Lutron Fixes 404.14(E) Problems!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Lutron Fixes 404.14(E) Problems!

Originally posted by physis:
Scalliol, I could be completely off base and I mean no offence but I'm just going to ask. Are you selling this Lutron product?
Click to expand...
I am wondering the same thing?

I did a search here first and didn't see this posted, yet I saw people complaining about losing the ability to dim floor lamps, so here we go:
Click to expand...
Leave it to Lutron to fix regulatory problems
Click to expand...
Lutron initially got commercial approval for this product and now has residential approval because of an incredible amount of regulatory investigation and actually a fair amount in R&D,
Click to expand...
Nice product, but try to make a wall mounted command actuate that. This allows Spacer System and Grafik Eye,
Click to expand...
This just does not have the tone of most posts.
 
Re: Lutron Fixes 404.14(E) Problems!

Peter, it's been looking that way to me for quite a while now. There are more than a few tip offs. But it is possible he really likes the thing. If it is a sales effort it's not doing well on this forum.
 
Re: Lutron Fixes 404.14(E) Problems!

Schalliol, I mean this completely in fun, I wont decide to like you or dislike you if you are or aren't selling this. But if your not you should consider it.
 
Re: Lutron Fixes 404.14(E) Problems!

Originally posted by schalliol:
I don't work for lutron, nor do I sell their products or own any stock, or know anyone personally that works there. I just think that it's a good product...shoot me.
Click to expand...
I was putting together my post while you posted this.

You must really like that company in a big way.
 
Re: Lutron Fixes 404.14(E) Problems!

Hey if I like something I have a habit of telling everyone about it. I still get razzed about my tires I use and still think they are the best tires for the money for a construction van. and guess what they now have over 100k on them and still have alot of tread to go. and not one flat in over three years. GoodYear Workhorse Extra-Grip 31x10.50 on a GMC 2500. Who needs 4 wheel drive with these tires. :D

It's amazing how good of a salesman we can be when we belive in somthing. :roll:
 
Re: Lutron Fixes 404.14(E) Problems!

Is that why you're always telling us about those tires? :D
 
Re: Lutron Fixes 404.14(E) Problems!

Bob, we had this discussion as how 404.14(E) relates to track lighting. I don't think any dimmer or track is listed for use together yet such installations comply even though there are many different heads other than incandescent that the owner can "plug in" to the track. I don't believe that the heads are permanently installed per 404.14(E) but the track will not allow the connection of other general-purpose loads.

The intent of the article, then it can be argued, is to prohibit the connection of general-purpose loads such as appliances, TV?s etc. to a circuit supplied by a dimmer. I see no difference between a lighting track, the Lutron receptacle and any other receptacle that will reject a standard plug.

I think that Lutron has interpreted the "unless listed for the control of other loads" part to have listed and specifically allow the use of their receptacle with their dimmers. (What happens if you replace their dimmer with another manufacturer? The listing is void.) I believe the code here is referring to other types of permanently installed lighting or loads such as HID, fluorescent or fans being used with a dimmer that has been listed for the purpose.

The gist of the listing for the Lutron receptacle is simply that it will not allow the insertion of a standard type plug. As I pointed out, this could always be accomplished with other standard products and be interpreted the same way as lighting track. If lighting track is not required to be listed for use with a dimmer neither should a special purpose receptacle.

Oh, and by the way I always felt that this sounded like a sales pitch. You just had the urge to join up today and decided to so eloquently tell us all about this.

-Hal

[ November 29, 2004, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: hbiss ]
 
Re: Lutron Fixes 404.14(E) Problems!

Originally posted by schalliol:
I don't work for lutron, nor do I sell their products or own any stock, or know anyone personally that works there. I just think that it's a good product...shoot me.
Click to expand...
Lock and load! :eek: It is almost an insult that this person thinks we are to stupid to see the sales pitch.

[ November 29, 2004, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: electricmanscott ]
 
Re: Lutron Fixes 404.14(E) Problems!

Hal I beleive that track lighting (not the cord and plug connected ones you buy at Home Depot) would be a permantly installed lighting fixture. I don't see why it would not be. :confused:
 
Re: Lutron Fixes 404.14(E) Problems!

I beleive that track lighting (not the cord and plug connected ones you buy at Home Depot) would be a permantly installed lighting fixture. I don't see why it would not be.

The track is, the heads obviously are not and this wouldn't be an issue if all heads were 120 volt incandescent like years ago. Today there are many types of heads besides straight incandescent- LV with magnetic transformers, LV with electronic transformers, fluorescent and metal halide as well as pendent fixtures that hang by their cord. Any of these can be plugged onto a track at any time.

Problem is some heads can be dimmed with either a regular dimmer or one designed for that type of head, other heads cannot be dimmed at all. Plugging non-dimmable heads onto a track fed from a dimmer (or the wrong type of dimmer) may cause damage to either the head, the dimmer or both.

In this respect track lighting is even less safe than a special purpose receptacle.

-Hal
 
Re: Lutron Fixes 404.14(E) Problems!

schalliol,

It is unusual to hear such praise about a Product and Company from someone not associated with it somehow. If that's not the case, please understand the skepticism and don't take the questions personally.

Bill
 
Re: Lutron Fixes 404.14(E) Problems!

Originally posted by peter d:
This sounds like another useless gizmo that will collect dust on the shelf of the supply store.

If I want to dim a table lamp, I'll stick with Lutron's $15 "Attache" dimmer that clips onto the cord.
Click to expand...
Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. You just won the fake plastic vomit, ginsu knives, and a one year supply of rice o roni. :D
 
Re: Lutron Fixes 404.14(E) Problems!

To be fair here I do think that there is a need to control cord connected lighting. This would be in high end installations that use something like the Graffic Eye system where there are preset scenes for an entire room, not a single lamp on a wall dimmer situation.

Again, this sounds like a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. I'm sure cord connected lamps have been installed (legally) on such systems since the 2002 code has been adopted. How was it done?

-Hal
 
Re: Lutron Fixes 404.14(E) Problems!

I think Lutron has a reasonably good idea with this product, but think it would have been more useful if one "dimmable receptacle" was paired with a standard receptacle on a single yoke. It could then be used as a direct replacement for the many existing "1/2 hot" receptacles out there without having to go to the trouble & expense of ganging it with a standard duplex.
 
Re: Lutron Fixes 404.14(E) Problems!

I agree with that, always-on and switched receptacles are often used in new construction because of the flexibility. If there were such a unit, would code allow the single receptacle and the lighting connection, or would it require dual receptacles, since the switched unit is still considered a receptacle?
 
Re: Lutron Fixes 404.14(E) Problems!

It's 210.52(A)(1)and you can find the definition of an outlet receptacle in article 100. :)
 
Re: Lutron Fixes 404.14(E) Problems!

Every general-use dimmer I ever installed was marked "For permanently installed incandescent lamps only". Using this type of dimmer for portable lamps has always violated 110-3(b). 404.14(e) repeats requirements that have been in the UL Whitebook for years.

[ November 30, 2004, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: rbb ]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top