MICROWAVE RECEPTACLE

[FionaZuppa]

yes. Knowing that certain items will have unique enough demand to justify extra circuits is a design decision not a code requirement. Cord and plug appliances that are fastened in place get more scrutiny from NEC though.

right, so if a indi-bc is required to supply one util equip, would you still apply the same rationale to the indi-bc as you do gp-bc? the answer is no.

 

[kwired]

right, so if a indi-bc is required to supply one util equip, would you still apply the same rationale to the indi-bc as you do gp-bc? the answer is no.

I guess if the utilization equipment is portable in nature then every GPBC needs to be an individual BC just in case you might move the portable UE.:blink:

 

[ActionDave]

right, so if a indi-bc is required to supply one util equip, would you still apply the same rationale to the indi-bc as you do gp-bc? the answer is no.

Say these words out loud, Design Issue, Not a Safety Issue. Repeat as necessary.

 

[iwire]

Say these words out loud, Design Issue, Not a Safety Issue. Repeat as necessary.

:thumbsup:

It is important to remember the NEC is not a design specification.

90.1 Purpose.

(B) Adequacy. This Code contains provisions that are considered
necessary for safety. Compliance therewith and
proper maintenance results in an installation that is essentially
free from hazard but not necessarily efficient, convenient,
or adequate for good service or future expansion of
electrical use.

90.1 Purpose.

(C) Intention. This Code is not intended as a design specification
or an instruction manual for untrained persons.

 

[FionaZuppa]

:thumbsup:

It is important to remember the NEC is not a design specification.

me not arguing that nec would be design spec.

indi-bc definition was created for a reason, and is different than gp-bc. the design, whatever that is, is governed by the nec, otherwise what would be the purpose of the nec. if my design has a gp-bc and a perm mounted microwave uses a duplex on the same gp-bc and i say the rest of the outlets on that same gp-bc really wont be used because thats the way i designed it and safety really not an issue because i have a ocpd for that ckt, will nec allow that?

like so many other items around nec, my last post about this issue. nec needs fixin.

 

[ActionDave]

me not arguing that nec would be design spec.

yes you are.

indi-bc definition was created for a reason, and is different than gp-bc. the design, whatever that is, is governed by the nec, otherwise what would be the purpose of the nec. if my design has a gp-bc and a perm mounted microwave uses a duplex on the same gp-bc and i say the rest of the outlets on that same gp-bc really wont be used because thats the way i designed it and safety really not an issue because i have a ocpd for that ckt, will nec allow that?

exactly! yes!

like so many other items around nec, my last post about this issue. nec needs fixin.

the nec gets worse and worse every code cycle because it keeps spilling over into design issues.