- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: Poor design choice
The same one that requires two in the kitchen.
Poor design choice
- Thread starter southernboys
- Start date
- Status
LarryFine
Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
- Location
- Henrico County, VA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
Re: Poor design choice
Maybe it should say " . . . one of the two or more . . . "
[ January 21, 2006, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: LarryFine ]
You could even stretch that to mean that every receptacle must be supplied from two circuits!Originally posted by iwire:
The same one that requires two in the kitchen.
Maybe it should say " . . . one of the two or more . . . "
[ January 21, 2006, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: LarryFine ]
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician (retired)
Re: Poor design choice
I'm reading that as the 2 or more. This doesn't imply that the dining room must have both. If I had, more, say 6 SA's, would they all have to go to the dining room as well?
I'm reading that as the 2 or more. This doesn't imply that the dining room must have both. If I had, more, say 6 SA's, would they all have to go to the dining room as well?
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: Poor design choice
No only the two as 210.11(C)(1) (IMO) never requires more than two.
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician (retired)
Re: Poor design choice
I would have to disagree that the dining room requires more than one SA circuit. 210.52(B)(3) states that the countertop must be served by not fewer than two SA circuits. It goes on to say that either or both shall be permitted to supply receptacles in the other rooms specified in 210.52(B)(1).
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: Poor design choice
IMO all 210.52(B)(1) requires is that at least two of the SA circuits end up serving the counter top.
In other words I can not use one SA circuit to feed all the 'low' kitchen wall outlets and the other SA circuit to serve all the countertop outlets.
It also tells us those same circuits can serve the pantry, breakfast room, dining room, similar areas of a dwelling units, or we can install additional circuits to serve those areas that meet the SA circuit requirements.
But in all cases IMO 210.52(B)(1) requires at least two SA circuits to be installed in kitchens, pantries, breakfast rooms, dining rooms, or similar areas of a dwelling units
That is how I have always understood it and done it.
You do have me questioning it, I may be wrong.
Trevor I have to disagree with your disagreement.
IMO all 210.52(B)(1) requires is that at least two of the SA circuits end up serving the counter top.
In other words I can not use one SA circuit to feed all the 'low' kitchen wall outlets and the other SA circuit to serve all the countertop outlets.
It also tells us those same circuits can serve the pantry, breakfast room, dining room, similar areas of a dwelling units, or we can install additional circuits to serve those areas that meet the SA circuit requirements.
But in all cases IMO 210.52(B)(1) requires at least two SA circuits to be installed in kitchens, pantries, breakfast rooms, dining rooms, or similar areas of a dwelling units
That is how I have always understood it and done it.
You do have me questioning it, I may be wrong.
- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2023
- Occupation
- Hospital Master Electrician
Re: Poor design choice
I'm with Trevor on this one.
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: Poor design choice
However another code section 210.52(B)(1) requires two SA circuits in the 'other' locations regardless if either or both are the same circuits serving the counter tops.
[ January 22, 2006, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: iwire ]
Yes one or both of the two circuits that section requires serving the countertop can be used in the other rooms.Originally posted by georgestolz:
I'm with Trevor on this one.
However another code section 210.52(B)(1) requires two SA circuits in the 'other' locations regardless if either or both are the same circuits serving the counter tops.
[ January 22, 2006, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: iwire ]
- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2023
- Occupation
- Hospital Master Electrician
Re: Poor design choice
Going that route, the only logical conclusion is that they want both circuits in all receptacle outlets.
That would give us fits with box fill.
Going that route, the only logical conclusion is that they want both circuits in all receptacle outlets.
That would give us fits with box fill.
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: Poor design choice
The conclusion is that the CMP wants the receptacles in kitchens, pantries, breakfast rooms, dining rooms, or similar areas of a dwelling units to be served by a minimum of two circuits that fit the requirements of SA circuits.
Please explain to me what "two or more 20-ampere small-appliance branch circuits" means if it does not mean at least two?
You have me baffled?
George, that is not a logical conclusion. although that would be acceptable.Originally posted by georgestolz:
Going that route, the only logical conclusion is that they want both circuits in all receptacle outlets.
That would give us fits with box fill.
The conclusion is that the CMP wants the receptacles in kitchens, pantries, breakfast rooms, dining rooms, or similar areas of a dwelling units to be served by a minimum of two circuits that fit the requirements of SA circuits.
Please explain to me what "two or more 20-ampere small-appliance branch circuits" means if it does not mean at least two?
You have me baffled?
- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2023
- Occupation
- Hospital Master Electrician
Re: Poor design choice
I think this one is like peeling an onion. It's still an onion no matter how deep you peel it, and you cry more as you keep going.
I think this one is like peeling an onion. It's still an onion no matter how deep you peel it, and you cry more as you keep going.
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician (retired)
Re: Poor design choice
Bob, your argument still can not get past the word either when applying 210.52(B)(3). The only requirement for 2 or more SA circuits in one area is on the kitchen counter. The word either would apply to the dining room or any other outlets in the kitchen except for the countertop.
Bob, your argument still can not get past the word either when applying 210.52(B)(3). The only requirement for 2 or more SA circuits in one area is on the kitchen counter. The word either would apply to the dining room or any other outlets in the kitchen except for the countertop.
- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2023
- Occupation
- Hospital Master Electrician
Re: Poor design choice
Trevor, he's got a point. He can read it that way and be correct.
(B)(3) doesn't lose it's context when (B)(1) is read that way, because without (B)(3), we could put one circuit on the wall space receptacles and the other circuit on the counter receptacles and fit with the way Bob is reading (B)(1).
That said, I don't believe the CMP intended it the way Bob is reading it. But I've been wrong before (about an hour before).
Trevor, he's got a point. He can read it that way and be correct.
(B)(3) doesn't lose it's context when (B)(1) is read that way, because without (B)(3), we could put one circuit on the wall space receptacles and the other circuit on the counter receptacles and fit with the way Bob is reading (B)(1).
That said, I don't believe the CMP intended it the way Bob is reading it. But I've been wrong before (about an hour before).
- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2023
- Occupation
- Hospital Master Electrician
Re: Poor design choice
"...either..." could be brought back into context if there are three circuits.
#1 & #2 serve the countertops.
#2 & #3 serve the dining room.
#3 also serves the fridge...
"...either..." could be brought back into context if there are three circuits.
#1 & #2 serve the countertops.
#2 & #3 serve the dining room.
#3 also serves the fridge...
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: Poor design choice
Thanks George.
It might be cause I am old...er.
Let me explain, now it seem most houses combine the dinning kitchen area, but when I was growing up these areas where separate rooms.
When my folks entertained it would not be in the kitchen, it would be in the dinning room.
In the dinning room be coffee makers, hot plates, "Fondue warmers" maybe a Lava Lamp , etc. The kind of items that eat up an entire circuit.
It is for this type of use I believe that the CMP intends two circuits in these areas.
But now of course I am just guessing at the intent.
Forgetting intent I do not see how we can ignore two or more
[ January 22, 2006, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: iwire ]
Thanks George.
I am not sure why you can not imagine wanting two circuits in the dinning room.Originally posted by georgestolz:
That said, I don't believe the CMP intended it the way Bob is reading it.
It might be cause I am old...er.
Let me explain, now it seem most houses combine the dinning kitchen area, but when I was growing up these areas where separate rooms.
When my folks entertained it would not be in the kitchen, it would be in the dinning room.
In the dinning room be coffee makers, hot plates, "Fondue warmers" maybe a Lava Lamp
, etc. The kind of items that eat up an entire circuit.It is for this type of use I believe that the CMP intends two circuits in these areas.
But now of course I am just guessing at the intent.
Forgetting intent I do not see how we can ignore two or more
[ January 22, 2006, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: iwire ]
- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2023
- Occupation
- Hospital Master Electrician
Re: Poor design choice
So what do you do if the 'similar area' (or dining room) has only one required receptacle? It happens.
(Remembering that the code only calls for a single receptacle at the wall spacing requirements, not a duplex.)
I think if they intended for each room to have two circuits, then they'd include language like what we see in (B)(3) for countertops, IMO.
So what do you do if the 'similar area' (or dining room) has only one required receptacle? It happens.
(Remembering that the code only calls for a single receptacle at the wall spacing requirements, not a duplex.)
I think if they intended for each room to have two circuits, then they'd include language like what we see in (B)(3) for countertops, IMO.
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: Poor design choice
Now what I have I done when there was a small pantry? I put in one circuit and moved on, knowing full well most inspectors have common sense.
"two or more" is a far cry from "one of" or "either" etc.
You already suspect what I suspect about the reason why we have (B)(3).
Leaving (B)(3) out would allow only one circuit on the counter tops.
Well in that case you could break the tab on the duplex and feed it two circuit. I doubt their are many spaces you actually install single receptacles.Originally posted by georgestolz:
So what do you do if the 'similar area' (or dining room) has only one required receptacle? It happens.
Now what I have I done when there was a small pantry? I put in one circuit and moved on, knowing full well most inspectors have common sense.
So if that is what they meant why does it say what it says.
"two or more" is a far cry from "one of" or "either" etc.
You already suspect what I suspect about the reason why we have (B)(3).
Leaving (B)(3) out would allow only one circuit on the counter tops.
- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2023
- Occupation
- Hospital Master Electrician
Re: Poor design choice
Bob, we have to exclude the real world from our discussion. I have never intentionally fed a dining room with two circuits, never been called on it, and I'll betcha 99% of the residential guys would chime in and have a similar story. Betcha 99% of the inspectors are taking a double-take, 'cause they've never looked at it that way.
(B)(1) is laying requirements for the receptacles installed per 210.52(A) & (C).
(A) & (C) gives a stink what we really do, we might install a duplex in the real world, but (A) & (C) are looking for a receptacle.
So, legally, what do you do with one receptacle?
Got to go now, and watch my Broncos win the championship.
Bob, we have to exclude the real world from our discussion. I have never intentionally fed a dining room with two circuits, never been called on it, and I'll betcha 99% of the residential guys would chime in and have a similar story. Betcha 99% of the inspectors are taking a double-take, 'cause they've never looked at it that way.
(B)(1) is laying requirements for the receptacles installed per 210.52(A) & (C).
(A) & (C) gives a stink what we really do, we might install a duplex in the real world, but (A) & (C) are looking for a receptacle.
So, legally, what do you do with one receptacle?
Got to go now, and watch my Broncos win the championship.
hurk27
Senior Member
- Location
- Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
Re: Poor design choice
210.11(C)(1) Defines as to what branch circuits are and will be Small-Appliance Branch Circuits.
If they feed receptacles outlets specified by 210.52(B), they are SA circuits and are required to meet the requirements for a SA circuit.
210.52(B)(1) this the second part to what a SA circuit can serve, in no way does it say that all these rooms have to have all the SA circuits we might run, ran to each room.
Instead it is defining that the receptacle outlets In the kitchen, pantry, breakfast room, dining room, or similar area of a dwelling unit, are to be fed by a SA circuit that follows the rules for a SA circuit. It also states: "and receptacle outlets for refrigeration equipment"
Which in Bob's context would require us to feed one refrigerator with both SA circuits. Does that make sense?
I'm not picking on you bob
I'm just trying to show that 210.11(C)(1) along with 210.52(B)(1) is just to show what receptacle outlets are to be on the two or more SA branch circuits.
And this is clearly spelled out in 210.52(B)(3) where it states:
And the fact that 210.52(B)(3) clearly allows us to feed these other rooms with additional SA branch circuits.
I just posted about a inspector who tried to say that that same wording was to require all the rooms or areas mention in 210.52(B)(1) have to be fed by the same two circuits that feeds the counter? Go figure
It can be read "HERE"
[ January 22, 2006, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: hurk27 ]
210.11(C)(1) Defines as to what branch circuits are and will be Small-Appliance Branch Circuits.
If they feed receptacles outlets specified by 210.52(B), they are SA circuits and are required to meet the requirements for a SA circuit.
210.52(B)(1) this the second part to what a SA circuit can serve, in no way does it say that all these rooms have to have all the SA circuits we might run, ran to each room.
Instead it is defining that the receptacle outlets In the kitchen, pantry, breakfast room, dining room, or similar area of a dwelling unit, are to be fed by a SA circuit that follows the rules for a SA circuit. It also states: "and receptacle outlets for refrigeration equipment"
Which in Bob's context would require us to feed one refrigerator with both SA circuits. Does that make sense?
I'm not picking on you bob
I'm just trying to show that 210.11(C)(1) along with 210.52(B)(1) is just to show what receptacle outlets are to be on the two or more SA branch circuits.
And this is clearly spelled out in 210.52(B)(3) where it states:
And the fact that in areas where it does want both SA circuits to feed the area it states so:
In most small homes there would never be a need for more than one SA circuit in a dining room pantry or breakfast room, much less both having to serve the refrigerator as it does state also.
And the fact that 210.52(B)(3) clearly allows us to feed these other rooms with additional SA branch circuits.
I just posted about a inspector who tried to say that that same wording was to require all the rooms or areas mention in 210.52(B)(1) have to be fed by the same two circuits that feeds the counter? Go figure
It can be read "HERE"
[ January 22, 2006, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: hurk27 ]
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: Poor design choice
Wayne I am unswayed.
Two or more is not one.
Wayne I am unswayed.
Two or more is not one.
- Status