everything in the thread.

 

[iwire]

Re: I don't intend this to be a long thread

I am keeping my mouth shut.

 

[69boss302]

Re: I don't intend this to be a long thread

I find that hard to believe Bob, with a thread title like that this thing could go on forever before anyone addresses the question.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: I don't intend this to be a long thread

Paul,
I think that the code is perfectly clear on the SA question and I believe that Mike thinks the same.

People were asking Mike to prove his position using only the code, when the other position also cannot be proven with only the code.

It is my opinion that all code questions must be answered using the code language or the legislative record of the code language (ROP and ROC). That is the law and other comments on that law do not change it. When there is a disagreement on the meaning of the words the final arbitrator is a court of record.
Don

[ June 29, 2005, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: don_resqcapt19 ]

 

[paul32]

Re: I don't intend this to be a long thread

Originally posted by don_resqcapt19:
Paul,
I think that the code is perfectly clear on the SA question and I believe that Mike thinks the same.

You think it clearly says only 2 SA need to be in the load calc and Mike thinks is clearly says all SAs need to be in the load calc. That tells me it isn't clear.

To me it was clear before that thread. I never would have thought it meant to include only 2 before that discussion.

 

[steve66]

Re: I don't intend this to be a long thread

Paul:

I have to agree with Iwire, Don, and (I think) almost everyone except you and Mike.

Look at 220.16. If it was meant to include every SA circuit installed it would simply read:

In each dwelling unit, the load shall be computed at 1500 volt-amperes for each 2-wire small appliance branch circuit.

Now ask youself why they included the phrase

required by 210.11(C)(1).

It has been said several times that 210.11(C)(1) only required 2 SA circuits.

I don't care how big the house is, you can only run so many blenders at once

Steve

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: I don't intend this to be a long thread

Lets not repeat the 12 page thread here. I think that every thing that could be said was said in the long thread.
Don

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: I don't intend this to be a long thread

Paul,
If it is not clear, then write a proposal to make it clear for the 2008 code. Proposals must be submitted to the NFPA in early November of this year for the 2008 code.
Don

 

[paul32]

Re: I don't intend this to be a long thread

If it is so clear, why do the handbook authors and other authors feel all SA should be included?

Steve, I don't buy your argument. The code is full of words that don't need to be there. For example, someplace there is a requirement that simply says Article 250 must be followed. If that was missing Article 250 would still need to be followed.

 

[paul32]

Re: I don't intend this to be a long thread

It just occurred to me to see what the residential load calculator on Mike Holt's site does. Looks like 3 SA circuits gets 4500VA.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: I don't intend this to be a long thread

paul32

The debate over these sections of the code revolves around the word required found in 220.52 (A)

Some believe that 210.11 only requires two small appliance circuits
.
I believe what the code states and I can not find where 210.11 states that only two small appliance circuits are required. It clearly states two or more shall , a mandatory rule.

In another thread on code violations, one violation that is pointed out is that not following job specifications is a code violation as found here.

Most residential electricians design their own circuits therefore when they add a 20 amp circuit for a dinning room it is part of the specifications and now becomes a required circuit that must be included in the service calculations as outlined by the words two or more in 210.11.

I think that the biggest problem comes that it was me that made the statement and some in here are determined that no matter what I say it is wrong unless I am agreeing with them.

I would never have pulled Mr. Holt into this discussion but I am glad that you did.
I still stand my ground based on the code that I have already quoted in the other thread and am still waiting for some one to show a code reference to disprove the sections I have posted.
When they could not post code sections and only inject opinion they closed the thread. Think back and you will see that it is not the first thread that was closed down that I was involved in.
Pay close attention to these words to see why I made the statement above.
No matter I am still here

 

[sandsnow]

Re: I don't intend this to be a long thread

Originally posted by don_resqcapt19:
Paul,
If it is not clear, then write a proposal to make it clear for the 2008 code. Proposals must be submitted to the NFPA in early November of this year for the 2008 code.
Don

Amen, and should be the above post should be the final word on the subject.

 

[roger]

Re: I don't intend this to be a long thread

JW, why do you think my reply to Steve's comment about reading specs had anything to do with me thinking it was a code requirement? If you will read further down in the thread you will see where I'm addressing liquidated damages, unfair bid advantages, and installation practices.

Even though my posts were in that thread titled "Your most observed code violation?" they were not directly addressing the issue.

If the Specs call for the The Ceiling Contractor to cut all my holes for smoke detectors, exit lights, speakers,etc... and I haven't read that section, so I cut all these openings myself, now due to not reading them, I have just cost myself a lot of unnecessary expense.

If the Mechanical Specs call for all load side wiring from a switch or jbox to their equipment be by them, and I don't read "Section 15" so I go ahead and provide the raceways, fittings, conductors, and labor, once again I have cost myself.


I'm sorry, but I think you misunderstood my posts in that thread.

I don't see where "Division 10" say "Plain Jane Toilet Paper Dispensers" would be part of the the NEC.

Roger

[ June 29, 2005, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: roger ]

 

[roger]

Re: I don't intend this to be a long thread

I also agree with Don,

Paul,
If it is not clear, then write a proposal to make it clear for the 2008 code. Proposals must be submitted to the NFPA in early November of this year for the 2008 code.
Don

Roger

 

[physis]

Re: I don't intend this to be a long thread

I'm kind-a bored right now. I might just look up my opinion on it.

 

[paul32]

Re: I don't intend this to be a long thread

I should not have said the second sentence of my second post. I was not intending to argue which way was right, just pointing out I think the argument has no grounds on either side and the code is not clear. Like I said, if it were clear, we wouldn't be having such discussions.

Mike, all that was addressed to me? I wouldn't conclude your comments are dismissed because it is you from just this thread. Even though I think all SAs should be in the load calc, I don't agree with your argument. 210.11 does only require 2 SA circuits (assuming one kitchen ), and more are permitted. Don't get too hung up on shall and use some common sense. An action must fall in one of 3 categories: required, permitted, or not allowed at all. A 3rd SA circuit is certainly allowed, and certainly not required, therefore it is permitted.

This is off the wall, but what does everyone think of this: Instead of a 3rd SA circuit, I'll split wire all the dining room receptacles, putting the top receptacle on the SA circuit, and the bottom receptacle on a 15A circuit, where it definitely doesn't need a 1500VA load. Any reason I can't do that?

 

[jwelectric]

Re: I don't intend this to be a long thread

90.5 Mandatory Rules, Permissive Rules, and Explanatory Material.
(A) Mandatory Rules. Mandatory rules of this Code are those that identify actions that are specifically required or prohibited and are characterized by the use of the terms shall or shall not.
(B) Permissive Rules. Permissive rules of this Code are those that identify actions that are allowed but not required, are normally used to describe options or alternative methods, and are characterized by the use of the terms shall be permitted or shall not be required.
(C) Explanatory Material. Explanatory material, such as references to other standards, references to related sections of this Code, or information related to a Code rule, is included in this Code in the form of fine print notes (FPNs). Fine print notes are informational only and are not enforceable as requirements of this Code.
Brackets containing section references to another NFPA document are for informational purposes only and are provided as a guide to indicate the source of the extracted text. These bracketed references immediately follow the extracted text.
FPN: The format and language used in this Code follows guidelines established by NFPA and published in the NEC Style Manual. Copies of this manual can be obtained from NFPA.

I don't think that I am asking for much, just show me where 210.11 gives permission to do anything as outlined by the above.

Like you said even the sponser of this Forum states that if more than two then include them all.

Agree or disagree I could care less. The rule is the rule.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: I don't intend this to be a long thread

I said that we were not going to repeat the SA thread discussion so I am closing this thread. There is nothing more to be said.
Both sides have strong feelings that the code wording supports their position and no minds are going to be changed by rehashing this.
Don