Poor design choice

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Poor design choice

I must say that I am now confused to the intent of this section and never thought that I was before. When I re-read this section, I am seeing Bob's perspective.

Read each location separate from the other. In each kitchen, the two or more... In each dining room, the two or more.... Looking at it like this, I would have to agree each area listed in this section requires 2 SA circuits. Theoretically, if a house has no kitchen (not realistic) where would the second circuit go?

Reading the section and lumping them all together, I take is as saying all the areas are to be served by SA circuits, and the entire home needs 2 or more.
 
Re: Poor design choice

Originally posted by bphgravity:
I must say that I am now confused to the intent of this section and never thought that I was before.
Click to expand...
Which always seems to be the case when we talk about any of 210s required outlets. :(

All I can say to George and Wayne's point about it requiring two circuits to the refrigerator is that they wrote the section expecting people to exercise common sense. As in one receptacle does not need two circuits.
 
Re: Poor design choice

George, Wayne

Originally posted by georgestolz:
Going that route, the only logical conclusion is that they want both circuits in all receptacle outlets.
Click to expand...
Originally posted by hurk27:
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?
Click to expand...
Wayne I do not think your picking on me but the problem you and George have pointed out in 210.52(B)(1) (two circuits required to feed one receptacle) exists also in 210.52(B)(3) as well.

210.52(B)(3) Kitchen Receptacle Requirements. Receptacles installed in a kitchen to serve countertop surfaces shall be supplied by not fewer than two small-appliance branch circuits,.....
Click to expand...
So again the direct wording of the section tells us each counter receptacle shall be supplied with two circuits.

I think commonsense leads us to conclude that they do not mean two circuits per receptacle.

[ January 22, 2006, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: iwire ]
 
Re: Poor design choice

But it does say "two or more" which by what your saying is, even if we run "more" circuits they all have to go to each room or area that is listed in 210.52(B)(1) so we run 5 SA circuits this would mean all 5 SA circuits would have to go to every room or area?
I don't think that was the intent. :D
 
Re: Poor design choice

Originally posted by hurk27:
But it does say "two or more" which by what your saying is, even if we run "more" circuits they all have to go to each room or area that is listed in 210.52(B)(1) so we run 5 SA circuits this would mean all 5 SA circuits would have to go to every room or area?
Click to expand...
No, not five, not four, not even 3, just two.

... the two or more 20-ampere small-appliance branch circuits required by 210.11(C)...
Click to expand...
210.11(C) never requires more than two.

If you have decide to add another circuit (beyond the required two) in any of these rooms it will have to become an SA circuit as described by 210.11(C).
 
Re: Poor design choice

Originally posted by scwirenut:
page 90 of the 2005 handbook exhibit 210.25, shows in the botton picture only one circuit serving the dining area recepts........
Click to expand...
It shows the same thing in the 2002 Handbook. :D

Would you like to see a list of other handbook errors? :D

This is also included in each handbook.

The commentary and supplementary materials in this handbook are not a part of the Code and do not constitute Formal Interpretations of the NFPA (which can be obtained only through requests processed by the responsible technical committees in accordance with the published procedures of the NFPA). The commentary and supplementary materials, therefore, solely reflect the personal opinions of the editor or other contributors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the NFPA or its technical committees.
Click to expand...
;)
 
Re: Poor design choice

Originally posted by georgestolz:
This isn't going anywhere, we've been here before.
Click to expand...
Yeah I almost hated to say '210.11(C) never...' again after the last time we where there. :D
 
Re: Poor design choice

I'm still waiting for my team to come on the field. Those were the guys from last season.

The Steelers played hard. Our showing was pathetic.
swear.gif
 
Re: Poor design choice

The way I have always done it is take two SACs to the kitchen for counter top receptacles and from their pick up the dining, pantry, breakfast room, or similar area receptacles, if I see a need for more SACs then I will add them as needed,the microwave, dishwasher and disposal go on thier own circuit, this is much easier to understand, the way that Iwire stated it makes it to confusing to me IMO, example: the two SACs to the dinning room thing. :confused: .

[ January 22, 2006, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: Jhr ]
 
Re: Poor design choice

Show me one jurisdiction on this entire planet that will enforce 2 SA ckts in the dining room. Plainly, there isn't one.
 
Re: Poor design choice

When wiring kitch rec, I like to alternate circuits per rec so there are no rec beside each other on the same ckt. If the home owner bunches apliances together on the counter( for convienience) such as toater, coffee pot, toaster oven, can opener etc they are not on the same ckt.
 
Re: Poor design choice

Originally posted by southernboys: Just out of curiosity how would you guys have done it?
Click to expand...
Since this was the original question, and since I do not do such things these days, I have been ignoring this thread. I just noticed that there has been a discussion, a disagreement. I can't let that pass without telling you that you are all wrong! :D

No, what I mean is that I would like to offer an opinion. :cool:

In 210.52(B)(1), the key words under discussion in this thread have been "two or more." But there are other key words in that sentence. They are the single word "the" that proceeds "two or more," and the phrase "shall serve all" that comes later in the sentence.

Start with the basic components of the sentence (i.e., subject, verb, object), and build the sentence by adding the remaining words. Here is what you get:
</font>
  • <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">circuits . . . serve . . . outlets</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">First you add an adjective, to describe the outlets:
</font>
  • <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">circuits . . . serve . . . receptacle outlets</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now you make it mandatory:
</font>
  • <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">circuits . . . shall serve all . . . receptacle outlets</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now you limit the subject to certain specific circuits:
</font>
  • <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">the two or more 20-ampere small-appliance branch circuits . . . shall serve all . . . receptacle outlets</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Next you limit the object to certain specific receptacle outlets:
</font>
  • <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">the two or more 20-ampere small-appliance branch circuits . . . shall serve all . . . receptacle outlets (here it lists three sets of outlets).</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Finally, you add the prepositional phrase that gives a list of rooms to which the rule applies.

What you end up with is essentially this:
</font>
  • <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In this set of rooms, all of the outlets have to be powered by (the set of) two or more SA circuits.</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Specifically, for this discussion,
</font>
  • <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In the DR, all of the outlets have to be powered by the two or more SA circuits.</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nothing in that sentence tells you which outlet has to be served by which circuit. I have a set of circuits; I have a set of outlets. The first set has to power the second set. The rule does not tell me which member (or members) of the first set has to power which member (or members) of the second set.

I can choose to power all DR receptacles from one SA circuit. If I do, then I can still say that the DR receptacles are powered by the two or more SA circuits. That is because if I were to list all things powered by all of the SA circuits, I would find the DR receptacles on the list.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top