MICROWAVE RECEPTACLE

[Smart $]

The only way a single may be required in the case of the microwave is if a manufacturer would explicitly require one (which I have never heard of). The manufacturer recommending/requiring an IBC is not the same as req the simplex.

Exactly.

 

[FionaZuppa]

Where in article 100 does it state you cannot break the tabs of the receptacle? If the tabs for the lower part are not energized then you have a single receptacle

nope.
i listed it many times already. "Receptacle" in art-100. a single is if its the only one on the yoke.

and as mentioned,,,,, "one" and "single" receptacle are exactly the same thing. "one duplex" is two receptacles.

 

[user 100]

nope.
i listed it many times already. "Receptacle" in art-100. a single is if its the only one on the yoke.

My take on that here:

....... if the tabs are broken and only one half is connected to an outlet, the other non connected half would not be considered a receptacle- you have to have an outlet for there to be a receptacle in the first place- if the tabs are broken, there is no connection to the outlet for that one dead half, so you would then only have one code defined receptacle (the connected half) on the yoke- the dead half of the duplex is nothing at that point, just extra weight.

So, IF, we were to claim installed at the outlet was the same as energized by the outlet, then your argument is null and void. But if installed at the outlet means merely mounted to the box, then it fits like a glove.

 

[Smart $]

nope.
i listed it many times already. "Receptacle" in art-100. a single is if its the only one on the yoke.

and as mentioned,,,,, "one" and "single" receptacle are exactly the same thing. "one duplex" is two receptacles.

Break tabs on a duplex receptacle and you have two instances of one receptacle on one yoke.



"one" and "single" receptacle are NOT exactly the same thing.

 

[FionaZuppa]

Break tabs on a duplex receptacle and you have two instances of one receptacle on one yoke.



"one" and "single" receptacle are NOT exactly the same thing.

Receptacle. A receptacle is a contact device installed at the
outlet for the connection of an attachment plug. A single
receptacle is a single contact device with no other contact
device on the same yoke. A multiple receptacle is two or
more contact devices on the same yoke.

what part of this definition is not clear?

two singles on one yoke cannot be a "single receptacle".

 

[user 100]

what part of this definition is not clear?

two singles on one yoke cannot be a "single receptacle".

I'm pretty sure that Smart $ and Dennis Alwon know the difference between single and one.



You are aware of the code definition for outlet and receptacle, and the fact that you can't have a receptacle if there is no outlet. You get power from a receptacle (contact device), which is connected/installed at/to the outlet. The outlet of course provides power to the receptacle.

So hows does one get power from something that isn't connected to anything? How is a dead receptacle half considered a code defined receptacle? Where in the code does it say this dead equipment must be removed, so that a manufactured single must be put in? Or for that matter, how does the code apply to any dead equipment- if you were to install wires, a box and receptacle, but remove the wires/power from it, how does the NEC even apply after such point?

The rabbit hole is energized- connected to/installed at.

I'm not picking, or being rude- just think about it.

Now cue Trebek and the music and.......

 

[Smart $]

what part of this definition is not clear?

two singles on one yoke cannot be a "single receptacle".

I am not saying two single receptacles on one yoke. You are construing my words to that effect.

What I am saying is: before you break the tabs you have a duplex receptacle (singular). After you break the tabs you have two receptacles (plural, as in one plus one).

With tabs broken, you can have one receptacle, one outlet on an individual branch circuit (though technically not required).

 

[K8MHZ]

I am not saying two single receptacles on one yoke. You are construing my words to that effect.

What I am saying is: before you break the tabs you have a duplex receptacle (singular). After you break the tabs you have two receptacles (plural, as in one plus one).

With tabs broken, you can have one receptacle, one outlet on an individual branch circuit (though technically not required).

I don't agree that a duplex receptacle is no longer a duplex receptacle if the tabs are broken. It is still two contact devices on the same yoke. There is no requirement they be electrically connected.

 

[GoldDigger]

I am not saying two single receptacles on one yoke. You are construing my words to that effect.

What I am saying is: before you break the tabs you have a duplex receptacle (singular). After you break the tabs you have two receptacles (plural, as in one plus one).

With tabs broken, you can have one receptacle, one outlet on an individual branch circuit (though technically not required).

To paraphrase that, you have a duplex receptacle in the box and it has been converted to two independent receptacles on one yoke.
So you feel that by connecting only to one of the two the circuit is connected only to a single receptacle. That is what the electrons see, but IMHO it does not override the fact that the circuit is connected to a duplex receptacle, even if only to a part of it.
But it is NOT connected to more than one receptacle.

All in all a fine mess the CMP has gotten us into, Ollie.

 

[K8MHZ]

To paraphrase that, you have a duplex receptacle in the box and it has been converted to two independent receptacles on one yoke.
So you feel that by connecting only to one of the two the circuit is connected only to a single receptacle. That is what the electrons see, but IMHO it does not override the fact that the circuit is connected to a duplex receptacle, even if only to a part of it.
But it is NOT connected to more than one receptacle.

All in all a fine mess the CMP has gotten us into, Ollie.

Would it make any sense to define a single contact device on a yoke a 'simplex' receptacle instead of a 'single' receptacle? Then, the fact that a duplex receptacle is two single receptacles would further no confusion as to what rules apply to which 'plex'.

 

[user 100]

Would it make any sense to define a single contact device on a yoke a 'simplex' receptacle instead of a 'single' receptacle? Then, the fact that a duplex receptacle is two single receptacles would further no confusion as to what rules apply to which 'plex'.

Yes it would, or "installed at the outlet" could be defined better.

 

[GoldDigger]

Yes it would, or "installed at the outlet" could be defined better.

Just try submitting input and watch the CMP reply that the code is perfectly clear as it stands. :happysad:

 

[wwhitney]

What I am saying is: before you break the tabs you have a duplex receptacle (singular). After you break the tabs you have two receptacles (plural, as in one plus one).

Yes, although in both cases you have a "multiple receptacle" per the article 100 definition. The yoke carries two contact devices, and whether or not they are both energized is immaterial to the definition.

With tabs broken, you can have one receptacle, one outlet on an individual branch circuit (though technically not required).

Yes, amusingly you have now found a hole in 210.21(B). Part (1) doesn't apply, as you don't have a single receptacle per the article 100 definition. And Parts (2) and (3) don't apply, as you don't have two or more receptacles on the branch circuit.

Uh oh, the NEC isn't logical.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Smart $]

I don't agree that a duplex receptacle is no longer a duplex receptacle if the tabs are broken. It is still two contact devices on the same yoke. There is no requirement they be electrically connected.

You see... this is just how putting words "in my mouth" happens. While I see how you (not you in particular) may take what I said to mean that, I did not actually say a duplex receptacle is no longer a duplex receptacle if the tabs are broken. Please reread what I said.

Here is the "best" you can construe my words to mean. It is, they are electrically no longer a duplex receptacle. They are two receptacles, independent as GD put it, but physically still a duplex because they are still on the same yoke. I've never once said they are single receptacles (as best I can recall :lol.

 

[K8MHZ]

You see... this is just how putting words "in my mouth" happens. While I see how you (not you in particular) may take what I said to mean that, I did not actually say a duplex receptacle is no longer a duplex receptacle if the tabs are broken. Please reread what I said.

Here is the "best" you can construe my words to mean. It is, they are electrically no longer a duplex receptacle. They are two receptacles, independent as GD put it, but physically still a duplex because they are still on the same yoke. I've never once said they are single receptacles (as best I can recall :lol.

Here is what I was referring to:

"What I am saying is: before you break the tabs you have a duplex receptacle (singular). After you break the tabs you have two receptacles (plural, as in one plus one)."

Forgive me for reading the above as 'before you break the tabs you have a duplex receptacle, after you break the tabs you have something different'.

 

[Smart $]

Here is what I was referring to:

"What I am saying is: before you break the tabs you have a duplex receptacle (singular). After you break the tabs you have two receptacles (plural, as in one plus one)."

Forgive me for reading the above as 'before you break the tabs you have a duplex receptacle, after you break the tabs you have something different'.

But after you break the tabs you DO have something different, right?

 

[kwired]

I am not saying two single receptacles on one yoke. You are construing my words to that effect.

What I am saying is: before you break the tabs you have a duplex receptacle (singular). After you break the tabs you have two receptacles (plural, as in one plus one).

With tabs broken, you can have one receptacle, one outlet on an individual branch circuit (though technically not required).

I kind of skimmed over the past few posts so forgive me if I repeat anything already mentioned. I just wanted to say some time ago before handle ties were required you could have two individual branch circuits run to a duplex receptacle, now it pretty much has to be a MWBC which is both a single circuit or multiple circuits depending on what code section you are trying to fulfill.

I also feel you would have to remove both tabs to consider the two receptacles as separate, leaving the neutral link intact leaves the possibility of a MWBC.

Now what if the appliance in question is plugged into one half of a duplex and the other half is on the other half of a MWBC? Is it still on an individual circuit? I think it is.

 

[FionaZuppa]

not hard to grasp the definition. more than one set of contact devices on same yoke, electrically connected or not, cannot be a "single receptacle" according to nec. a duplex, and a duplex with broken tabs, are both the same, two receptacles on same yoke.

 

[Smart $]

...
Now what if the appliance in question is plugged into one half of a duplex and the other half is on the other half of a MWBC? Is it still on an individual circuit? I think it is.

As long as it only supplies one utilization equipment, yes. (...IMO )

 

[Smart $]

not hard to grasp the definition. more than one set of contact devices on same yoke, electrically connected or not, cannot be a "single receptacle" according to nec. a duplex, and a duplex with broken tabs, are both the same, two receptacles on same yoke.

Yes... but where only one receptacle is powered, it can (and should) satisfy those AHJ that think you can only have one receptacle on a IBC.