under-cabinet lights

[jwelectric]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Charlie and Bob

If you cannot see that in 695.4 and .4 (1) there is a difference it is because you are not looking. In .4 (1) the pump is connected indirectly to the service and directly to the over current device. It is mandated that this over current device be sized as though the pump was directly connected with out them.
240.20 states that the conductor is to be indirectly connected to the power source while in series with an over current device.

Bob
I did address your post concerning isolating power system on the audio rack in the last paragraph of this thread
Do like I did and research the archives and you will find the same thing I did

I guess that the only thing to dispute me on now is the term directly connected but you know, I don?t care. I have debated this with some of the best and more than one at a time and not one of you have addressed any thing that is outlined in 210.52 (B) except to call the complete lighting unit an appliance or a piece of equipment any thing except what it is.

The very definition of outlet has been reduced to a box and a receptacle is not an outlet.
The whole of 210.52 (B) (2) has been rejected and even stated that it has no bearing on the small appliance circuit.
If it was not the contention that a cord and plug light could be directly connected to a receptacle then what is the need to have the first exception to 210,52 (B) (1)?


[ May 05, 2005, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: jwelectric ]

 

[amptech]

Re: under-cabinet lights

I would have to agree that the wording in 640.21(E) clearly differentiates between "approved plugs and receptacles" and "direct connection". If the CMP believed them to be the same, why did they bother to list both?
I would like to add that in my opinion, under counter lights hard wired to the SA circuit would be a violation. Cord and plug connected, no.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: under-cabinet lights

JW, in what way, what the, who...how did any of that weird diatribe "prove your case"?

Steve, Rod, with all due respect guys, I'm at wit's end with this. How anyone can agree with the concept that a receptacle required by 210.52(B)(1) can violate (B)(2)? At the core of this conversation (note I didn't say debate) is the burden upon JW to prove this is a violation. At the beginning of this argument, he hadn't even decided what the other outlet was. His stance was not logical from the beginning--how do you know something is illegal if you're unclear on where and what it is in the first place, guys? Come on.

The receptacle is an outlet. The cord cap of the luminaire plugs into it, but doesn't become an outlet. Period. Where is the other outlet? Call it whatever you want, swiss cheese, whatever, but there isn't another outlet present.

Further, how is it, if he is correct, that JW is unable to display it in any way? Either by demonstrating this concept at work one time somewhere else in the code, that something that is required can be illegal by virtue of it's use versus it's intended use. One time!

Steve, you said we've been spinning circles trying to trip him up. That just isn't the case. I have attempted to demonstrate the error in JW's thinking, by showing different sections of the code that relate. Every time I did so, I was told, "That's not what we were discussing, we're discussing 210.52(B)(2). Please stay on topic." Each time, JW professed to not seeing the correlation between my references and the argument, despite my best attempt at clarity.

Debate 101: If every opposing argument is disallowed, there is no debate. It's like arguing with a brick wall.

I just hope others lurking on this thread don't adopt JW's "go with the gut, the head will follow, and when all else fails, state a bunch of code references novices won't look up to see that they in no way say anything remotely close to what I am saying they say" way of thinking.

I hate to be bitter, but the NEC is getting tossed in the sh**ter, and that ticks me off. I say that because, oh, it sounds good to say lights on the SA are totally illegal. It's easier to remember. So, let's just pretend it's code, because "it oughta be." That is throwing the NEC in the sh**ter, IMO.

Sorry to be so negative, I try to be nice, but this irritates me to the core and I keep letting it get to me. I am only angry with the actions, not the people, if that makes any sense.

JW, I do appreciate your presence, and I enjoy seeing you elsewhere. On this topic, you display a frame of thinking that is frightening, illogical and close-minded. I wonder if you feel you've dug a 15 page hole and you'll "win" the "debate" by outlasting our patience. I like you, man, but you are scaring the hoo-haa outta me.

 

[luke warmwater]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Still going??


JW,
for what it's worth at this point, I don't see how a receptacle outlet becomes a lighting outlet by plugging in a luminare.

I totally agree with Bob, Charlie, George and others on this issue.
Hardwired - violation
Plugged in - no violation.

So, let me ask this:
If you go into a home to do a final inspection, and there are under-cabinet lights installed with cord-caps dangling but not plugged in, do you fail the inspection?

 

[physis]

Re: under-cabinet lights

I still refuse to be sucked in.

Wouldn't care if the entire NEC was in jeapordy.

Picture a guy with his fingers in his ears going:

La la la, la la la la, la la.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Yes, article 100 lighting outlet and 210.52 (B) (2).
Just to get it picked up a little I would also turn it down if there was a night light plugged in the bath GFCI. I would site 210.11 (C) (3)

 

[luke warmwater]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Now I think you are arguing just to argue.

 

[luke warmwater]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Just for you, Sam:



[ May 05, 2005, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: luke warmwater ]

 

[physis]

Re: under-cabinet lights

LA LAA LA LA, LAAA LA LA, LA LAAA LA, LA LA LAA...........

 

[luke warmwater]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Now, THAT was Scary!!

 

[davedottcom]

Re: under-cabinet lights

A picture is worth a thousand posts!

 

[milwaukeesteve]

Re: under-cabinet lights

OK
This is dumb. I do side with JW, but not with his arguments. He went waaay to far with the fire pump argument. I don't believe he needed to go there. That is the chasing in circles that I referenced, George.

In the case of the U/C light that is hardwired to a SA circuit, that is a violation. SA circuit is for small appliances, and lighting circuits are for lighting. It is that bleeping simple.

Now, for the plugged in light. There is nothing wrong with a homeowner plugging in a desk lamp, task light, a stand lamp, christmas/holiday lights or any other kind of light into those outlets. Same thing with the nightlight in the bath GFI. Nothing wrong with the homeowner plugging it in. The NEC cannot cover everything that a homeowner will possibly do, especially since small appliances and lamps have the same cord ends.

HOWEVER, and let me state that again...
HOWEVER, IF an electrician permanently installs a light fixture, and I emphasize permanent and light fixture, and plugs that into a small appliance circuit, then there is a violation of the NEC. The violation is spelled out simply in the wording and definitions of the NEC:

1) A light fixture is a luminaire
2) A small appliance circuit is for SMALL APPLIANCES, not luminaires

It is not so much that Scott has to turn his mom in for her plug in lamp to the NEC police, but when an electrician mounts that light fixture that burns up, that is mounted to the cabinet, and it can't trip a 20A breaker on overload, and finally sets the Kitchen cabinets on FIRE, what the heck is that electrician going to stand on for his/her reason for doing it?

George, I don't believe this is JW's burden to prove his point, or myself for that matter. I think that it would be on the electrician that would wire it this way to prove himself/herself, especially if the previous scenario does happen. The insurance companies are going to be asking alot of 'why's'.
Personally, I don't like those kind of 'why's'!

 

[apauling]

Re: under-cabinet lights

I am soooo awed that jw can hold on this long. Go JW! Go!. I would agree with you upfront but that wouldn't help your cause ( I have a negative following). I didn't read this article until it hit page 16. read 10 pages and just skipped to the end to see if JW was still going. I guess I stopped caring when the parsing of "permanently connected" began.

So I agree with iwire

go JW

paul

ps I would fail it too

 

[iwire]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Originally posted by jwelectric:
Bob
I did address your post concerning isolating power system on the audio rack in the last paragraph of this thread
Do like I did and research the archives and you will find the same thing I did

Help me out here cause I am a freaking moron.

I brought up 640.21(E)

640.21(E) Between Equipment Racks and Premises Wiring System. Flexible cords and cables shall be permitted for the electrical connection of permanently installed equipment racks to the premises wiring system to facilitate access to equipment or for the purpose of isolating the technical power system of the rack from the premises ground. Connection shall be made either using approved plugs and receptacles or by direct connection within an approved enclosure. Flexible cords and cables shall not be subjected to physical manipulation or abuse while the rack is in use.

Which clearly shows a difference between plugs and receptacles or direct connections.

Your first response was to say that this somehow had to do with the disconnection means.

Originally posted by jwelectric posted 05-04-2005 23:02:
Bob Badger
Took me a little research to find but the reference you have made to the audio racks in 640.21 clearly shows that the cord and plug or directly connected is to relieve the use of a disconnecting means.

Well that was clearly wrong and when I pointed out it was wrong you changed your position again.

 

[iwire]

Re: under-cabinet lights

I forgot about this;

by JW: Do like I did and research the archives and you will find the same thing I did

If you have some secret information that shows that 640.21(E) has to do with the disconnecting means by all means share it with the rest of us.

[ May 06, 2005, 06:20 AM: Message edited by: iwire ]

 

[George Stolz]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Originally posted by milwaukeesteve:
The NEC cannot cover everything that a homeowner will possibly do, especially since small appliances and lamps have the same cord ends.

HOWEVER, IF an electrician permanently installs a light fixture, and I emphasize permanent and light fixture, and plugs that into a small appliance circuit, then there is a violation of the NEC. The violation is spelled out simply in the wording and definitions of the NEC:

1) A light fixture is a luminaire
2) A small appliance circuit is for SMALL APPLIANCES, not luminaires

The luminaire is arguably a small appliance, though. It is a luminaire, no question, but it is also arguably a small appliance. (B)(2) forbids other outlets, not other loads.

The NEC is a permissive document. The permission to put other outlets on an SA circuit is taken away by 210.52(B)(2). I have permission to use the required receptacle until someone can prove that another outlet is present.

Steve, thanks for the reply.

P.S. I think the inspectors failing this should cite 110.12 as the violation. No electrician worth spit would do this installation on a new house, because it would look horrible.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Originally posted by iwire:
I forgot about this;

by JW: Do like I did and research the archives and you will find the same thing I did

If you have some secret information that shows that 640.21(E) has to do with the disconnecting means by all means share it with the rest of us.

Either accept this that I have so orderly presented or to quote you ?stick your head in the sand?

I have presented my case to you for you to accept or reject the choice is yours. As to your direct connect hang up can sit on the shelf with your idea that a light fixture is an appliance and that if there is no box there can be no outlet.

The series circuit is the form of indirect connection that the direct connection surpasses.
640.21 states, either or, either use the cord and plug (indirect) or with out (direct). There is not one place that will point me to believe that direct means hard wired.

Call me stupid put me down do what makes your arrogant ego feel better but you can?t change what the code says.

 

[milwaukeesteve]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Hey George,
I know what you are trying to say about the luminaire, the SA circuit, and the whole proving thing. This is getting frustrating, but I don't mean to sound like I am yelling here, because I'm not. I am just trying to explain.
You said:

The luminaire is arguably a small appliance, though. It is a luminaire, no question, but it is also arguably a small appliance. (B)(2) forbids other outlets, not other loads.

I have to stop you there. In the NEC, it tells us that a Light fixture is a luminaire.
The NEC also tells us what a Small Appliance is.
JW already spelled them out.
Further, since you say other loads, can you put a range hood on the small appliance circuit, too? No, it is not a small appliance as defined by NEC, nor is it specifically listed in either (1) or (2) of this section.
You cannot say that since the NEC doesn't say a light can't be a small appliance, then it could be, because it does tell you what each is. If we did not have a specific definition of what a light fixture was, then fine, make your assumption. But not when they tell you that the two are different.
For the next thing you said:

I'd understand this, if I were required to pull lighting circuits in #14 only. There are no such requirements, so that's a kind of soft argument too, wouldn't you say? A direct wired UC on a 20 amp lighting circuit is legal, and electrically the same.

If you were to wire your lighting circuits in 12's and go 20A, that is fine. However, you still have to separate the lighting circuit from the small appliance circuit, even if they both would be 20A.

210.23(A) A 15- or 20 Ampere branch circuit shall be permitted to supply light units or utilization equipment....
**EXCEPTION** The small appliance branch circuits, laundry and bathroom branch circuits required in a dwelling unit by 210.11(C)(1),(2),(3) **shall** supply **only** the receptacle outlets specified in that section

Yes you can go 20A for lighting, but NO, you can't mix lighting with Small Appliance (except for those items specifically listed under 210.52(B)(2)the exceptions

Articles 100 and 210 tell you all you need to know about this. If you read the wording and not insert your own definitions, you come up with the right answer.

I am not however going to address the 'cord is your lighting outlet' topic, because that is not the issue for this example. Rather it is a tangent that will not lead to solving the original (236 posts ago )

[ May 06, 2005, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: milwaukeesteve ]

 

[roger]

Re: under-cabinet lights

I don't really care about this waste of cyber space, but Steve, you should go back and edit your last post, change your "code" to a "quote" to shrink the page.

BTW, JW is flopping around like a beached flounder. Bless his Heart.

Roger

 

[jwelectric]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Originally posted by roger:
I don't really care about this waste of cyber space, but Steve, you should go back and edit your last post, change your "code" to a "quote" to shrink the page.

BTW, JW is flopping around like a beached flounder. Bless his Heart.

Roger

Only to address those wild and idiotic referrals that those who are trying to inject their ?opinion? into the findings on the NEC.