Yeah, I agree with you. Though wouldn't the best solution be to have two
circuits per room. It would cost a bit more, especially with the price of
copper now days, but theye would always be room to expand. And if you
needed to work on a circuit, you still have the other circuit to provide
light or operate tools.


It really comes down to how much money the customer wants to
spend...unfortunately most people only care about the lowest price, not good
quality.


"Dean" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Feb 12, 4:01 pm, Chris Friesen wrote:
Goedjn wrote:
Why should circuts and rooms correspond? It makes
far more sense to me to have WALLS and circuts
correspond.

From a homeowner point of view, it would be nice to be able to shut off
the "left bedroom" breaker and not interfere with other stuff.

In my house, for instance, I have to remember that "these two outlets
are on that circuit, but the other one on that wall is this other
circuit, while that one over there shares a circuit with the outside
plugs and is thus GFCI-protected, while the lights are on this other
circuit altogether". One room, five circuits.

It made things really interesting when I wanted to replace the outlets,
as it involved basically mapping out the entire house. I can't just
label the breakers, I need a floorplan with outlets and matching
circuits marked on it.

Chris

Sounds to Me like both ideas have merit..Letting a room determine a
circuit would simplify things for the user,,but,,if a problem
developes with that circuit then all the outlets might be dead in
there till it's fixed..Sounds kinda like 6 of one and half dozen of
another..An Electrician may well have the last/best say on it tho..
Dean