Odd multiwire circuit

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Odd multiwire circuit

Mike I agree with Scott, they may have wanted all receptacle outlets covered but the way the code is worded only the 'group' of outlets described by 210.52(A) and 210.52(C) are covered.

Once those required outlets are installed additional receptacles are not part of the required group.

I respectfully disagree with Jim Pauly. That is my prerogative.

It does not matter as I would not use 15 amp circuits in those rooms anyway. :)
 
Re: Odd multiwire circuit

Sometimes all of the different opinions on this site confuse the %^&& out of people who read these posts.
The issue of the dining/kitchen 15 amp receptacle should be directed to the NFPA. A yes or no type of question should be written and sent to the NFPA for a definitive answer, instead of bringing up another long thread of endless opinions that have no real answer.
 
Re: Odd multiwire circuit

Originally posted by pierre:
Sometimes all of the different opinions on this site confuse the %^&& out of people who read these posts.
Click to expand...
Sometimes reading the NEC confuses the %^&& out of people who read it. :D
 
Re: Odd multiwire circuit

.A yes or no type of question should be written and sent to the NFPA for a definitive answer, instead of bringing up another long thread of endless opinions that have no real answer. [/QB][/QUOTE]
But that is why we come here to hear ourselves argue points that are usually answered in the first page of the thread :D that goes on for page after page after page ( Wow kind of sounds like capitol hill )
 
Re: Odd multiwire circuit

I have been all over the map on this one. At the present time I see the 15 amp receptacles being allowed. Ask me next week and I might be swayed they other way. :D

If the code writers wrote in plain english things would be alot easier. Something like this.

"All receptacles in kitchens, dinning rooms pantries and breakfast rooms shall be supplied by at least two 20 amp branch circuits. These circuits shall have no other outlets.
Exception: Receptacles installed for specific appliances shall be sized according to the load to be served"
 
Re: Odd multiwire circuit

Thank you all. My point of the question was to confirm my thinking a multiwire didn't have to have both/all legs the same breaker. I threw the DR part in there partly to see if anyone was paying attention :D and also I seem to recall a lot of people arguing that once you satisfy the requirements you can do what you want. The prior case I think was saying once you have the SA outlets at 12' spacing you could put outlets on a 15A circuit between them. I don't subscribe to that and wanted to see if someone would try to argue that.
 
Re: Odd multiwire circuit

Originally posted by paul32:
Thank you all. My point of the question was to confirm my thinking a multiwire didn't have to have both/all legs the same breaker.
Click to expand...
Well now you're asking a different question.
 
Re: Odd multiwire circuit

Originally posted by paul32:
The prior case I think was saying once you have the SA outlets at 12' spacing you could put outlets on a 15A circuit between them. I don't subscribe to that and wanted to see if someone would try to argue that.
Click to expand...
Some would say the code allows this. :cool:
 
Re: Odd multiwire circuit

Originally posted by electricmanscott:
Originally posted by paul32:
Thank you all. My point of the question was to confirm my thinking a multiwire didn't have to have both/all legs the same breaker.
Click to expand...
Well now you're asking a different question.
Click to expand...
:D

That should have said same SIZE breaker.
 
Re: Odd multiwire circuit

When I read 210.52(A), I see the words "no point . . . is more than" six feet from a receptacle outlet. That is a maximum limit. Anything that falls within that maximum limit meets the code. 210.52(A) covers not only the receptacles that are spaced right at that maximum distance; it also covers the ones that are spaced closer. Put receptacles every two feet in a DR, and they are all covered by 210.52(A). Therefore, they must all be on 20 amp SA circuits.

I'll go away now. Maybe I'll come back after this hits 200 posts.
 
Re: Odd multiwire circuit

I can't stay out. I tried, but I can't. :D

By Charlie:

When I read 210.52(A), I see the words "no point . . . is more than" six feet from a receptacle outlet. That is a maximum limit. Anything that falls within that maximum limit meets the code. 210.52(A) covers not only the receptacles that are spaced right at that maximum distance; it also covers the ones that are spaced closer.
Click to expand...
Is a receptacle between two others spaced at 6' "required" or "covered".

I don't have my code book with me so I'll just ask the question. It's not "required" but I beleive it might be "covered" as Charlie says.

Edit:
By Scott:

That seemed to be the consensus of this forum.
Click to expand...
Consensus on this forum. :D

[ November 18, 2005, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: physis ]
 
Re: Odd multiwire circuit

The only requirement is that they not be further apart than 12 feet. If they are closer, that's OK too. But they are there because that particular article says they are there.

As to consensus, we get that all the time. Why, the last time a member disagreed with my view, there were more than 25,000 other members who did not voice a disagreement with my view. That is enough support for me to say I had the consensus on my side. :D :D
 
Re: Odd multiwire circuit

Originally posted by charlie b:
The only requirement is that they not be further apart than 12 feet. If they are closer, that's OK too. But they are there because that particular article says they are there.
Click to expand...
No, if any are receptacles closer than 12' they are not there per code they are there because I am feeling generous. :D
 
Re: Odd multiwire circuit

Originally posted by iwire:No, if any are receptacles closer than 12' they are not there per code they are there because I am feeling generous.
Click to expand...
"No" right back at you. The code requires them to be no further apart than 12'. If they are further apart, the Inspector will fail you. If they are closer than 12', the Inspector will pass you. But they are still there because the code tells you to install them and gives you a maximum distance. You cannot point to any one and say, "that is one that the code did not require, so I'll put it on a 15 amp circuit."

Did you say "Generous" or "Profit Hungry"? :D
 
Re: Odd multiwire circuit

Originally posted by charlie b:
You cannot point to any one and say, "that is one that the code did not require, so I'll put it on a 15 amp circuit."
Click to expand...
Charlie, seriously, I have no idea why you feel that way.

I am not trying to give you a hard time, I just really do not understand that statement. :confused:

Once I have an outlet every 12' I have satisfied the requirement, I missing the language in the NEC that says additional ones are also now part of the required ones.

Let me ask this.

Once I have installed the required wall switch controlled lighting outlet in the DR would you also say a voluntarily added additional lighting outlet would have to be wall switch controlled?
 
Re: Odd multiwire circuit

Originally posted by iwire: Once I have installed the required wall switch controlled lighting outlet in the DR would you also say a voluntarily added additional lighting outlet would have to be wall switch controlled?
Click to expand...
Excellent question. My answer is "No." I would not say a voluntarily added additional lighting outlet would have to be wall switch-controlled. It could be, for example, a ceiling fixture with a pull chain.

210.70(A)(1) says you must have at least one lighting outlet with wall switch control. So install one wall switch-controlled ceiling light and one pull chain ceiling light. Do you have "at least one" wall switched lighting outlet? Yes. Can you point to it? Yes. When you point to the wall switched outlet, is there any doubt that you are pointing to the one that the code requires? No. Therefore, when you point to the pull-chain ceiling light, you can say that it need not be wall-switched, because the "at least one" required by code is this other one.

What is the difference between the two situations? Let's look at receptacles:
Originally posted by iwire: Once I have an outlet every 12' I have satisfied the requirement, I missing the language in the NEC that says additional ones are also now part of the required ones.
Click to expand...
The code does not say they must be no more than 12 feet apart. That is our common misinterpretation. That is the "conversational English" way of describing the rule. But that is not what it says.

The language of 210.52(A) starts with, essentially, "you shall install receptacles in the following way." Then 210.52(A)(1) says that no point along a wall can be more than 6 feet from an outlet. So you don't verify compliance by measuring the distance between receptacles.

You verify compliance by picking a point on the wall, and measuring the distance between that point and the nearest receptacle in either direction. If you find one within six feet, then that point along the wall is in compliance. Now pick another point along the wall.

That is the difference.
 
Re: Odd multiwire circuit

I just wonder the reason for doing something like this. Other than being different and wanting to stand out.
 
Re: Odd multiwire circuit

Originally posted by HKYPLR:
But the code book is calling for simultaneously disconnect the ungrounded conductors.How is this done with a 15a and a 20a circuit? Not to mention that the loads should be ballanced.
Click to expand...
How do you assure that the loads will be balanced on two 20 amp circuits?

Numbers stamped on breakers have no bearing on load balancing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top