"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill"
wrote:

"Josepi" wrote in message
...
Top of what?

I apologize for not wording my question more effectively. Here's another
try:


A few months ago, the idea of a "quad in a box" as a go-anywhere power
source
was brought up.

Can one power this configuration by plugging it into a wall outlet without
violating the NEC?

Yes, of course. The NEC is concerned with services, feeders, and branch
circuits -- basically, everything between the service drop and the outlet.
What's on *your* side of the outlet is of no concern to the NEC.



Josephi - You read my mind. A pair of duplex outlets was what I had in mind
by "quad in a box". I honestly did not intend to be vague.

Doug -- Wouldn't this be considered an extension of the branch
circuit/outlet since it is an outlet itself? Maybe it's gets omitted for
being temporary. This same mechanism seems like the best way to add
outlets underneath the table of a workbench. Do you think that this is this
just as permissable?

I had a question concerning the ground wires in wiring a quad box in a
branch circuit (both outlets to be run in series from the same hot).
Resources I have found have been vague. My understanding includes that a
wire attached to the ground terminal of the first duplex outlet would be
pigtailed with the upstream ground wire and a wire which is screwed to the
box, and that the wire attached to the ground terminal of the second duplex
outlet would be pigtailed with the downstream ground wire and a wire which
is screwed to the (metal) box. So the box would contain exactly 2
connectors and two wires would be screwed to the box, possibly at the same
place. Does this seem like the best way to you? I can think of equivalent
configurations, but this one seems good. Another possibility seems to be to
use a 3rd pigtail connecting the first two pigtail connections and connect
them to the box that way instead. Which way seems preferable to you?

BTW, using 12-3 cable for my run, every wire I mentioned connecting in the
paragraph above would be bare (right?).

Thank you!
Bill