Switched Din. Rm. Outlet?

[George Stolz]

Re: Switched Din. Rm. Outlet?

Bless your heart, here's what you're missing, Mike.

A switched receptacle shall be permitted in lieu of a lighting outlet.

If you install a switched receptacle in place of a lighting outlet, the lighting outlet doesn't exist anymore. It been replaced by a switched receptacle. There is no lighting outlet. The lighting outlet is gone. Now the room has a switched receptacle. All the receptacles in the room are on a SA circuit, as 210.52(B) requires. Since the switched receptacle is on the SA circuit as required, I don't need to use exceptions to justify it's presence in the dining room. It's supposed to be there.

There is no lighting outlet. Gone.

[ March 27, 2005, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]

 

[allenwayne]

Re: Switched Din. Rm. Outlet?

This thread keeps going back to S.A. circuit,the original title is dining outlet .I do agree this cannot be done with a countertop circuit,but IMHO in a dining area it is fine

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Switched Din. Rm. Outlet?

Do you realize that what you are saying is that I can add a lighting outlet (the switched receptacle) to a small appliance circuit?
In that case we MUST REMOVE this part of 210.52 (B) (2) No Other Outlets. The two or more small-appliance branch circuits specified in 210.52(B)(1) shall have no other outlets.
You are trying to ADD the required lighting outlet (the switched receptacle) to the small appliance circuit. THIS IS A VIOLATION

 

[physis]

Re: Switched Din. Rm. Outlet?

It's not an "other" outlet. It's a "required" outlet.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Switched Din. Rm. Outlet?

Simmer down, Mike.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Switched Din. Rm. Outlet?

Originally posted by jwelectric:
You are trying to ADD the required lighting outlet (the switched receptacle) to the small appliance circuit.

The switched receptacle is not a lighting outlet. 210.70(A)(1) makes that very clear. Why would you replace a lighting outlet with a lighting outlet? You're replacing a lighting outlet with a switched receptacle.

 

[iwire]

Re: Switched Din. Rm. Outlet?

Originally posted by georgestolz:

Originally posted by jwelectric:
You are trying to ADD the required lighting outlet (the switched receptacle) to the small appliance circuit.

The switched receptacle is not a lighting outlet. 210.70(A)(1) makes that very clear. Why would you replace a lighting outlet with a lighting outlet? You're replacing a lighting outlet with a switched receptacle.

Bob

Edit spelling :roll:

[ March 27, 2005, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: iwire ]

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Switched Din. Rm. Outlet?

Okay I will try one last time to go through this so all can understand what I am saying. 210.70 (A) (1) states that I am required to have a light fixture but Exception No. 1 says that I can have a switched receptacle instead.
Do we agree so far?
210.52 (B) (1) states that we must have two small appliance branch circuits and (B) (2) says these small appliance circuits can have no other outlets.
Do we still agree?
Article 100 defines an outlet as a point on the wiring system at which current is taken weather it is a box with a cover or a receptacle.
Do we still agree?
When I use the small appliance circuit to switch a receptacle to use for the light in the dinning room I just made this receptacle the lighting receptacle (outlet) required by 210.70.
Do we still agree?
Then we must agree that this is a violation of 210.52. It will cost a bunch of money to add a switch for the lighting outlet after finish.

edited to add "you go Bob"

[ March 27, 2005, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: jwelectric ]

 

[physis]

Re: Switched Din. Rm. Outlet?

But here's the rub Bob.

You're going to have to show where in the code the outlet gets redefined.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Switched Din. Rm. Outlet?

Sam, don?t be led astray. 210.70 requires that an outlet or switched receptacle be installed for lighting. This will be the lighting outlet or receptacle. I am trying to write a test for a Level III Inspector class coming up in two weeks but I keep worrying about this thread. A lot of people could be led astray.

 

[iwire]

Re: Switched Din. Rm. Outlet?

Originally posted by physis:
But here's the rub Bob.

You're going to have to show where in the code the outlet gets redefined.

Sam again, as much as it pains me

 

[physis]

Re: Switched Din. Rm. Outlet?

Truthfully it really would come down to the inspector who has to sign it off,

No question there. And aint no inspector alive gonna go through all this to decide.

I changed my mind once already. Let me try to elaborate on your position and see if it looks different again. You're saying that because 210.70(A)(1) Ex. 1 "belongs" to 210.70(A)(1) then by extension, it's still a lighting outlet.

Ok.

So then it would become a style manual issue. I've got a copy. I think it says in there that an exception has to be interpreted in the context of the code section.

That could validate your take Bob.

Edit: I made up some word "validify" and had to change it.

[ March 27, 2005, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: physis ]

 

[physis]

Re: Switched Din. Rm. Outlet?

JW, I would suggest that if an NEC issue is to foggy to make clear sense of, you shouldn't use it in a test to determine the aptidude of a student.

How can you mark someone wrong when wrong can't be even be decided. You ought to leave out stuff that might make the test unfair.

 

[peter d]

Re: Switched Din. Rm. Outlet?

Survey: (Curiosity factor here) How many of you have actually had to install a switched dining room outlet?

If so, did you lie awake at night, tossing and turning, while thinking about the NEC ramifications of doing such an installation?

[ March 27, 2005, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: peter d ]

 

[iwire]

Re: Switched Din. Rm. Outlet?

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Switched Din. Rm. Outlet?

Originally posted by georgestolz:
Actually, Jim, you're capturing the heart of what I trying to get across. The exception to 210.70 states a switched receptacle may be permitted, and it stops there.

We install that switched receptacle in lieu of a light in a bedroom, under the assumption that a lamp will be plugged in by the resident. I'd be so bold as to think that's the intent--it's assumed someone will put the switched receptacle to it's intended use, but there is no code requiring we provide a lamp to plug into it.

The same principle applies to the dining room. There is no requirement for a lighting outlet if we install a switched receptacle under the assumption it will be put to it's intended use.

The fictional inspector in this dialogue is falling into the trap of going farther than the code requires. There might be a lamp on that someday, but that's not our concern. The code only requires the switched receptacle, not the lamp.

You've used this several times, so now, here it comes around back to you:

90.1(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.

210.52(B)(1)Receptacle Outlets Served. In the kitchen, pantry, breakfast room, dining room or similar area of a dwelling unit, the two or more 20-ampere small appliance branch circuits required by 210.11(C)(1) shall serve all wall and floor receptacle outlets covered by 210.52(A), all countertop outlets covered by 210.52(C), and all receptacle outlets for refrigeration equipment.

That is the code. I don't need to go after an exception to this, because my installation complies. It is a receptacle in the dining room on a SA circuit. If I were to stray from this installation, and wish to add a receptacle for a floor lamp on a 15 amp circuit, I'd have to go further, into the exceptions. I'd didn't, so I don't.

Until you sucessfully submit a proposal to change this, it is legal. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

 

[physis]

Re: Switched Din. Rm. Outlet?

You're right Peter, I should have noticed earlier that this whole thread is completely pointless because it will never matter.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Switched Din. Rm. Outlet?

Originally posted by peter d:
If so, did you lie awake at night, tossing and turning, while thinking about the NEC ramifications of doing such an installation?

Uh...why? Is that not normal?

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Switched Din. Rm. Outlet?

Not pointless. For me, it illustrates how quick assumptions can plant in our heads, and how strongly.

I assumed a slab was dry until I came here.

 

[peter d]

Re: Switched Din. Rm. Outlet?

Originally posted by physis:
You're right Peter, I should have noticed earlier that this whole thread is completely pointless because it will never matter. The humor being in these debates about minutae in the code.

[ March 27, 2005, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: peter d ]