under-cabinet lights

[iwire]

Re: under-cabinet lights

OK I know I said I was done but I can not resist I am weak.

A panelboard has it's own definition just as a luminaire does.

Does this mean we can not apply the term "equipment" to either a panelboard or a luminaire?

Equipment. A general term including material, fittings, devices, appliances, luminaires (fixtures), apparatus, and the like used as a part of, or in connection with, an electrical installation.

IMO the fact that an item has a specific definition does not prevent other definitions to be applied.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Originally posted by jwelectric:
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.

You are by definition a man. Since you are a man does this mean that you cannot be an instructor? Just because a fixture is a luminaire, that's all it can be?

Since a panelboard is defined, does that mean that it's not also a cabinet? That's just plain silly.

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.

I have stated in my last few posts, that I don't give a hoot if the light's an appliance or not. Let's try it in bold and italics:

210.11(C)(1) and 210.52(B) place restrictions on the circuits and on the receptacles that those circuits supply.

There is no restriction regarding what load I can supply with these circuits.

Therefore, plugging a lamp into one of the required receptacles cannot result in a violation.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Here we go again, the appliance circuit is not the equipment circuit, an outlet is not a load.
Avoid the article at hand keep on trying to call this Luminaire a piece of equipment, keep calling this point to take current, outlet, a load do what ever you have to do but please don?t address the post as it is quoted from the code.

Lets keep trying to turn the articles as posted from 210.11 and it?s reference to 210.52 (B) into a piece of equipment that has a load. What ever we do lets not look at this as what it is.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Originally posted by jwelectric:
Lets keep trying to turn the articles as posted from 210.11 and it?s reference to 210.52 (B) into a piece of equipment that has a load. What ever we do lets not look at this as what it is.

 

[electricmanscott]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Uh oh!

[ May 07, 2005, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: electricmanscott ]

 

[roger]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Scott, you Da real man.

.

Mike, back to Todds post,

Are you now trying to save face with regards to the required curriculum of your course?

it sure appears as though this may be the case.

Roger

[ May 07, 2005, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: roger ]

 

[George Stolz]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Scott, who drew that? Yo mama? Wait, she's in jail, couldn't be her...

 

[allenwayne]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Children,Children can`t we all get alonggggggggg

 

[amptech]

Re: under-cabinet lights

JW said, "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."
JW, I take issue with this post. I did not insult you nor did I argue the point as to whether a luminare is an appliance. I do disagree with you on this topic and clearly stated why. I do believe you "lost your cool" in your inflamatory post to Bob. Nowhere did I read in any of Bob's posts where he resorted to name calling or ridiculing your intellect. I found your post to Bob disappointing to say the least. Today I had the opportunity to talk to the State Deputy Building Commissioner in charge of Code Enforcement-Electrical and mentioned this thread. He said he had dealt with this a couple of years ago in a new housing developement where several spec homes were wired with UC lights set up to plug into a SA receptacle on the counter top. The local AHJ had red tagged all of the installations and the GC had appealed. It went to the local advisory board who were evenly split so the kicked it all the way to the State and the State turned to the NFPA. The end ruling was cord and plug connected UC lights to a SA receptacle were not a violation. The same UC lights hard wired into a SA circuit were a violation. I hope the moderators close this thread as I believe it has gone past the point where a topic brings out the best in the posters and has moved to where it is bringing out the worst.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Originally posted by amptech:
It went to the local advisory board who were evenly split so the kicked it all the way to the State and the State turned to the NFPA. The end ruling was cord and plug connected UC lights to a SA receptacle were not a violation.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Amptech: Do you know where we could find some documentation to back up your statement, just for the record?

JW: Does this post effect your view on this issue? If you're contemplating a response, please do. I do not mean this as a joke, or sarcasm in any form: If your require some time to contemplate this, take your time. But I would like to hear some feedback from you, whether you reject this as hearsay, are in contemplation, or are changing your position.

Originally posted by amptech:
I hope the moderators close this thread as I believe it has gone past the point where a topic brings out the best in the posters and has moved to where it is bringing out the worst.

I hope not. I think tempers flared, it's unfortunate, I feel a certain responsibility for this occuring; but I hope in light of your new information, that this thread reaches a happy conclusion. (Of course, my perception of a "happy conclusion" is Mike changing his mind on his stance of the issue. I'm admittedly biased. )

[ May 08, 2005, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]

 

[amptech]

Re: under-cabinet lights

I asked the State Inspector if he had anything in writing I could see and pass on to this forum. He said he would have to dig when he had time. He has been serving the State in this capacity for 20+ years. The State Building Department is currently being reassigned to working under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security so his time and attention isn't where he would like it to be. To me, the whole question of whether it is allowable to connect a permanently installed light fixture to a receptacle supplied by a SA branch circuit via an attachment plug is a non-issue. I believe it is code compliant. If JW would like to validate his viewpoint on the issue and "prove us all wrong" I suggest he submit a yes/no question to the NFPA for a formal interpretation.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: under-cabinet lights

George
I have been actively involved with the IAEI for over six years and have heard this issue brought up on several different occasions. The answer has always been the same and it is that a light fixture can not be installed on the small appliance circuit at all. Yes the fact of cord and plug was mentioned.

I am a member of the Ellis Cannady Chapter and have not missed Southern Sectional meeting in three years. At breaks and the social dinners I do ask questions such as these so I will have a better understanding to carry back to those who look to me for guidance (my students). I will be at the Cocoa Beach Hilton in Florida in Oct.

I am also on the educational committee for the North Carolina Dept. of Insurance and we will meet at the end of this month at which time I shall take a complete copy of this thread with me for discussion. When I teach an inspector what to watch for I don?t want to tell him wrong so this will be a topic that will be brought up.

The state of Indiana does not have a licensing board for electrical contractors and I am not sure what type of qualifying board they have for their inspectors. I do take Mr. Amptech?s statement with a grain of salt due to the fact he has stated, some one told some one else that told me. At best, to quote what has been said here, it is only the opinion of that person.

I have said and will stand firm that this fixture as outlined is in violation of the NEC! As to weather I am right or wrong, I have quoted code article and section that would forbid this installation. Should this be a real case and I was the inspector then it would now be the burden of the contractor to prove me wrong.

While I am here and should Bob (iwire) read this, I do apologize for being so rude to you it was uncalled for and out of character for me. It is very obvious that I have strong convictions on this matter.

Now I will be gone for a few days, so have fun and enjoy the peace you will have with out me.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: under-cabinet lights

we now atand at 91%

 

[iwire]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Originally posted by jwelectric:
we now atand at 91%

Please explain I have not understood your %s from the start.

As far as blowing off some steam, don't worry about it we all do that once in a while and I am sorry if I came across to harsh.

One last thing, I do hope your Mom is as comfortable as can be in her position.

 

[amptech]

Re: under-cabinet lights

JW is correct. The State of Indiana does not have state-wide licensing. It is handled on a local level with local building departments. The State of Indiana does have a State Building Department which is the highest authority we can appeal to in order to resolve these types of conflicts. The inspector I mentioned is the State Inspector for my region. My statements about what the inspector told me is indeed "hearsay". Just as anything JW relays to this forum concerning what someone said about this subject at an IAEI meeting is also "hearsay". Hence my suggestion for JW to request a formal interpretation from NFPA. To suggest that the State of Indiana's inspector qualifications are substandard or questionable is ridiculous.

 

[luke warmwater]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Originally posted by jwelectric:

I have said and will stand firm that this fixture as outlined is in violation of the NEC! As to weather I am right or wrong, I have quoted code article and section that would forbid this installation. Should this be a real case and I was the inspector then it would now be the burden of the contractor to prove me wrong.

I have to disagree.

In court, or in front of the AHJ, the burden is still on you to prove it is a violation. The contractor could actually say nothing at all, and you would have to state your case, which could at that point be ruled out. Hypothetically speaking.

 

[hurk27]

Re: under-cabinet lights

Amptech
While we don't have a state wide licensing, We do have state wide building codes and they have to be followed by both the local inspectors and the electricians. Local unit's of government can not adopt their own code. Or are they allowed to give a vairance to the IEC. The state is the only one who can except when it comes to smoke detectors.

Look up IAC 675 ARTICLE 14. ONE AND TWO FAMILY DWELLING CODE , and ARTICLE 17. ELECTRICAL CODES
Indiana Administrative Code

This relates to what I said above:Indiana Code: IC 22-13

But read all of IC.22 and IC 36.
Indiana Code Table of Contents
Scroll down to the related article (22&36)
It's good to know what laws you have on your side.

P.S. The state can also take away the local's athority to inspect if they get enough complaints that there not following the state laws.

[ May 08, 2005, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: hurk27 ]