under-cabinet lights

[pierre]

Re: under-cabinet lights

JW
Try this reasoning:

Small Appliance countertop receptacle outlet with nothing plugged in... it is a receptacle outlet.


Small Appliance countertop receptacle outlet with a toaster plugged in... still a receptacle outlet.


Small Appliance countertop receptacle outlet with a lamp plugged in... it is still a receptacle outlet.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: under-cabinet lights

What's been said so far? Let's recap:

Originally posted by jwelectric:
Well, now we are starting to agree on a few things. I do agree that a receptacle is not a lighting outlet.

That's right, a receptacle is not a lighting outlet. But when the argument didn't go his way, curiously he wrote:

Originally posted by jwelectric:
The very instant that I prove my intent to plug a lampholder, a luminaire (lighting fixture), or a pendant cord into half of a duplex that half becomes a lighting outlet. This is the outlet that I intend to draw current for this fixture.

But, that's the exact opposite of what you wrote before. How can you say the exact opposite and still be "holding the code to your heart"?

Another curiousity:

Originally posted by jwelectric:
The cord that plugs into the receptacle is an extension of the small appliance circuit that supplies current to the lighting outlet that is the fixture itself.

So now, the cord is the lighting outlet? What happened to the receptacle?

Originally posted by jwelectric:
As outlined in the definition above a luminary (lighting fixture) that is connected to a source of power that fixture that holds the bulb becomes a lighting outlet no matter which circuit it is connected to.

The lamp socket is the lighting outlet!?!

The great part is when he said:

Originally posted by jwelectric:
The definition is wrong not me.

Boy, that's really logical. If the NEC flopped around this much, the NFPA would be bankrupt.

JW, you seem to be chasing this lighting outlet all over the house! Let me help again:

Originally posted by georgestolz:
This is a lighting outlet with a lampholder permanently connected to it:


[ May 01, 2005, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]

 

[iwire]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Originally posted by georgestolz:
This is a lighting outlet with a lampholder permanently connected to it:



Otherwise a great post.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: under-cabinet lights

(I couldn't find a picture without the damn keyless in it.)

I mean, it's not mounted to display the permanent connection of the conductors. That's why.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Originally posted by pierre:
JW
Try this reasoning:

Small Appliance countertop receptacle outlet with nothing plugged in... it is a receptacle outlet.

correction- a small appliance receptacle

Small Appliance countertop receptacle outlet with a toaster plugged in... still a receptacle outlet.

correction- a small appliance receptacle


Small Appliance countertop receptacle outlet with a lamp plugged in... it is still a receptacle outlet.

correction- a small appliance rcircutit that has a lighting outler as outlined by the definition of lighting outlet and a violation of 210.52 (B) (2)

the cord and plug has no bearing on the fact that this is a light fixture that is now installed on a small appiance circuit.

 

[iwire]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Originally posted by jwelectric:
the cord and plug has no bearing on the fact that this is a light fixture that is now installed on a small appiance circuit.

Actually it has everything to do with it.

Would you also say a table lamp placed on the counter and plugged into the SA receptacle is a violation?

[ May 01, 2005, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: iwire ]

 

[George Stolz]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Well, if a light fixture and a lighting outlet are the same thing, and a cord can be a lighting outlet, then I guess it is a violation.

How dare the NEC define these terms separately and ensure that all chapters conform to these principles. A luminaire is definutely a lighting outlet, in spite of what 100 says.

Later.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Originally posted by iwire:

Originally posted by jwelectric:
the cord and plug has no bearing on the fact that this is a light fixture that is now installed on a small appiance circuit.

Actually it has everything to do with it.

 

[iwire]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Originally posted by jwelectric:
On my kitchen counter as I type is two Nextel chargers, a digital camera and the house phone all plugged into the small appliance circuit. Does this violate 210.52 (B) (2)? The very instant that I plug a lamp in then I just made that receptacle a lighting outlet.

:roll:

That is simply not true.

The act of plugging a lamp into a receptacle does not make anything a lighting outlet.

Notice in the Article 100 definition of lighting outlet the word 'intended'. The original installer of this receptacle intended the receptacle to be a SA receptacle.

That being the case that receptacle can never become a lighting outlet per the NECs definition.

You have now contradicted yourself many times in this thread, (see Georges post) one would think you should step back and decide what your position is.

 

[paul]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Originally posted by iwire:
Would you also say a table lamp placed on the counter and plugged into the SA receptacle is a violation?

A table lamp is not considered a fixture (luminaire), unless you fasten in place. Better check the UL on the lamp first, though.

 

[roger]

Re: under-cabinet lights

JW, are we going to have to disconnect the lights in a micro wave or a toaster oven now, and then have these manufacturers stop making these units which could double as (in your opinion)lighting outlets?

I mean if not, and we just turn the lighting outlets on in these units for illumination, would we be in violation.

Roger

[ May 01, 2005, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: roger ]

 

[roger]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Paul, read JW's post of 1:29, it is not Bob's opinion that a table lamp is a "Lighting Outlet"

(Maybe, you were just agreeing with Bob's point, if so )

Roger

[ May 01, 2005, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: roger ]

 

[iwire]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Originally posted by roger:
What happened to the threads of the past? I miss Bennie.

I certainly can relate to that.

Want to talk about where we can bond a service?

 

[jwelectric]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Originally posted by roger:
JW, are we going to have to disconnect the lights in a micro wave or a toaster oven now, and then have these manufacturers stop making these units which could double as (in your opinion)lighting outlets?

 

[George Stolz]

Re: under-cabinet lights

The NEC is a permissive document, so unless something is forbidden, we don't have to prove it legal. The burden of proof is upon you to show a section that makes it illegal.

Originally posted by jwelectric:
To make this installation would be a violation of 210.52 (B) (2).

Have you decided what that "other outlet" is yet?
Is it the breaker?
Is it the wiring attached to the receptacle?
Is it the receptacle?
Is it the cord end?
Is it the cord?
Is it the wirenut inside the fixture that connects the cord to the ballast/lamp sockets?
Is it the lamp sockets?
Is it the lamps?
Is it the light emitted from the lamps when energized?
Is it the countertop that is illuminated?
Is it the eye that receives the reflected light, or the neurons converting that information into chemical signals that are carried to the brain?

[ May 01, 2005, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]

 

[George Stolz]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Originally posted by jwelectric:
Other than George referring to a few articles related to the use of cord and plug being used as a disconnecting means no one has stated one article to refute my statements.

Are you serious???

 

[roger]

Re: under-cabinet lights

JW, I'm from NC too and realize your "Bless Your Heart" statements are belittling those you are addressing, so let me say, you are grasping for straws and are on the verge of being pathetic in your argument here, Bless Your Little Heart.

Roger

 

[George Stolz]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Originally posted by roger:
JW, I'm from NC too and realize your "Bless Your Heart" statements are belittling those you are addressing...

Duh.

 

[iwire]

Re: under-cabinet lights

JW your overlooking a few basic concepts.

George has already pointed them out but I will try again.

Permanently connected is not the same as Fastened in place.

George very clearly showed the NECs use of these different terms.

Permanently connected means hard wired regardless of the unit being fastened or not.

Fastened means mechanically held in place regardless of the unit being hardwired or not.

There are many instances of the words permanently connected in the NEC here is one of them.

210.6(B)(3)Cord-and-plug-connected or permanently connected utilization equipment

This section references Cord-and-plug-connected or hardwired equipment.


Would you say they mean Cord-and-plug-connected equipment and equipment fastened in place?

 

[iwire]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Here is another great example of both terms.

220.30(B)The nameplate rating of all appliances that are fastened in place, permanently connected, or located to be on a specific circuit, ranges, wall-mounted ovens, counter-mounted cooking units, clothes dryers, and water heaters.

If permanently connected and fastened in place are the same thing why does the list in the above section use both terms?

More interesting is the Handbook commentary.

Section 220.30(B)(3) includes appliances that may not be fastened in place but may be permanently connected or on a specific circuit, such as clothes dryers, dishwashers, and freezers.

A cord and plug connected disposal is a perfect example of a item fastened in place yet not permanently connected.

Oh I almost forgot.....Bless Your Little Old Heart