- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
- Occupation
- Service Manager
Re: under-cabinet lights
Sam, I see what you mean. I had a heck of a time editting that.
Sam, I see what you mean. I had a heck of a time editting that.
under-cabinet lights
- Thread starter electrofelon
- Start date
- Status
physis
Senior Member
Re: under-cabinet lights
Let me give you my current understanding of the anomaly.
When you first engage the editor, if the post has been edited before, it drops the last edit. If you go back and restart the editor it will be ok.
This also happens with other operations, like opening a thread or going back a page in a thread, but it seems much less often.
I'ts very consistant with the editor.
There are some other goofy things that happen on occasion.
It's been way more than a month.
Edit: But in the case of thread anomalies it seems to sporatically go back in time to some random point. Like I said, that's much less often.
[ May 05, 2005, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: physis ]
Let me give you my current understanding of the anomaly.
When you first engage the editor, if the post has been edited before, it drops the last edit. If you go back and restart the editor it will be ok.
This also happens with other operations, like opening a thread or going back a page in a thread, but it seems much less often.
I'ts very consistant with the editor.
There are some other goofy things that happen on occasion.
It's been way more than a month.
Edit: But in the case of thread anomalies it seems to sporatically go back in time to some random point. Like I said, that's much less often.
[ May 05, 2005, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: physis ]
davedottcom
Senior Member
Re: under-cabinet lights
i123hf9 0283yn4c90 823j4f,x98j h-9238ncx-89q3ehfx n0c9q whedpncao iwuhdcbpo 79q23yr0s z1s2dbpnduxpAI USGHDQ0 VCU8R3H0PVQI4J35-98YU5-T 8KD-509UMDX-20439TU2SD XM2U5-09T2UC=,M54029GJS,[45P OFK2S54-,MF2UY85GF-M DX-=54250 9IS,U2]-.SI2 04T]-245=2Y4-0Y4DIU92U 5,=309UST,=240 59G2M,0O I452=0K39T 2J 35 T0,MS9IJ423=0S9[-50Y 9UY-=3F,MJ39 0275DM87-DM-DM2JI3-SIO JMS
Oops, sorry, I think I dozed off and was sleeping on the keyboard there for awhile...sorry guys...please continue. :roll:
JW wrote: "64.66% and going strong"
There's 1 more reply for you JW, lots of luck with your goal!
Dave
[ May 05, 2005, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: davedottcom ]
i123hf9 0283yn4c90 823j4f,x98j h-9238ncx-89q3ehfx n0c9q whedpncao iwuhdcbpo 79q23yr0s z1s2dbpnduxpAI USGHDQ0 VCU8R3H0PVQI4J35-98YU5-T 8KD-509UMDX-20439TU2SD XM2U5-09T2UC=,M54029GJS,[45P OFK2S54-,MF2UY85GF-M DX-=54250 9IS,U2]-.SI2 04T]-245=2Y4-0Y4DIU92U 5,=309UST,=240 59G2M,0O I452=0K39T 2J 35 T0,MS9IJ423=0S9[-50Y 9UY-=3F,MJ39 0275DM87-DM-DM2JI3-SIO JMS
Oops, sorry, I think I dozed off and was sleeping on the keyboard there for awhile...sorry guys...please continue. :roll:
JW wrote: "64.66% and going strong"
There's 1 more reply for you JW, lots of luck with your goal!
Dave
[ May 05, 2005, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: davedottcom ]
physis
Senior Member
Re: under-cabinet lights
ЖӨљщЉЏ
≡∏↨╘∆
٩☼◊►╬∑ﷲ ﻹф
]?ϥЌΓΛΨπДЏбך
Some of the less significant anomalistic events have been forwarded to a team of occurrance investigators. The standard protocol is that at some unknown point, an action will be implimented. That action will be undetectable without specially adapted equipment. That equipment wont even successfully detect the action without a code series created specifically for that one set of anomalistic events and that also has an activity expiration of less than 12 minutes.
Edit: Looks like I must have dozed off too Dave.
That might have been autocratic writing.
[ May 05, 2005, 03:20 AM: Message edited by: physis ]
ЖӨљщЉЏ
≡∏↨╘∆
٩☼◊►╬∑ﷲ ﻹф
]?ϥЌΓΛΨπДЏбך
Some of the less significant anomalistic events have been forwarded to a team of occurrance investigators. The standard protocol is that at some unknown point, an action will be implimented. That action will be undetectable without specially adapted equipment. That equipment wont even successfully detect the action without a code series created specifically for that one set of anomalistic events and that also has an activity expiration of less than 12 minutes.
Edit: Looks like I must have dozed off too Dave.
That might have been autocratic writing.
[ May 05, 2005, 03:20 AM: Message edited by: physis ]
jwelectric
Senior Member
- Location
- North Carolina
Re: under-cabinet lights
68%
68%
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: under-cabinet lights
JW, Charlie B is a well respected moderator / member here and treats everyone with respect.
Why don't you answer Charlie B's question(s)?
What research did you have to do? I posted the section.
Clearly you have trouble reading the NEC if that is what you think that section is about.
640.21(E) (the section I posted) has nothing to do with a disconnecting means. It has to do with using flexible cords to interconnect Audio equipment.
It tells us we can use a direct connection in an enclosure (Hardwired) OR we use cord and plug connections.
It's one type of connection OR the other.
The point you have been trying to make is that a cord and plug connection is a direct connection.
640.21(E) shows the NEC considers cord and plug connections to be different then direct connections.
There is no other way to read that section.
[ May 05, 2005, 05:04 AM: Message edited by: iwire ]
JW, Charlie B is a well respected moderator / member here and treats everyone with respect.
Why don't you answer Charlie B's question(s)?
What do you mean by this?
What research did you have to do? I posted the section.
Clearly you have trouble reading the NEC if that is what you think that section is about.
640.21(E) (the section I posted) has nothing to do with a disconnecting means. It has to do with using flexible cords to interconnect Audio equipment.
It tells us we can use a direct connection in an enclosure (Hardwired) OR we use cord and plug connections.
It's one type of connection OR the other.
The point you have been trying to make is that a cord and plug connection is a direct connection.
640.21(E) shows the NEC considers cord and plug connections to be different then direct connections.
There is no other way to read that section.
[ May 05, 2005, 05:04 AM: Message edited by: iwire ]
jwelectric
Senior Member
- Location
- North Carolina
Re: under-cabinet lights
Mr. Bob
You are talking about audio cables in 640.21 and the term direct connection in lieu of a cord and plug is to say to not confuse the cord and plug as a required disconnecting means.
I did answer his question so this tells me that you must have a problem reading.
posted May 04, 2005 09:14 PM
this is not totally all of the dispute.
Mr. Bob
You are talking about audio cables in 640.21 and the term direct connection in lieu of a cord and plug is to say to not confuse the cord and plug as a required disconnecting means.
I did answer his question so this tells me that you must have a problem reading.
posted May 04, 2005 09:14 PM
this is not totally all of the dispute.
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: under-cabinet lights
I have no idea why you think it does. :roll:
Your unwillingness to be pinned down to a position does not help your cause.
[ May 05, 2005, 05:51 AM: Message edited by: iwire ]
JW that section has nothing to do with the disconnecting means.
I have no idea why you think it does. :roll:
Audio cables do not connect to a premises wiring system.
That is not the answer to the question, a yes or no would have been an answer.
Your unwillingness to be pinned down to a position does not help your cause.
[ May 05, 2005, 05:51 AM: Message edited by: iwire ]
jwelectric
Senior Member
- Location
- North Carolina
Re: under-cabinet lights
Charlie B
To answer you question as to whether the term ?direct connect? means that a cord and plug can accomplish this direct connection I do believe that is the intent in the definition ?lighting outlet.?
Charlie B
To answer you question as to whether the term ?direct connect? means that a cord and plug can accomplish this direct connection I do believe that is the intent in the definition ?lighting outlet.?
- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
- Occupation
- Service Manager
Re: under-cabinet lights
You had a valid point that in direct-wire fluorescent lights, there is an outlet box integral with the fixture. But I think reading the appropriate section (which I posted) and applying a little common sense leads us to the conclusion that the outlet for a light is at the location where the premises (or structure's) wiring stops and a connection is made to the conductors of the luminaire.
Flexible cords are not acceptable as a substitute for the fixed wiring of a structure, by 400.8. Therefore, to state that the cord is an "extension of the branch circuit to the outlet" as you have stated, is a violation of 400.8.
We have shown you several sections which relate to our interpretation of this.
It would be prudent for you to show us one section that backs up your idea, that a cord-and-plug connection is a "direct connection." You haven't done so, so far. That would assist in your argument.
If you are unable to do so, it would seem that perhaps you are incorrect, wouldn't it? Or is that a possibility?
[ May 05, 2005, 07:48 AM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]
JW, you don't see this as meaning "cord-and-plug-connection" is one method, and "direct connection" is a different method? How would this sentence be logical if the two phrases meant the same thing?
You had a valid point that in direct-wire fluorescent lights, there is an outlet box integral with the fixture. But I think reading the appropriate section (which I posted) and applying a little common sense leads us to the conclusion that the outlet for a light is at the location where the premises (or structure's) wiring stops and a connection is made to the conductors of the luminaire.
Flexible cords are not acceptable as a substitute for the fixed wiring of a structure, by 400.8. Therefore, to state that the cord is an "extension of the branch circuit to the outlet" as you have stated, is a violation of 400.8.
They do not use the term, "direct connection."
This definition makes it clear that the wiring of a structure ends at the outlet. They explicitly state that the wiring internal to the luminaire is not a part of it.
We have shown you several sections which relate to our interpretation of this.
It would be prudent for you to show us one section that backs up your idea, that a cord-and-plug connection is a "direct connection." You haven't done so, so far. That would assist in your argument.
If you are unable to do so, it would seem that perhaps you are incorrect, wouldn't it? Or is that a possibility?
[ May 05, 2005, 07:48 AM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]
milwaukeesteve
Senior Member
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI
Re: under-cabinet lights
Darn it, JW. I am on your side on this issue, but you make it difficult to stand behind you.
You are being sucked into this mess of redirects and tangents and I don't know what else.
Bob, Bob, Sam, Charlie, George and about 42 others are succeeding in running you around in circles. STICK TO YOUR GUNS, man. Don't let them get you off track. We could end this right now, or we could set the record on this one. STAND YOUR GROUND!
Oh, and I forgot to mention that there is one 'lurker' out there too. I know he's out there... lurking.
Darn it, JW. I am on your side on this issue, but you make it difficult to stand behind you.
You are being sucked into this mess of redirects and tangents and I don't know what else.
Bob, Bob, Sam, Charlie, George and about 42 others are succeeding in running you around in circles. STICK TO YOUR GUNS, man. Don't let them get you off track. We could end this right now, or we could set the record on this one. STAND YOUR GROUND!
Oh, and I forgot to mention that there is one 'lurker' out there too. I know he's out there... lurking.
jwelectric
Senior Member
- Location
- North Carolina
Re: under-cabinet lights
Here is the commentary from the 2005 Handbook to 695.4 for fire pumps. Based on the comments made here leads me to think that the term directly connected has no bearing what so ever with a box and wire nuts. I will admit that I am not the smartest thing in the world but I do try to keep an open mind in my thinking.
Here is the commentary from the 2005 Handbook to 695.4 for fire pumps. Based on the comments made here leads me to think that the term directly connected has no bearing what so ever with a box and wire nuts. I will admit that I am not the smartest thing in the world but I do try to keep an open mind in my thinking.
- Location
- Lockport, IL
- Occupation
- Semi-Retired Electrical Engineer
Re: under-cabinet lights
OK. Time to sum up.
</font>
That leads us inexorably to the following:
</font>
For my part, I continue to believe that the under-counter lights can be called ?appliances.? Here again, there have been no conclusive postings (pro or con) on this ?side issue.? So you can agree with my assertion, or you can disagree with my assertion. JW: I know that you disagree. You are most welcome to do so.
That leads us just as inexorably to the following:
</font>
Can we go home now?
OK. Time to sum up.
</font>
- <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have concluded that JW?s perspective relies on the assertion that the code?s use of the phrase ?direct connection? includes a plug & cord connection.</font>
That leads us inexorably to the following:
</font>
- <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anyone who agrees with his assertion would be compelled (i.e., by the use of clear and logical reasoning) to also agree with his belief: That an under-counter light plugged into an SA circuit is a violation of the NEC.</font>
- <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anyone who disagrees with his assertion would be free to conclude that an under-counter light plugged into an SA circuit is permitted by the NEC.</font>
For my part, I continue to believe that the under-counter lights can be called ?appliances.? Here again, there have been no conclusive postings (pro or con) on this ?side issue.? So you can agree with my assertion, or you can disagree with my assertion. JW: I know that you disagree. You are most welcome to do so.
That leads us just as inexorably to the following:
</font>
- <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anyone who agrees with my assertion would be compelled (i.e., by the use of clear and logical reasoning) to also agree with my belief: That an under-counter light plugged into an SA circuit is permitted by the NEC. As a reminder, my basis can be found on the first page of this thread (and please disregard the humorous exchange of comments that followed).</font>
- <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anyone who disagrees with my assertion would have to find some other basis to resolve the question of whether an under-counter light plugged into an SA circuit is a violation of the NEC.</font>
Can we go home now?
jwelectric
Senior Member
- Location
- North Carolina
Re: under-cabinet lights
The NEC tells us to read a panel from left to right top to bottom and front to back. Allow me to present this the same way.
210.11 Branch Circuits Required
Branch circuits for lighting and for appliances, including motor-operated appliances, shall be provided to supply the loads calculated in accordance with 220.10. In addition, branch circuits shall be provided for specific loads not covered by 220.10 where required elsewhere in this Code and for dwelling unit loads as specified in 210.11(C).
I am required to install circuits for lighting and appliances as outlined in 220.10 which is .12 the lighting, .14 specific appliance, dryers, ranges, ect.. and .16 Additions to Existing Installations.
In addition I am required to install for dwelling unit loads as specified in 210.11(C). this is
(1) Small-Appliance Branch Circuits outlined in 210.52 (B)
(2) Laundry Branch Circuits required by 210.52(F).
(3) Bathroom Branch Circuits In addition to the number of branch circuits required by other parts of this section, at least one 20-ampere branch circuit shall be provided to supply bathroom receptacle outlet(s). Such circuits shall have no other outlets.
Here in 210.11 I am told what install and where to find the requirements for the installation.
The first one is the one in debate so let?s look at it. here
Now this under cabinet light is a complete lighting unit and we have shown our intent as outlined
here
Now comes the debate of directly connected as addressed in the above post.
I have said all
The NEC tells us to read a panel from left to right top to bottom and front to back. Allow me to present this the same way.
210.11 Branch Circuits Required
Branch circuits for lighting and for appliances, including motor-operated appliances, shall be provided to supply the loads calculated in accordance with 220.10. In addition, branch circuits shall be provided for specific loads not covered by 220.10 where required elsewhere in this Code and for dwelling unit loads as specified in 210.11(C).
I am required to install circuits for lighting and appliances as outlined in 220.10 which is .12 the lighting, .14 specific appliance, dryers, ranges, ect.. and .16 Additions to Existing Installations.
In addition I am required to install for dwelling unit loads as specified in 210.11(C). this is
(1) Small-Appliance Branch Circuits outlined in 210.52 (B)
(2) Laundry Branch Circuits required by 210.52(F).
(3) Bathroom Branch Circuits In addition to the number of branch circuits required by other parts of this section, at least one 20-ampere branch circuit shall be provided to supply bathroom receptacle outlet(s). Such circuits shall have no other outlets.
Here in 210.11 I am told what install and where to find the requirements for the installation.
The first one is the one in debate so let?s look at it. here
Now this under cabinet light is a complete lighting unit and we have shown our intent as outlined
here
Now comes the debate of directly connected as addressed in the above post.
I have said all
jwelectric
Senior Member
- Location
- North Carolina
Re: under-cabinet lights
I am so sorry my friends. Please accept my apologies in my inability to answer a question so simple.
Define ?Directly Connected?
Using the fire pump in 695.4 that we all are familiar with I think will work best
In 695.4 (A) it clearly states direct connect and I believe we all understand this, right?
In (B) (1) it tells us the definition of direct connect. This is where I have over looked it so many times. To find the definition of direct connect lets find out what is indirect connect. This is explained in full detail in 240.20 (A).
In 695.4 (B) (1) the requirement to install an overcurrent device in this disconnect it must be sized large enough to act as if the pump was directly connected.
There fore the term directly connected is used it means that there is nothing connected in series with the equipment being connected.
Now I have proved using code that this is a Luminaire (a complete lighting unit) not an appliance, that is connected to an Outlet (a point on the wiring system at which current is taken) thus showing intended for the direct connection of a lampholder, a luminaire thus a Lighting Outlet.
210.52 (B) (2) says the rest
Only 72% and I have now using the code articles to completely backed up my statement why this under cabinet light is in violation.
I like to thank you all for the chance to become more familiar with the 2005 code book. I have learned much.
I am so sorry my friends. Please accept my apologies in my inability to answer a question so simple.
Define ?Directly Connected?
Using the fire pump in 695.4 that we all are familiar with I think will work best
In 695.4 (A) it clearly states direct connect and I believe we all understand this, right?
In (B) (1) it tells us the definition of direct connect. This is where I have over looked it so many times. To find the definition of direct connect lets find out what is indirect connect. This is explained in full detail in 240.20 (A).
In 695.4 (B) (1) the requirement to install an overcurrent device in this disconnect it must be sized large enough to act as if the pump was directly connected.
There fore the term directly connected is used it means that there is nothing connected in series with the equipment being connected.
Now I have proved using code that this is a Luminaire (a complete lighting unit) not an appliance, that is connected to an Outlet (a point on the wiring system at which current is taken) thus showing intended for the direct connection of a lampholder, a luminaire thus a Lighting Outlet.
210.52 (B) (2) says the rest
Only 72% and I have now using the code articles to completely backed up my statement why this under cabinet light is in violation.
I like to thank you all for the chance to become more familiar with the 2005 code book. I have learned much.
milwaukeesteve
Senior Member
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI
Re: under-cabinet lights
We're not worthy....We're not worthy!!!
JW... You da MAN!!!!
We're not worthy....We're not worthy!!!
JW... You da MAN!!!!
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: under-cabinet lights
Originally posted by milwaukeesteve:
We're not worthy....We're not worthy!!!
JW... You da MAN!!!!
Please take note that he has avoided 640.21(E)
[ May 05, 2005, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: iwire ]
- Location
- Lockport, IL
- Occupation
- Semi-Retired Electrical Engineer
Re: under-cabinet lights
Per 695.4(A), the power source is allowed to "directly connect" to a fire pump controller, or it is allowed to "directly connect" to a combination controller/transfer switch. In either case, it will be hard-wired. I continue to believe that it is the "hard-wired" concept that is conveyed by the phrase "directly connect."
Specifically, and this is where I will hang my hat, if someone were to submit for my review a design that has a fire pump receiving power from the supply by way of a plug and cord connection, then I would use 695.4(A) as the basis for disapproving that design.
</font>
I agree with Bob (iwire). This section does not say anything about plugs and cords. It does not tell whether or not a ?direct connection? includes plugs and cords.
Per 695.4(A), the power source is allowed to "directly connect" to a fire pump controller, or it is allowed to "directly connect" to a combination controller/transfer switch. In either case, it will be hard-wired. I continue to believe that it is the "hard-wired" concept that is conveyed by the phrase "directly connect."
Specifically, and this is where I will hang my hat, if someone were to submit for my review a design that has a fire pump receiving power from the supply by way of a plug and cord connection, then I would use 695.4(A) as the basis for disapproving that design.
It is not explained at all in 240.20(A). That paragraph does not contain the word ?direct,? nor the word ?indirect,? nor any word or phrase that has a meaning similar to either word. It does not mention plugs and cords. All it has is the word "connected," without being associated with the word "direct." You would be stretching our language far too far, if you were to suggest that using the word "connected" in the absence of the word "direct" conveys the intent of distinguishing "direct" from "indirect."
I submit that you have proven nothing.
</font>
- <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Show me a 4x4 box in a ceiling, and show me a luminaire mechanically attached to that box, and show me the wire nuts that join the luminaire?s wires to the supply wires inside the box, and I will call that box a ?lighting outlet.?</font>
- <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Show me a receptacle, but do not show me where it is installed (e.g., wall or ceiling or outdoor or countertop), do not even tell me what room it is in (e.g., kitchen, or dining room, or bedroom, or basement, or perhaps still in the original box at the supply house), in fact, just zoom in with the camera to only show the place in which the blades of the plug are to be inserted, and seeing nothing more than that photo, I will tell you it is not, and can never be, a ?lighting outlet.? If and when it is ever installed and given a power source, it (in combination with the box in which it is mounted) will be a "receptacle outlet." No matter what is later plugged into it, it will always be a "receptacle outlet."</font>
- Status