electricalist
Senior Member
- Location
- dallas tx
When interpretation is our basis its a good thing Johnny Cochran became a lawyer and not an Electrician.
Unfortunately, as we all know, there are many parts of this code that are open to interpretation. Every code cycle there are proposal to clear some of these up.When interpretation is our basis its a good thing Johnny Cochran became a lawyer and not an Electrician.
And many that seem to add to the confusion as well, like where to place "outlets" which leads to just exactly "what is an outlet", in a residential garage:happyyes:Unfortunately, as we all know, there are many parts of this code that are open to interpretation. Every code cycle there are proposal to clear some of these up.
Unfortunately, as we all know, there are many parts of this code that are open to interpretation. Every code cycle there are proposal to clear some of these up.
Yes.Doesn't a duplex receptacle provide you with two points in which you can take current to supply utilization equipment?
In this case there is nothing to interpret. They used defined terms. You are simply choosing to ignore the definitions
Now when I look at the ROP it seems the CMP is thinking receptacles but used the submitters wording of receptacle outlets.
It seems to be a mistake but it is what it is and it currently says what it says.
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.
Receptacle Outlet. An outlet where one or more receptacles are installed.
Applause! Applause! The debates come up all the time when the CMP's overstep their boundaries.Actually it is a "design" rule and doesn't even belong in the code
Unfortunately there is more and more design rules every cycle. The req. for a neutral to be available at every switch just "in case it is needed" is a design rule-- one of many.Applause! Applause! The debates come up all the time when the CMP's overstep their boundaries.
+3 (two others already agreed)Actually it is a "design" rule and doesn't even belong in the code
I seem to remember a debate one time over getting two SABC's to kitchen counter receptacles in a very small kitchen application at one time, the only counter available only needed one receptacle to comply with 210.52(C), but minimum of two SABC's circuits are still required to supply the counter receptacles according to 210.52(B)(3). I seem to recall a majority of forum members agreeing that a MWBC to a duplex receptacle would be acceptable for this application - which has some similarities to this discussion but also has some differences.
The code requires two circuits to serve the kitchen counter top.That seems silly, one circuit to the counter receptacle, the other to the fridge.
Read 210.53(B)(3), the kitchen countertops must be supplied by at least two circuits (per one kitchen), those circuits can supply other outlets permitted on the SABC's though.That seems silly, one circuit to the counter receptacle, the other to the fridge.