under-cabinet lights

[iwire]

Re: under-cabinet lights

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

JW I still am waiting for a straight forward answer to a simple question.

Why in 640.21(E) does it state Connection shall be made either using approved plugs and receptacles or by direct connection within an approved enclosure if a cord and plug is as you say a direct connection?

If you can give me a straight forward answer to this maybe we will get somewhere.

If you can't answer this question your position falls apart.

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


You are right I do have a large ego I will not deny that.

However I am not trying to change what the code says, I am asking you to explain a simple code section to me.

Bob

 

[jwelectric]

Re: under-cabinet lights

To do this will take some time. I promise that I will again research past cycles of the code, the ROP and ROC to quote why they state some of the things in the articles you have posted.

Before I do anything I am going to the hospital to see my Mother.

While I am doing this will you try to explain why you feel that the sections that I have posted like this one is so wrong.

Explain to me why the feelings are that a Luminaire is thought of as an appliance.

Using any article at your disposal show me where it is allowed to allow a light to be connected in any way to a small appliance circuit.

If it takes all night I will show where the phrase "directly connected" has no bearing on permanently installed.

edited to add --
through out all this thread i have in the best of my ability explained every post that has been thrown at me. I have defended my position against every article that has been posted even at the expense of sounding stupid in some of it. Not once has either one of you been able to defend a post that I have made other than go to another part of the code and say what does this mean.

I think that at least one of you should be smart enough to say, Mike this is the intent of the definitions or to 210.11 and 210.52 (B). Instead you have me dancing around trying to teach you what some other part of the code states. This is okay cause if you don't know or don't know how to research the answer, I will be proud to teach you.


[ May 06, 2005, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: jwelectric ]

 

[George Stolz]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Originally posted by milwaukeesteve:
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.

I have to stop you right there.

Exception 2: How can a receptacle be serving walls and counters if it's got a range parked in front of it?

Notice these exceptions do not refer to their loads as outlets; they reference the receptacles that would be technically illegal if they didn't have an exception.

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.

Just to reiterate (beat a dead horse

I am not however going to address the 'cord is your lighting outlet' topic, because that is not the issue for this example.

If you want to take one step at a time, that's cool with me. I think if you re-read the section with my perspective in mind, you might change your mind on the whole thing anyway.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: under-cabinet lights

At the risk of going too far back, let me go down this road a ways.

In a direct-wire UC fixture, the wiring compartment of the fixture is considered an "integral outlet" to the fixture by the NEC. The premises wiring is directly connected to the fixture itself, which is usually considered to be a no-no to the NEC, which is why 410.11 makes special note that they exist. Which is why 410.11, .31, .32, are twitterpated about it. It's a peculiarity. Edit: That is to say, if the NEC had a personality with which to regard things as flukes and oddities that heeded a close eye and extra rules. )

Otherwise, a lighting outlet exists, feeding a fixture, no excitement there. Just make sure the conductors can deal with the heat of being so close. (410.11)

[ May 06, 2005, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]

 

[George Stolz]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Originally posted by jwelectric:
Before I do anything I am going to the hospital to see my Mother.

JW, let me extend my best wishes to you and your mother. I hope she's getting out soon.

We'll be here, don't dare take time away from her to argue with us!

 

[roger]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Originally posted by georgestolz:

Originally posted by jwelectric:
Before I do anything I am going to the hospital to see my Mother.

JW, let me extend my best wishes to you and your mother. I hope she's getting out soon.

Ditto!!!

Roger

 

[jwelectric]

Re: under-cabinet lights

George and Roger
Thank you and I will pass on your respects to her.
She is 79 and suffers from COPD. Today they told us that a MRI has detected spots on her lungs that have doubled in size in the past 90 days.
She says that she is in God?s hands.

 

[milwaukeesteve]

Re: under-cabinet lights

My thoughts and prayers to your mother JW.


I am done for now. George and I are battling, and each of us thinks the other needs to open there eyes, because it is right there in front of us.

I will not wire it that way. But that is me. If someone asks if they can, I will lay out my side of the argument, but right now, I won't force it.

It is difficult in this format to argue 10 different points in a 3 paragraph reply, then wait half a day for a response. Especially when there are 2 more posts out there on SA circuits and outlets. I can't remember what anybody said anymore in respect to each post.

I NEED A BREAK

 

[jwelectric]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Iwire and the rest see 640.21 shot down

This is going to be a little long so don?t try to just skim over it and pick out the things you want to read and forget the rest. This is the very reason most people have such a hard time reading the NEC.

Before we get stated with 640 lets take a short minute to look at one of the most favorite words used in this thread, appliance. In part III of 422 we learn that a means shall be provided to disconnect each appliance. We learn in 422.33 that an accessible plug and receptacle shall be permitted to serve as the disconnecting means.
Would this permanently installed equipment rack be an appliance? You say a light is although it has a definition in 100.

This permanently installed equipment rack in 640.21 is allowed to be cord and plug connected or ?directly connected? as outlined.
Now the question is asked just what does this mean and the answer is so easy to see.

In 400.8 (1) we are told that a flexible cord can not be used as a substitute for fixed wiring. Then it would seem that in order to install this permanently installed audio appliance we are required to use a plug and receptacle except 640.21 allows us the relief to bypass this plug that would other wise be required to be installed in series with the equipment. The phrase ?direct connection? mentioned in 640.21 clearly states that we are not required to install a disconnect (plug) in series with this hard wired flexible cord to a permanently installed appliance. This has the same meaning as the series over current device mentioned in 695.4 (B) (1).

To any one that wants to find the truth and is using one article to prove another would have to look at 250.188 (E) Isolation. The grounding electrode to which the portable or mobile equipment system neutral impedance is connected shall be isolated from and separated in the ground by at least 6.0 m (20 ft) from any other system or equipment grounding electrode, and there shall be no direct connection between the grounding electrodes, such as buried pipe and fence, and so forth.

For some one to say the term ?directly connected? means to be hard wired and try to use only one reference to the term when more exist would be incorrect. Unless the term direct connection outlined in 250.188 means that we will find a box with wire nuts that will connect buried pipe and fence, and so forth then why would anyone think it would mean that any where else.

Now Mr. Maintenance Man, or any one else, I have again explained one of the humorous referrals that you thought would trip me up.
It is your turn if you have the intelligence to do so, explain what part of 210.11 and the references it makes, that you think would allow a under cabinet light to use the small appliance circuit.
Should you decide not to or try to jump around like a rabbit making referrals to articles that have no bearing on those I have outlined I will take it as you can?t.

 

[iwire]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Originally posted by jwelectric:
Iwire and the rest see 640.21 shot down

I don't see it yet.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Is that the best that you can do at addressing 210.11 after all the insults you have thrown my way?

I take the fact that you won't even give it an attempt that you are just too ignorant to know how.

This is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

It seems to be clear that your knowledge of the code is nil and you get your fun at insulting someone with out foundation.

I now understand why you call your self a maintenance man. I don?t see one ounce of electrician there just a big old insulting mouth.

A whipped dog always crawls away and hides.

What I got to do to get you to address my post. It can be easily seen that you have bolted in this thread insulting my intelligence demanding that I answer your post which I have done yet you turn you tail and run when ask to do the same.

You have lost any respect that you may have had from me and I think that you are total a dumb ----
If you can?t insult me into submission then you just going to say well I don?t think.

Come on big mouth address my post.

 

[iwire]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Originally posted by jwelectric:
Is that the best that you can do at addressing 210.11 after all the insults you have thrown my way?

I take the fact that you won't even give it an attempt that you are just too ignorant to know how.

This is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

It seems to be clear that your knowledge of the code is nil and you get your fun at insulting someone with out foundation.

I now understand why you call your self a maintenance man. I don?t see one ounce of electrician there just a big old insulting mouth.

A whipped dog always crawls away and hides.

What I got to do to get you to address my post. It can be easily seen that you have bolted in this thread insulting my intelligence demanding that I answer your post which I have done yet you turn you tail and run when ask to do the same.

You have lost any respect that you may have had from me and I think that you are total a dumb ----
If you can?t insult me into submission then you just going to say well I don?t think.

Come on big mouth address my post.

I have addressed all your posts so far.

I do not see that 210.11 has any relevance whatsoever to the subject at hand.

[ May 07, 2005, 08:14 AM: Message edited by: iwire ]

 

[pierre]

Re: under-cabinet lights

This thread has gone from informational to confrontational and seems now to not really conform to the reason for this site. I say lets drop this and use our time and energy to more useful purposes. At least call a truce and kill this thread.

 

[iwire]

Re: under-cabinet lights

I am done.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Originally posted by jwelectric:
Iwire and the rest see 640.21 shot down

Mike, this may come as a shock, but I'm not convinced. Wait! I hope you were sitting down for that.

There is still a distinction drawn by that section, and your interpretation still confirms that. Your reference to 250.108 doesn't help you much, either, because connections to grounding electrodes are always permanent connections. The connection being present or absent doesn't change the fact that cord-and-plug-connection is different from it.

It is your turn if you have the intelligence to do so, explain what part of 210.11 and the references it makes, that you think would allow a under cabinet light to use the small appliance circuit.

210.11 states that two or more circuits called "small-appliance branch circuits" shall be installed. It makes no comments regarding the connected load. It's that simple.

As for your name-calling, iwire has proven himself time and time again to be well-founded, researched and supported by the code in almost everything he's ever posted.

Granted, you've endured your fair share of mocking in this thread, from myself included, but it you have to understand that you are attempting to tell us the earth is flat, and it's an uphill fight to convince a couple of skilled arguers that is the case. Your interpretation is left-field, which isn't always a terrible thing; but when you insist that you're right and try to "educate" the masses in something I don't believe, I will stand in and fight.

I have been impressed by your patience until now. Quit the name calling, we never called you stupid. Just crazy.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: under-cabinet lights

210.11 is the very article that starts the requirements to install the circuits in question. Maybe no one else can see where this has a bearing on this installation but the Code Making Panel did.

You are right Pierre Belarge it is okay for them to call me stupid and throw fire pumps and audio equipment at me and what did I do, gave an explanation that has foundation.

What did several of the biggest posters of this forum do? Throw insults at me but have yet to address the very articles that outline the proper way to make this installation.

They won?t even acknowledge the definition of this fixture, they just decide to call it an appliance.

It is obvious that when the insults start coming back well we all can see that it is a horse of a different color.

This leaves us all to decide for ourselves, is this a light or is this a fire pump or a loud speaker. I choose to call it a Luminaire.


I win!!!!

 

[George Stolz]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Originally posted by jwelectric:
210.11 is the very article that starts the requirements to install the circuits in question. Maybe no one else can see where this has a bearing on this installation but the Code Making Panel did.

Maybe everybody else puts this into it's proper perspective. The small-appliance branch circuits aren't "holy", they're simply required by 210.11.

What did several of the biggest posters of this forum do? Throw insults at me but have yet to address the very articles that outline the proper way to make this installation.

Uh, I think I've addressed every section you've offered to support your view. I've questioned how you come to the conclusions you do with the information at hand; which has prompted a mini-moral question of whether you're qualified to teach this material, given your emotionally-driven overly protective view of certain sections of code. Admittedly, it is an abrasive idea, that I'm questioning your foundations. But just as a house needs a solid foundation to stand, a user or instructor of the code needs a solid foundation on the definitions and the basic principles of it.

They won?t even acknowledge the definition of this fixture, they just decide to call it an appliance.

Sure a luminaire isn't a fixture, I said that.

[ May 07, 2005, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]

 

[jwelectric]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Sure a luminaire isn't a fixture, I said that.

If you can't believe that the definition of appliance is open, with it's use of broad terms (as it must use), then you're too close-minded to use this code, pure and simple.

George I am willing to believe what the code states. As to this light fixture the code is VERY clear as outlined by the definition found in article 100.
Luminaire. A complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps and ballast (where applicable), and to connect the lamps to the power supply.


The definition clearly states that this fixture is complete from bulb to cord cap. By the definition it can not be any thing but a light fixture. It can not be an appliance, fire pump, loud speaker, washing machine, range or anything else only a Luminaire

 

[luke warmwater]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Let's bring this back to a professional disagreement for a minute.

JW,
This is a luminaire that we are talking about. Why can't this luminaire be an appliance?
Bob and Hor-Hay are not the only ones who have determined that it is also an appliance.

Are you now trying to save face with regards to the required curriculum of your course?
Personally, I would not want My students seeing me lose my cool.

If you think that you are correct, by all means stick to your guns.
I disagree with your judgement call on the issue. Maybe I'm blind, but I can't see your substantiation to fail an under-cabinet light that is plugged-into a small appliance receptacle outlet.
I personally do not install these light fixtures, but that is not the point.

If I did install it and you failed my inspection, we would be going in front of the AHJ to get their ruling which we both would have to accept.

[ May 07, 2005, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: luke warmwater ]

 

[jwelectric]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Unless we are now going to say that in order to excuse a violation we will just ignore the definition as outlined in 100 then this light can not have two meanings. It is just plain and simple a light fixture.

I have not lost my cool as any student that has ever set a class of mine would stand to say, I have only returned insult for insult. I have made every attempt that I could to disprove every post made against my point of view down to the ?direct connect? as outlined
here
As I have pointed out many times not one person has directly addressed the outline I have presented with out injecting this fixture is an appliance which disputes the definition outlined in 100 for a complete lighting unit.