under-cabinet lights

[iwire]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Originally posted by electricmanscott:

Originally posted by iwire:
Who cares?

Exactly! Talk about a non issue. I can't believe this has gone so far. Or can I?

I have no doubt that this group can find some way to twist this around so bad that there would be no answer that we could all agree on.

Hey I did all I could to hit 300 for you!

Good thing we are all not on a jury together.

 

[jim sutton]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Just think........what could have been accomplished in the time spent on this one!

 

[jwelectric]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Originally posted by electricmanscott:
True. BUT, I have no doubt that this group can find some way to twist this around so bad that there would be no answer that we could all agree on. Three replies, going for 300!

this hit makes for 54% of it. fire me up and give me another round we might make it

 

[electrofelon]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Wow so we're done? I guess it all comes down to wording and semantics. In situations like this perhaps it is best to consider the intent of the code. For example, several weeks ago I questioned where the code permits two sets of service entrance conductors for seperate panels in a duplex. None of the exceptions to the one set of SE conductors seemed to apply. Basically I was told that although the wording was murky in the 2002 code, the intent was that it was ok. Personlly I believe the intent of code writers in not allowing other outlets on the SA circuit was to prohibit other receptacles and lighting boxes. The SA plugs are for stuff on the counter that have a male ended plug. I dont believe the intent is to disallow certain cord and plug, ul listed devices from being plugged into certain receptacle.
Ok we're one closer to 300.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: under-cabinet lights

electrofelon

okay I do agree that any thing you want can be plugged in a small appliance receptacle as long as it doesn?t emit a brightness of more than one candela per square meter.

Now we were at 54% you made 54.33% and it now stands at 54.66% or 54.67% if we round up at the third place right of the decimal. This rounding off of a decimal at the proper place could be the area of another debate,

Chapter 9 states the calculation results in a decimal of 0.8 or larger but 210.62 and 220.55 with Annex D Examples confusing us by also stating except where the calculations result in a major fraction.

So just where does this thread stand? 54.66 Or 54.67? personally I think it is at 54.666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 on and on

 

[milwaukeesteve]

Re: under-cabinet lights

I am lost. Not that I want to prolong this post, but I thought I originally agreed with JW on this one, but got lost in the umteen redirects and quotes and requotes throughout this post.
Have we agreed on something? Is this a violation?
I still believe that this is a violation, but again, I don't know anymore what to think on this one.
I still believe I am on JW's side yet, but I got lost in the back and forth between JW and others.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Although I got way off track trying to disprove the other article and section post that was being thrown at me I will stand on the findings found in 210.52 (B)

210.52 (B) (1) is the rule for the required Small Appliance Branch Circuits and the receptacle outlets they serve. There are two exceptions to (B) (1) that allows us to add two more receptacles one of which is a lighting receptacle outlet the other for an individual circuit for the refrigerator.

(B) (2) clearly states there is to be no other outlets and also has two exceptions one for a receptacle for a clock the other for a receptacle for a gas range light.

It is my contention that to plug a light fixture in a small appliance receptacle would be using the small appliance circuit for the purpose of a lighting outlet and is a violation of 52 (B) (2).
Exception 1 to (B) (1) affords relief to add a receptacle to plug this under cabinet light in if we so desire to.

55.33% and still counting

 

[612278]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Hello-
My vote "VIOLATION" a undercounter light is not a small appliance.

 

[luke warmwater]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Steve, Please define 'small appliance'.

I just spent some time reading this entire thread, and have come to the realization that I stand behind my original statement on the first page.

 

[physis]

Re: under-cabinet lights

I don't care how big this thread gets.

I'm not being sucked into it.

 

[612278]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Ok now "i'm sucked in"
"my definition." of a small appliance is a small Utilation equipment.LOL. Something plugged in "temporary"(Not mounted) like a blender or toaster ETC. A under counter light is " mounted"
Not temporary. If your going to mount an under counter coffee machine you can't use branch circuit right?

 

[rbalex]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Originally posted by physis:
I don't care how big this thread gets.

I'm not being sucked into it.

[ May 04, 2005, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: rbalex ]

 

[physis]

Re: under-cabinet lights

By Bob:

By inference

Yeah, that ought to do it.

 

[612278]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Hi-
Your killing me.
NEC 220-16 Still doesn't say you can put a lighting outlet on a Small appliance circuit. But I like the small appliance definition. I'm OUT.

 

[rbalex]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Utilization Equipment . Equipment that utilizes electric energy for electronic, electromechanical, chemical, heating, lighting , or similar purposes.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: under-cabinet lights

58.3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333%

 

[kturner]

Re: under-cabinet lights

What UL standard covers a "puck light"? That would be an indication of its intended use.

 

[charlie b]

Re: under-cabinet lights

I had intended to stay out of this one, once I had made my initial call. I still stand by that call. But I think I can see the fundamental basis of the disagreement.

Jim: I invite you to respond to this posting, but I have a request. I do not ask you to agree with my views. I do not ask you to further explain or defend your views. But I would like to know if I have fairly and accurately interpreted your views.

It all boils down to the meaning of the word ?Direct.?

Originally posted by jwelectric: Lighting Outlet. An outlet intended for the direct connection of a lampholder, a luminaire (lighting fixture), or a pendant cord terminating in a lampholder.

and

. . . the definition of lighting outlet does not require a permanent connection only a direct connection. We do directly plug the cord into the receptacle.

Jim: I believe that I understand your interpretation of the word ?direct,? in this context. But I disagree with that interpretation. We do, indeed plug the cord directly into the receptacle, but that is a conversational, not a precise technical, use of the word ?direct.? In my view, the NEC definition uses the phrase ?direct connection? in the context of ?hard wired.? I suspect that this is why you and I disagree on the original question representing a violation.

Again, my view is that a plug and cord connection is not a ?direct connection.? Therefore, I disagree with your conclusions: that a luminaire mounted under the counter light turns an SA outlet into an illegal lighting outlet.

Have I correctly described the nature of the disagreement between your interpretation and mine?

[ May 04, 2005, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: charlie b ]

 

[charlie b]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Please allow me one more comment:

Originally posted by jwelectric: In the living room how many receptacles are lighting outlets? All

In the kitchen how many receptacles are lighting outlets? Those with a light plugged in

and

To think that the receptacle OUTLETS through out the house were not INTENDED to plug a lamp in would be contrary to the very name of the circuit.

I infer that it is your belief that what you plug into a receptacle outlet establishes the nature of that outlet. That is, if it was initial constructed as a general purpose outlet in a bedroom, and if you plug a floor lamp into it, then you believe that it is no longer a general purpose receptacle, but rather is now a lighting outlet.

It is my view that the item that is plugged into a receptacle outlet does not alter the nature of the outlet. If it was a general purpose outlet, and if I plugged a floor lamp into it, it remains a general purpose outlet. If it was an SA outlet, and if I plugged a table lamp into it, it remains an SA outlet.

For my part, I have used the receptacle outlets in the living room far more often for the vacuum cleaner and the steam cleaner, than I have for floor lamps. I have used the receptacle outlets in the rest of the house more often for TVs, telephone answering machines, clock radios, and hand tools, than I have for lighting purposes. But I have often (at my wife?s request) rearranged rooms, and now the TV is plugged into where the table lamp was, and the lamp is plugged into where the computer was. None of this alters the function of a receptacle outlet. That function is to allow me to obtain power for whatever I want, at whatever location within the house that I want to use that power.

Again, have I correctly described the nature of the disagreement between your interpretation and mine?

 

[jwelectric]

Re: under-cabinet lights

the wife has called me to supper but i will be back in a few minutes