replying to Nate Nagel , Let's get it right! wrote:
njnagel wrote:

On 12/16/2013 11:44 AM, Mis-application of listed appliances ---
Your argument is somewhat valid, but you're not going to get anywhere
with it as the NEC specifically allows the use of NEMA 5-15 or
combination 5-15/5-20 receptacles on a 20A branch circuit.
This is the ONLY instance that I'm aware that a receptacle is allowed
which accepts a plug/cord cap of a lower nominal amperage than the
circuit breaker, however.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel


I agree that NEC allows using a NEMA 5-20 and 5-15 receptacle protected
with a 20-ampere branch circuit breaker, and as long as you don't
interface a Listed appliance rated at not more than 15-amperes with these
receptacles, it's a non-problem.

However, the mere fact that someone provide such interfaces, and those
interfaces can be used by "Listed" cord connected equipment is proof that
NEC Article 110.3 (A) (8) was not done

110.3 Examination, Identification, Installation, and Use of Equipment
(A) Examination. In judging equipment, considerations such as the
following shall be evaluated:
(8) Other factors that contribute to the practical safeguarding of persons
using or likely to come in contact with the equipment.

These are the responsibilities of the engineer of record as well as the
local regulatory and code inspection agency. They have totally ignored
the "Testing for Public Safety**" aspect of the "Listing" effort.

They've failed miserably with respect to this NEC article. The public is
not protected because the require interfaces (receptacles) for "Listed"
equipment utilizing NEMA 5-15 plugs and cord sets has not been provided
for "Protection" as defined by NEC. Additionally, try to find a power
cord set with NEMA 5-15 plug in your McMaster Carr catalog that's rated
for more than 15 amperes! If there are any, then "ALL" listed cord
connected equipment would have to use it. We have NEMA 5-20 plugs for
that ... and they won't interface with a NEMA 5-15 receptacle for good
reason!

--

replying to krw , Let's get it right! wrote:
krw wrote:

On Sat, 14 Dec 2013 14:45:17 -0600, "Irreverent Maximus"
Why? It allows you to use both 15A and 20A appliances.
Because it allows both sorts of appliances to be plugged in? Note
that it would be against code to install this outlet on a 15A circuit.
You haven't looked hard enough. They aren't all that common because
most appliances draw less than 15A, so 15A cords are plenty. However,
they do exist. Many air conditioners have 20A plugs. The plugs are
also available at the usual places.


A NEMA 5-15 plug and cord set applied to a 20-ampere branch circuit could
be exposed to approximately 78% more real power than it's Listed rating.
The conductors are essentially resistors ... and in a resistive circuit,
power increases as the square of current. Subsequently (20 amperes)^2 is
much greater than (15-amperes)^2. As a result, the power cord will
overheat and possibly burn up. It's really quite easy to conduct this
experiment with an extension cord ... but have a fire extinguisher present
... because loading up a "Listed" extension cord beyond it's listing or
labeling requirements will most probably result in a fire/electrical
hazard ... and since it's listing efforts (Testing for Public Safety) did
not include exposing the extension cord to possible overloading (up to
20-amperes).



--

On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 20:45:08 +0000, Let's get it right!
wrote:

replying to krw , Let's get it right! wrote:
krw wrote:

On Sat, 14 Dec 2013 14:45:17 -0600, "Irreverent Maximus"
Why? It allows you to use both 15A and 20A appliances.
Because it allows both sorts of appliances to be plugged in? Note
that it would be against code to install this outlet on a 15A circuit.
You haven't looked hard enough. They aren't all that common because
most appliances draw less than 15A, so 15A cords are plenty. However,
they do exist. Many air conditioners have 20A plugs. The plugs are
also available at the usual places.


A NEMA 5-15 plug and cord set applied to a 20-ampere branch circuit could
be exposed to approximately 78% more real power than it's Listed rating.
The conductors are essentially resistors ... and in a resistive circuit,
power increases as the square of current.

Wrong. What is the rating of 18ga wire? ...or are you saying that
there are no appliances with 18ga wire? I suppose it's illegal to plug
a lamp into a NEMA 5-15 outlet on a 20A circuit? You'd probably ****
if you caught me plugging a lamp into a NEMA 5-20 outlet! sheesh

Subsequently (20 amperes)^2 is
much greater than (15-amperes)^2. As a result, the power cord will
overheat and possibly burn up. It's really quite easy to conduct this
experiment with an extension cord ... but have a fire extinguisher present
.. because loading up a "Listed" extension cord beyond it's listing or
labeling requirements will most probably result in a fire/electrical
hazard ... and since it's listing efforts (Testing for Public Safety) did
not include exposing the extension cord to possible overloading (up to
20-amperes).

Completely irrelevant. The circuit breaker is *NOT* there to protect
your cord, or appliance. Good grief! LEARN SOMETHING!

The Daring Dufas posted for all of us...

And I know how to SNIP


On 12/16/2013 11:48 PM, Irreverent Maximus wrote:
On 12/16/2013 7:48 PM, wrote:

Note that the NEMA 5-15 receptacle *is* rated for 20A. The plug that
fits into it is only rated for 15A, though. As has been point out
here many times, the outlet can have two 10A appliances plugged in.


Okay, I approached this thread as a joke. I mean, seriously. As you
have pointed out, the breaker protects the wiring of branch circuits.
That is the primary focus of the breaker since the breaker and branch
circuits are the only controllable factors. Once people start plugging
things into outlets, all bets are off.

With the advent of more and more electrical devices the need for a
reasonable compromise in providing more outlets, without dedication,
was needed and it was deemed that it was okay to increase the amperage
of branch circuits (110-120v duplex receptacles to be specific). The
protection and wiring of these receptacles is only to the face of the
receptacle. After that, it is up to the user to not be an idiot.

The U.L. listing is the rating that a device/cord is tested at, not the
rating of what it will be plugged into, nor is it the failure point that
the U.L. listed device has. The listing only proves that the device
will perform up to claimed rating. That is all. I could go on, but to
keep it short and simple I can give an example of something that might
surprise some people.

Look around your house, place of work, or any store that sells the
following:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/lubg6n9

Check out the U.L. listing tag near the plug. What does it state?
If it is a 16ga cord, like the one shown, it will have 13A as its
tested rating. I have a cord, don't know the AWG, but it is only
rated for 10A. Ever check out the 7A rating that the power cord that
plugs into the power supply of a Desktop? One might think that the
ampacity rating is solely because of the wire size, but they would be
wrong. Rather, It is the type of insulation versus intended voltage
that the insulation type of the wiring is made of. IIRC this is under
table 450.5(A) for flexible cords.

Anyone ever see a clock radio, with an 18ga cord, rated for 15A? A
lamp? I am not going to call "Get it Right", or whatever its nym is,
a troll, but maybe it can get this right:

How much horsepower is available at a 20A receptacle?

Merry Christmas!


In business offices where I've installed phone systems, networks,
computers and backup power supplies, many of the women(I adore many of
them), will plug a 1,500watt electric heater into the UPS and wonder
where the smoke came from. There are places where I installed separate
circuits just for things like electric heaters and made it clear to the
gals that the only place they were to ever plug in a heater was the
labeled outlet. Me and the guys have been using white vinyl plastic
downspouts to carry the MC power cables, phone and network cables from
the suspended ceilings in offices down to the floor. I can pre-build the
vinyl power poles at the office before they're taken to the job site and
installed. The reason we use the plastic downspouts is because the metal
tela-power poles from manufacturers cost close to $100.00 from the
electrical supply houses. If someone slams a desk into one of the
expensive metal power poles, it can be dented, bent and damaged enough
to require replacement. The vinyl pops back into place. ^_^

http://www.cableorganizer.com/tele-power-poles/

TDD

Waaa, you are going to put Panduit & such outta
business... I have used foam pipe insulation too
for low voltage cabling.

--
Tekkie

replying to Let's get it right!, Let's get it right! wrote:
Let's get it right! wrote:

b.com...
Articles 100 thru 400 of NEC are mandatory. Only after Article 400 can you
deviate from for specific applications.
A "Listed" device is only "Protected" when applied within it's listing
requirements and labeling. If you don't provide branch circuit protection
compatible with the "Listed" device listing requirements and labeling, it
not
"Protected" according to NEC. Subsequently, if you provide 20-ampere
branch
circuit protection to circuit intended to interface with "Listed" devices,
the
"Listed" devices will not be "Protected".
A single, dedicated NEMA 5-15 receptacle is allowed to be interfaced with a
20-ampere circuit breaker ... but not multiple 15 ampere receptacles. In
addition, the steady state current draw on a NEMA 5-15 receptacle should be
limited to about 13-amperes (allowing for a 2-ampere margin) according to
NEC.
A 20-ampere circuit breaker would allow for a 7-ampere margin which would
expose
resistive components (such as power cords) to over 75% more real power than
what
they are listed at. The power cord, plug, etc. will burn up under such
circumstances, and a fused "Listed" device will not protect the power cord
of
that "Listed" device.


Your missing the point. If branch circuit protection in a home is
20-amperes or greater, and use NEMA 5-15 and/or NEMA 5-20 receptacles, the
"Listed" appliances are not protected, and because they cannot be applied
in accordance with their listing and labeling requirements.

On the other hand, if branch circuit protection in a home is 15-amperes,
and use NEMA 5-15 and/or NEMA 5-20 receptacles, "Listed" appliances will
be considered "Protected" according to NEC because they can be applied in
accordance with their listing and labeling requirements.

This argument is a lot like which came first .... the chicken (branch
circuit protection) ... and the egg ("Listed" appliances). The argument
boils down to "Do you protect Listed appliances" or not? If not, get use
to having latent fire/shock hazards ... and overloaded extension cord
fires every X-mas!



--

replying to krw , Let's get it right! wrote:
krw wrote:

On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 20:45:08 +0000, Let's get it right!
Wrong. What is the rating of 18ga wire? ...or are you saying that
there are no appliances with 18ga wire? I suppose it's illegal to plug
a lamp into a NEMA 5-15 outlet on a 20A circuit? You'd probably ****
if you caught me plugging a lamp into a NEMA 5-20 outlet! sheesh
Completely irrelevant. The circuit breaker is *NOT* there to protect
your cord, or appliance. Good grief! LEARN SOMETHING!


Now there's a response that clarifies absolutely NOTHING! KRW ... Review
Articles 100, 200, 300, and 400 of the latest NEC for clarification of the
purpose of circuit protection. I also encourage you to contact U.L. for
clarification of requirements of Listed and Labelled equipment.


--

On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 18:45:08 +0000, Let's get it right!
wrote:

replying to krw , Let's get it right! wrote:
krw wrote:

On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 20:45:08 +0000, Let's get it right!
Wrong. What is the rating of 18ga wire? ...or are you saying that
there are no appliances with 18ga wire? I suppose it's illegal to plug
a lamp into a NEMA 5-15 outlet on a 20A circuit? You'd probably ****
if you caught me plugging a lamp into a NEMA 5-20 outlet! sheesh
Completely irrelevant. The circuit breaker is *NOT* there to protect
your cord, or appliance. Good grief! LEARN SOMETHING!


Now there's a response that clarifies absolutely NOTHING! KRW ...

Now there's a response I completely expected; zero intelligence.

Review
Articles 100, 200, 300, and 400 of the latest NEC for clarification of the
purpose of circuit protection. I also encourage you to contact U.L. for
clarification of requirements of Listed and Labelled equipment.

You're an idiot, plain and simple (with an emphasis on "simple").

replying to Irreverent Maximus , Let's get it right! wrote:
nospam wrote:

Okay, I approached this thread as a joke. I mean, seriously. As you
have pointed out, the breaker protects the wiring of branch circuits.
That is the primary focus of the breaker since the breaker and branch
circuits are the only controllable factors. Once people start plugging
things into outlets, all bets are off.
With the advent of more and more electrical devices the need for a
reasonable compromise in providing more outlets, without dedication,
was needed and it was deemed that it was okay to increase the amperage
of branch circuits (110-120v duplex receptacles to be specific). The
protection and wiring of these receptacles is only to the face of the
receptacle. After that, it is up to the user to not be an idiot.
The U.L. listing is the rating that a device/cord is tested at, not the
rating of what it will be plugged into, nor is it the failure point that
the U.L. listed device has. The listing only proves that the device
will perform up to claimed rating. That is all. I could go on, but to
keep it short and simple I can give an example of something that might
surprise some people.
Look around your house, place of work, or any store that sells the
following:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/lubg6n9
Check out the U.L. listing tag near the plug. What does it state?
If it is a 16ga cord, like the one shown, it will have 13A as its
tested rating. I have a cord, don't know the AWG, but it is only
rated for 10A. Ever check out the 7A rating that the power cord that
plugs into the power supply of a Desktop? One might think that the
ampacity rating is solely because of the wire size, but they would be
wrong. Rather, It is the type of insulation versus intended voltage
that the insulation type of the wiring is made of. IIRC this is under
table 450.5(A) for flexible cords.
Anyone ever see a clock radio, with an 18ga cord, rated for 15A? A
lamp? I am not going to call "Get it Right", or whatever its nym is,
a troll, but maybe it can get this right:
How much horsepower is available at a 20A receptacle?
Merry Christmas!


... and you totally ignored NEC 110.3(1) (8): "Other factors that
contribute tothe practical safeguarding of persons using or likely to come
in contact with the equipment".

The issue if not about the ampacity of power cords, wall receptacles,
etc.. The issue is a "Listed" appliance can and is being interfaced with
a branch circuit that is beyond the Listing and/or labeling requirements
of the "Listed" appliance. It not "all bets are off" at the consumer
level. Such thinking totally ignores the "Testing for Public Safety" of
the Listing effort. The Engineers and Architect's of Record and well as
the local regulatory inspection agencies are NOT doing their job. The
installations cannot be NEC compliant because latent fire and shock
hazards do exists ... and the consumer doesn't even get a vote!

The smallest standard size circuit breaker is 15-amperes. Do you really
think a "Listing" agency, such as U.L., AGA, CSA, ETL, etc. would put
their listing mark on a product that couldn't operate safely from a
15-ampere circuit?

Does it make any sense to protect a fractional horsepower bathroom exhaust
fan with a 20-ampere circuit breaker? A 15-ampere circuit breaker would
provide more protected ... and is most likely what the "Listed" equipment
is rated for anyhow ... because of it's fractional horsepower load.

Horsepower available from a 20-ampere receptacle: 746 watts per
horsepower/hr. However, a motor is not a purely resisttive device. It
has inductive and capacitive characteristics. Subsequently to answer your
question, I'll need to know how many vars (a measure of imaginary power)
or volt-amperes (a measure of total power), or the power factor of the
motor to answer your question. In addition, is the line to line voltage
120, 240, etc? Makes a difference ... but obviously you already know that!

--

On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 1:44:02 PM UTC-5, Let's get it right! wrote:
replying to Let's get it right!, Let's get it right! wrote:

Let's get it right! wrote:



b.com...

Articles 100 thru 400 of NEC are mandatory. Only after Article 400 can you

deviate from for specific applications.

A "Listed" device is only "Protected" when applied within it's listing

requirements and labeling. If you don't provide branch circuit protection

compatible with the "Listed" device listing requirements and labeling, it

not

"Protected" according to NEC. Subsequently, if you provide 20-ampere

branch

circuit protection to circuit intended to interface with "Listed" devices,

the

"Listed" devices will not be "Protected".

A single, dedicated NEMA 5-15 receptacle is allowed to be interfaced with a

20-ampere circuit breaker ... but not multiple 15 ampere receptacles. In

addition, the steady state current draw on a NEMA 5-15 receptacle should be

limited to about 13-amperes (allowing for a 2-ampere margin) according to

NEC.

A 20-ampere circuit breaker would allow for a 7-ampere margin which would

expose

resistive components (such as power cords) to over 75% more real power than

what

they are listed at. The power cord, plug, etc. will burn up under such

circumstances, and a fused "Listed" device will not protect the power cord

of

that "Listed" device.





Your missing the point. If branch circuit protection in a home is

20-amperes or greater, and use NEMA 5-15 and/or NEMA 5-20 receptacles, the

"Listed" appliances are not protected, and because they cannot be applied

in accordance with their listing and labeling requirements.



On the other hand, if branch circuit protection in a home is 15-amperes,

and use NEMA 5-15 and/or NEMA 5-20 receptacles, "Listed" appliances will

be considered "Protected" according to NEC because they can be applied in

accordance with their listing and labeling requirements.



This argument is a lot like which came first .... the chicken (branch

circuit protection) ... and the egg ("Listed" appliances). The argument

boils down to "Do you protect Listed appliances" or not? If not, get use

to having latent fire/shock hazards ... and overloaded extension cord

fires every X-mas!



If you can't have multiple 15 amp receptacles on a 20 amp circuit,
because someone could plug one of the everyday common devices like
lamps, TV, coffee pot, etc into one,
why is it that they are being installed and passed by electrical inspectors
all around the country every day? Sound like the electrical inspectors
who understand the code disagree with your opinion.

Your contention is that the circuit breaker has to be capable of protecting
the load and it's wiring? Why then is this safety issue unique to 20 amp circuits?
As has been pointed out, most lights have 18 gauge wire cords and they
are connected to 15 amp receptacles, 15 amp breakers. The current carrying
capability of that wire is less than the breaker rating. How is that
different? When it was brought up, you just ignored it.

On Thursday, December 19, 2013 11:46:01 AM UTC-5, Let's get it right! wrote:
replying to Irreverent Maximus , Let's get it right! wrote:

nospam wrote:



Okay, I approached this thread as a joke. I mean, seriously. As you

have pointed out, the breaker protects the wiring of branch circuits.

That is the primary focus of the breaker since the breaker and branch

circuits are the only controllable factors. Once people start plugging

things into outlets, all bets are off.

With the advent of more and more electrical devices the need for a

reasonable compromise in providing more outlets, without dedication,

was needed and it was deemed that it was okay to increase the amperage

of branch circuits (110-120v duplex receptacles to be specific). The

protection and wiring of these receptacles is only to the face of the

receptacle. After that, it is up to the user to not be an idiot.

The U.L. listing is the rating that a device/cord is tested at, not the

rating of what it will be plugged into, nor is it the failure point that

the U.L. listed device has. The listing only proves that the device

will perform up to claimed rating. That is all. I could go on, but to

keep it short and simple I can give an example of something that might

surprise some people.

Look around your house, place of work, or any store that sells the

following:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/lubg6n9

Check out the U.L. listing tag near the plug. What does it state?

If it is a 16ga cord, like the one shown, it will have 13A as its

tested rating. I have a cord, don't know the AWG, but it is only

rated for 10A. Ever check out the 7A rating that the power cord that

plugs into the power supply of a Desktop? One might think that the

ampacity rating is solely because of the wire size, but they would be

wrong. Rather, It is the type of insulation versus intended voltage

that the insulation type of the wiring is made of. IIRC this is under

table 450.5(A) for flexible cords.

Anyone ever see a clock radio, with an 18ga cord, rated for 15A? A

lamp? I am not going to call "Get it Right", or whatever its nym is,

a troll, but maybe it can get this right:

How much horsepower is available at a 20A receptacle?

Merry Christmas!





.. and you totally ignored NEC 110.3(1) (8): "Other factors that

contribute tothe practical safeguarding of persons using or likely to come

in contact with the equipment".



The issue if not about the ampacity of power cords, wall receptacles,

etc.. The issue is a "Listed" appliance can and is being interfaced with

a branch circuit that is beyond the Listing and/or labeling requirements

of the "Listed" appliance. It not "all bets are off" at the consumer

level. Such thinking totally ignores the "Testing for Public Safety" of

the Listing effort. The Engineers and Architect's of Record and well as

the local regulatory inspection agencies are NOT doing their job. The

installations cannot be NEC compliant because latent fire and shock

hazards do exists ... and the consumer doesn't even get a vote!



The smallest standard size circuit breaker is 15-amperes. Do you really

think a "Listing" agency, such as U.L., AGA, CSA, ETL, etc. would put

their listing mark on a product that couldn't operate safely from a

15-ampere circuit?



Perhaps you can show us examples of UL listing tags that say:
"This appliance may only be used on a circuit with a 15 amp breaker".
"Using it on a circuit with a 20 amp breaker is not allowed and dangerous".
I've bought and used a lot of appliances, lights, etc and don't
ever recall seeing any such thing. If this issue was 1% of the problem
you make it out to be, you would think there would be required warning
labels like that all over the place. I've never seen one.





Does it make any sense to protect a fractional horsepower bathroom exhaust

fan with a 20-ampere circuit breaker? A 15-ampere circuit breaker would

provide more protected ... and is most likely what the "Listed" equipment

is rated for anyhow ... because of it's fractional horsepower load.



Does it make any sense to protect floor lamps that have 18 gauge cords
with 15 amp breakers on the circuits they get plugged into?
Yet apparently the UL and NEC are OK with that.
As for protecting the small fan with a 20 amp breaker, it depends on
what else is on that circuit. If it serves other loads, that warrant
a 20 amp breaker, then AFAIK, it's allowed. The motor has it's own
overload protection. And if it's not allowed, perhaps you can show us
the install instructions for some typical bath fans that say you can't
put them on a 20 amp breaker.

replying to krw , Let's get it right! wrote:
krw wrote:

On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 18:45:08 +0000, Let's get it right!
Now there's a response I completely expected; zero intelligence.
You're an idiot, plain and simple (with an emphasis on "simple").



It appears you have a denial problem ... and either refuse to debate the
issue ... or just can't. When you grow up, I'll explain it again to you
... but with crayons!

Power: there is real, total, and imaginary power. Goggle it for yourself
and perhaps you'll be enlightened.

May the force be with you.

--

On Thursday, December 19, 2013 2:44:01 PM UTC-5, Let's get it right! wrote:
replying to krw , Let's get it right! wrote:

krw wrote:



On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 18:45:08 +0000, Let's get it right!

Now there's a response I completely expected; zero intelligence.

You're an idiot, plain and simple (with an emphasis on "simple").







It appears you have a denial problem ... and either refuse to debate the

issue ... or just can't. When you grow up, I'll explain it again to you

.. but with crayons!



Power: there is real, total, and imaginary power. Goggle it for yourself

and perhaps you'll be enlightened.



May the force be with you.



--

Speaking of explaining things, why haven't you explained why the same
alleged safety problem related to breaker sizing with 20 amp circuits
doesn't exist when we all plug floor lamps, radios, clocks, etc that
draw an amp into 15 amp receptacles.

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 19:44:01 +0000, Let's get it right!
wrote:

replying to krw , Let's get it right! wrote:
krw wrote:

On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 18:45:08 +0000, Let's get it right!
Now there's a response I completely expected; zero intelligence.
You're an idiot, plain and simple (with an emphasis on "simple").



It appears you have a denial problem

It appears that you're just stupid.

... and either refuse to debate the
issue ... or just can't.

You can't even read, so it's difficult to debate.

When you grow up, I'll explain it again to you
.. but with crayons!

When mommy changes your diapers, little boy, perhaps she can teach you
to read.

Power: there is real, total, and imaginary power. Goggle it for yourself
and perhaps you'll be enlightened.

I am an EE. I know a little more about this stuff than you pretend
to, little boy. The fact that you even bring this up shows that
you're flailing, trying to get *SOMETHING* to hang onto. What a doof.
May the force be with you.

You are the farce.

In article ,
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 19:44:01 +0000, Let's get it right!
wrote:

replying to krw , Let's get it right! wrote:
krw wrote:

On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 18:45:08 +0000, Let's get it right!
Now there's a response I completely expected; zero intelligence.
You're an idiot, plain and simple (with an emphasis on "simple").



It appears you have a denial problem

It appears that you're just stupid.

... and either refuse to debate the
issue ... or just can't.

You can't even read, so it's difficult to debate.

just like a fundie...blame everyone else for their failures. your
inability to debate is demonstrated on almost all of your posts, unless
in your feeble mind calling someone a PLCCF or Liberal or Lefty
qualifies as debate



When you grow up, I'll explain it again to you
.. but with crayons!

When mommy changes your diapers, little boy, perhaps she can teach you
to read.

Power: there is real, total, and imaginary power. Goggle it for yourself
and perhaps you'll be enlightened.

I am an EE. I know a little more about this stuff than you pretend
to, little boy. The fact that you even bring this up shows that
you're flailing, trying to get *SOMETHING* to hang onto. What a doof.
May the force be with you.

You are the farce.

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:36:15 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 19:44:01 +0000, Let's get it right!
wrote:

replying to krw , Let's get it right! wrote:
krw wrote:

On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 18:45:08 +0000, Let's get it right!
Now there's a response I completely expected; zero intelligence.
You're an idiot, plain and simple (with an emphasis on "simple").



It appears you have a denial problem

It appears that you're just stupid.

... and either refuse to debate the
issue ... or just can't.

You can't even read, so it's difficult to debate.

just like a fundie...blame everyone else for their failures. your
inability to debate is demonstrated on almost all of your posts, unless
in your feeble mind calling someone a PLCCF or Liberal or Lefty
qualifies as debate

Another lefty who believes that his lies trump facts. OTOH, if you
couldn't lie, you would be mute.

On 12/19/2013 11:04 AM, wrote:

If you can't have multiple 15 amp receptacles on a 20 amp circuit,
because someone could plug one of the everyday common devices like
lamps, TV, coffee pot, etc into one,
why is it that they are being installed and passed by electrical inspectors
all around the country every day? Sound like the electrical inspectors
who understand the code disagree with your opinion.

Your contention is that the circuit breaker has to be capable of protecting
the load and it's wiring? Why then is this safety issue unique to 20 amp circuits?
As has been pointed out, most lights have 18 gauge wire cords and they
are connected to 15 amp receptacles, 15 amp breakers. The current carrying
capability of that wire is less than the breaker rating. How is that
different? When it was brought up, you just ignored it.


Hey, every 8 feet there shall be every outlet known to man, with all
devices properly "plugged" for "protection". Mr. "I can't get it
right" obviously cannot figure out that by design devices are
protected barring misuse or catastrophic failure. No that never
happens. Far be it for a breaker to fail to trip, or a fuse. No,
such things never happen.

It is not like a 4 amp short could start a fire, like something like
that would ever happen.

Everything must be comfy and safe, just like life. Like something like
that would ever happen.

On 12/19/2013 3:43 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 19:44:01 +0000, Let's get it right!
wrote:

replying to krw , Let's get it right! wrote:
krw wrote:

On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 18:45:08 +0000, Let's get it right! Now
there's a response I completely expected; zero intelligence.
You're an idiot, plain and simple (with an emphasis on
"simple").



It appears you have a denial problem

It appears that you're just stupid.

... and either refuse to debate the
issue ... or just can't.

You can't even read, so it's difficult to debate.

When you grow up, I'll explain it again to you .. but with
crayons!

When mommy changes your diapers, little boy, perhaps she can teach
you to read.

Power: there is real, total, and imaginary power. Goggle it for
yourself and perhaps you'll be enlightened.

I am an EE. I know a little more about this stuff than you pretend
to, little boy. The fact that you even bring this up shows that
you're flailing, trying to get *SOMETHING* to hang onto. What a
doof.
May the force be with you.

You are the farce.


MAY THE FARCE BE WITH YOU!!! ^_^

TDD

replying to The Daring Dufas , Let's get it right! wrote:
the-daring-dufas wrote:

MAY THE FARCE BE WITH YOU!!! ^_^
TDD


Your ignorance amazes me! Finish HS?


--

replying to Malcom , Let's get it right! wrote:
atlas-bugged wrote:

In article ,
just like a fundie...blame everyone else for their failures. your
inability to debate is demonstrated on almost all of your posts, unless
in your feeble mind calling someone a PLCCF or Liberal or Lefty
qualifies as debate


The difference between my debate and yours is that presented the facts.
Tells me you're in denial! Grow UP!

--

replying to clare , Let's get it right! wrote:
clare wrote:

On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 21:46:09 +0000, Let's get it right!
It's NOT a NEW problem. Virtually every outlet in the house in the
past has been protected with a 15 amp fuse or breaker - and virtually
every radio, TV, lamp, and small non-heating appliance has had a 16 or
18ga cord - whether or not it has an internal fuse. NONE of the
non-fused items are "protected" by the circuit fuse, and if something
shorts before the fuse on a fused device, the cord is not protected
either.
A 20 amp receptacle is CAPABLE of safely handling 20 amps current, and
can handle 2 10 amp, or 1 15 and 1 5, without being overloaded. It can
also handle a 20 amp device - with its special plug - which a 15 amp
outlet cannot - You still can't opperate 2 15 amp devices on the same
circuitbecause the CIRCUIT is protected to 20 amps maximum.
Im a lot of Europe, each plug has it's own fuse - and a bigger fuse
cannot be installed than the plug is rated for.


It not a matter of what a NEMA 5-15 receptacle can handle during normal
operation. It's what can it handle during a non-fail-safe incident. For
example, say you have to Listed devices interfaced with a NEMA 5-15
receptacle, and each listed device is rated at 6 amperes full load. Not a
problem! However, what happens when one or both fail in a non-safe manner?

Circuit breakers at the plug is a good way of getting around the problem
we have in the U.S. ... and the U.S. will eventually follow their lead if
branch circuit protection is not done in a manner that is compatible with
"Listed" equipment.



--

replying to , Let's get it right! wrote:
trader4 wrote:

Perhaps you can show us examples of UL listing tags that say:
"This appliance may only be used on a circuit with a 15 amp breaker".
"Using it on a circuit with a 20 amp breaker is not allowed and
dangerous".
I've bought and used a lot of appliances, lights, etc and don't
ever recall seeing any such thing. If this issue was 1% of the problem
you make it out to be, you would think there would be required warning
labels like that all over the place. I've never seen one.

Does it make any sense to protect floor lamps that have 18 gauge cords
with 15 amp breakers on the circuits they get plugged into?
Yet apparently the UL and NEC are OK with that.
As for protecting the small fan with a 20 amp breaker, it depends on
what else is on that circuit. If it serves other loads, that warrant
a 20 amp breaker, then AFAIK, it's allowed. The motor has it's own
overload protection. And if it's not allowed, perhaps you can show us
the install instructions for some typical bath fans that say you can't
put them on a 20 amp breaker.



That label "15-ampere" is there for a purpose. Surely you're not
advocating ignoring it ... are you? (Ref: NEC Article 240.5(b)(1))

Also look at NEC Article 240.5 (B) (2) regarding ampacity of fixture wire.

Your ignorance is showing. Either get with the NEC program ...or get the
hell out of it. You may be a source for fire/shock hazards that exist
today!.

A 15-ampere circuit breaker provides more protection than a 20-ampere
circuit breaker, and is a standard ampere rating for circuit breakers
(REF: NEC Article 240.6 (A).

Either provide backup for your argument ... or get the hell out of the
way.

--

On 12/20/2013 9:44 AM, Let's get it right! wrote:
replying to The Daring Dufas , Let's get it right! wrote:
the-daring-dufas wrote:

MAY THE FARCE BE WITH YOU!!! ^_^ TDD

Your ignorance amazes me! Finish HS?


I'm ignorant about a lot of things but I can learn. It's obvious to me
that you may be suffering from H.I.S.I., Pronounced "hissy". It stands
for Humor Irony Sarcasm Impairment. It afflicts most Progressive Liberal
Leftist Commiecrat Freaks who don't have a clue when someone is
pulling their leg. You probably missed the movie "Spaceballs", a Mel
Brooks SciFi parody film. It's a shame you don't understand a catch
phrase from pop culture. You poor thing. ^_^

TDD

replying to bud-- , Let's get it right! wrote:
null wrote:

As I have already explained, "listed" devices will be "approved" by the
AHJ under 110.2.
110.3 (inspection) is irrelevant to listed devices -inspectors do not
"inspect" listed devices. They determine that the listed devices are
used according to the manufactures instructions and the conditions of
listing.
The system is working as intended by the NEC and UL.
Anyone can submit a code change proposal.
And anyone can petition the UL to change their standards.
I am sure your proposals will be appropriately considered.


What your failing to recognize is they are approving installations that do
no protect "listed" equipment (tenant owned, property owned, etc.).
What's the purpose of NEC if it isn't to protect the public? What's the
purpose of the listing effort (Testing for Public Safety) if the
application of listed equipment in facilities allegedly complying to NEC
do not protect the public after all?

If you have an appreciation for "real" power, you could acknowledge
I-squared x resistance .... that's what a power cord would see. Protected
by a 20-ampere circuit breaker could allow for up to 78% more exposure to
power than what the power cord is rated for if it has a NEMA 5-15 plug
and/or cord set. A 20-ampere circuit breaker does not limit the exposure
of the 15-ampere rated device to 15-amperes! A 15-ampere circuit breaker
does.

You can overload an extension cord utilizing a NEMA 5-15 plug if protected
by a circuit breaker rated at 20-amperes. However, you cannot overload
such extension cord if protected by a 15-ampere circuit breaker.
Acknowledge?

I find it amazing this concept is so difficult to understand by the
masses. I encourage you to contact any listing agency regarding my
claims. I cannot imagine how anyone can misinterpret NEC in such a way
that justifies listed devices not being protected. The words are quite
clear in NEC Articles 100, 200, 300, and 400. I've responded to many post
on this forum ... and have yet to be presented an argument that justifies
not protecting Listed equipment. In fact, one response stated "All bets
are off" once the installation has been approved by the regulatory agency
... and "We can't control what the user will interface with the
receptacles" ... which is just not true if NEC is followed as written
(REF: Article 110.3(A)(8) which states: "Other factors that contribute to
the practical safeguarding of persons using or likely to come in contact
with the equipment". The key words are "contribute", "practical",
"safeguarding" .... ACKNOWLEDGED? It just isn't happening if 20-ampere
circuit breakers used in branch circuits are interfaced with "Listed
equipment" rated for use from branch circuit rated at not more than
15-amperes.

I've said enough in the forum to realize the concepts in the NEC are way
above your head, and you just don't have what it takes to understand how
it's suppose to work. Your logic is extensively flawed, and you've not
presented anything resembling a logical argument except for what's
referred to as "Appeal to Authority". If you are an authority, then
present a logical argument.



--

In article s.com,
Let's get it right!
wrote:

replying to Malcom , Let's get it right! wrote:
atlas-bugged wrote:

In article ,
just like a fundie...blame everyone else for their failures. your
inability to debate is demonstrated on almost all of your posts, unless
in your feeble mind calling someone a PLCCF or Liberal or Lefty
qualifies as debate


The difference between my debate and yours is that presented the facts.
Tells me you're in denial! Grow UP!

oh, more sarcasm

On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 18:44:01 +0000, Let's get it right!
wrote:

replying to bud-- , Let's get it right! wrote:
null wrote:

As I have already explained, "listed" devices will be "approved" by the
AHJ under 110.2.
110.3 (inspection) is irrelevant to listed devices -inspectors do not
"inspect" listed devices. They determine that the listed devices are
used according to the manufactures instructions and the conditions of
listing.
The system is working as intended by the NEC and UL.
Anyone can submit a code change proposal.
And anyone can petition the UL to change their standards.
I am sure your proposals will be appropriately considered.


What your failing to recognize is they are approving installations that do
no protect "listed" equipment (tenant owned, property owned, etc.).
What's the purpose of NEC if it isn't to protect the public? What's the
purpose of the listing effort (Testing for Public Safety) if the
application of listed equipment in facilities allegedly complying to NEC
do not protect the public after all?

If you have an appreciation for "real" power, you could acknowledge
I-squared x resistance .... that's what a power cord would see. Protected
by a 20-ampere circuit breaker could allow for up to 78% more exposure to
power than what the power cord is rated for if it has a NEMA 5-15 plug
and/or cord set. A 20-ampere circuit breaker does not limit the exposure
of the 15-ampere rated device to 15-amperes! A 15-ampere circuit breaker
does.

You can overload an extension cord utilizing a NEMA 5-15 plug if protected
by a circuit breaker rated at 20-amperes. However, you cannot overload
such extension cord if protected by a 15-ampere circuit breaker.
Acknowledge?

You can easily overload a listed 10 amp extension cord with a NEMA
5-15 plug even on a 15 amp breaker - You seem to be a very strong
advocate for "nanny state" interference at all levels of life - the
government has to protect everybody because they are too stupid to
protect themselves. It's bad enough that way in Canada already. You
can't legislate intelligence, and you can't outlaw stupid. And getting
the government involved in "protecting the people" against everything
just guarantees that "stupid" wins.

I find it amazing this concept is so difficult to understand by the
masses. I encourage you to contact any listing agency regarding my
claims. I cannot imagine how anyone can misinterpret NEC in such a way
that justifies listed devices not being protected. The words are quite
clear in NEC Articles 100, 200, 300, and 400. I've responded to many post
on this forum ... and have yet to be presented an argument that justifies
not protecting Listed equipment. In fact, one response stated "All bets
are off" once the installation has been approved by the regulatory agency
.. and "We can't control what the user will interface with the
receptacles" ... which is just not true if NEC is followed as written
(REF: Article 110.3(A)(8) which states: "Other factors that contribute to
the practical safeguarding of persons using or likely to come in contact
with the equipment". The key words are "contribute", "practical",
"safeguarding" .... ACKNOWLEDGED? It just isn't happening if 20-ampere
circuit breakers used in branch circuits are interfaced with "Listed
equipment" rated for use from branch circuit rated at not more than
15-amperes.

Are you a lawyer, or do you just play one on TV?????

I've said enough in the forum to realize the concepts in the NEC are way
above your head, and you just don't have what it takes to understand how
it's suppose to work. Your logic is extensively flawed, and you've not
presented anything resembling a logical argument except for what's
referred to as "Appeal to Authority". If you are an authority, then
present a logical argument.

On Friday, December 20, 2013 10:47:01 AM UTC-5, Let's get it right! wrote:
replying to , Let's get it right! wrote:

trader4 wrote:



Perhaps you can show us examples of UL listing tags that say:

"This appliance may only be used on a circuit with a 15 amp breaker".

"Using it on a circuit with a 20 amp breaker is not allowed and

dangerous".

I've bought and used a lot of appliances, lights, etc and don't

ever recall seeing any such thing. If this issue was 1% of the problem

you make it out to be, you would think there would be required warning

labels like that all over the place. I've never seen one.



Does it make any sense to protect floor lamps that have 18 gauge cords

with 15 amp breakers on the circuits they get plugged into?

Yet apparently the UL and NEC are OK with that.

As for protecting the small fan with a 20 amp breaker, it depends on

what else is on that circuit. If it serves other loads, that warrant

a 20 amp breaker, then AFAIK, it's allowed. The motor has it's own

overload protection. And if it's not allowed, perhaps you can show us

the install instructions for some typical bath fans that say you can't

put them on a 20 amp breaker.







That label "15-ampere" is there for a purpose.

What 15 ampere label? I just looked at a cordless phone base
station, a hair dryer, a Breville electric kettle, and a Brother
multi-function copier/printer. All say UL listed, 120 V, 60 Hz
and the amps/watts, the printer being 9.6A. No where does it
say that it can't be plugged into an outlet that is on a 20 amp
circuit. So, what label exactly are you referring to? If this
is such a danger, then is should be easy to find a user manual
for any of this common appliances that says not to plug it into
a circuit that is greater than 15 amps. I've yet to see one.



Surely you're not

advocating ignoring it ... are you? (Ref: NEC Article 240.5(b)(1))



What "it" is that? There is nothing on my appliances labels or
instructions that I'm ignoring. It shows they are UL listed,
120V 50/60 hz, 5 amps, 600 watts, that's all.




Also look at NEC Article 240.5 (B) (2) regarding ampacity of fixture wire.



Your ignorance is showing. Either get with the NEC program ...or get the

hell out of it. You may be a source for fire/shock hazards that exist

today!.



You must be a troll. Do you not realize that 20 amp circuits with
15 amp outlets are permitted in the NEC and that they are being
installed by licensed electricians in millions of houses? And
passed by the electrical inspectors?

And you have yet to explain the alleged fire/shock hazard that this
presents compared to a simple floor lamp that uses an 18 gauge cord
on a 15 amp circuit.




A 15-ampere circuit breaker provides more protection than a 20-ampere

circuit breaker, and is a standard ampere rating for circuit breakers

(REF: NEC Article 240.6 (A).


Nonsense. There are standard ratings for circuit breakers of
100 amp too, so what? You really are confused.





Either provide backup for your argument ... or get the hell out of the

way.



--

I just did. I'm waiting for you to show us an appliance manual for
any commonly used household appliances that say that it can only
be used on a 15 amp circuit. I've read many of them over decades and
I don't ever recall seeing any such thing. Cite please.

On Friday, December 20, 2013 1:44:01 PM UTC-5, Let's get it right! wrote:
replying to bud-- , Let's get it right! wrote:

null wrote:



As I have already explained, "listed" devices will be "approved" by the

AHJ under 110.2.

110.3 (inspection) is irrelevant to listed devices -inspectors do not

"inspect" listed devices. They determine that the listed devices are

used according to the manufactures instructions and the conditions of

listing.

The system is working as intended by the NEC and UL.

Anyone can submit a code change proposal.

And anyone can petition the UL to change their standards.

I am sure your proposals will be appropriately considered.





What your failing to recognize is they are approving installations that do

no protect "listed" equipment (tenant owned, property owned, etc.).

What's the purpose of NEC if it isn't to protect the public? What's the

purpose of the listing effort (Testing for Public Safety) if the

application of listed equipment in facilities allegedly complying to NEC

do not protect the public after all?



It's quite obvious that the NEC doesn't agree with your fire and
shock hazard argument. If this were a real problem of any significance,
then the NEC would simply not allow 15 amp receptacles on a 20 amp
circuit. Everyone knows that 95% of people are going to plug any
appliance with a matching plug into a 15 amp receptacle. Very few
are going to go find the panel and figure out whether it has a 15
or 20 amp breaker. And they wouldn't look because not one appliance
manual I've ever bought has said that it had to be used only on a
15 amp circuit. So, why wouldn't the average person just plug it
in? And the NEC, UL, electrical inspectors all know this is going
on in hundreds of millions of homes. Obviously they don't agree that it's a
code violation, illegal, dangerous or why wouldn't they do something
about it?


So, if this were indeed a real problem, the
NEC would simply ban putting 15 amp receptacles on a 20 amp circuit.
The fact that they allow it, the fact that electrical inspectors pass these installs every day, says you'be full of baloney.

Why don't you show us some appliance manuals that say the appliance
can only be used on a circuit with a 15 amp rating? Or some fire,
shocks attributed specifically to this. With millions of appliances
and millions of 15 amp outlets on 20 amp circuits that should be
easy to do......




If you have an appreciation for "real" power, you could acknowledge

I-squared x resistance .... that's what a power cord would see. Protected

by a 20-ampere circuit breaker could allow for up to 78% more exposure to

power than what the power cord is rated for if it has a NEMA 5-15 plug

and/or cord set. A 20-ampere circuit breaker does not limit the exposure

of the 15-ampere rated device to 15-amperes! A 15-ampere circuit breaker

does.



You can overload an extension cord utilizing a NEMA 5-15 plug if protected

by a circuit breaker rated at 20-amperes. However, you cannot overload

such extension cord if protected by a 15-ampere circuit breaker.

Acknowledge?




Here's an 18 gauge extension cord. It's rated at 10 amps. You
could overload that on a 15 amp circuit.

http://www.monoprice.com/Product?seq...FSEV7AodH2cAvA

Here's another one sold at HD, rated at 13 amps. You could overload
that on a 15 amp circuit.

http://www.homedepot.com/p/GE-9-ft-2...i_src=17588969

Acknowledge?



I find it amazing this concept is so difficult to understand by the

masses. I encourage you to contact any listing agency regarding my

claims. I cannot imagine how anyone can misinterpret NEC in such a way

that justifies listed devices not being protected. The words are quite

clear in NEC Articles 100, 200, 300, and 400. I've responded to many post

on this forum ... and have yet to be presented an argument that justifies

not protecting Listed equipment. In fact, one response stated "All bets

are off" once the installation has been approved by the regulatory agency

.. and "We can't control what the user will interface with the

receptacles" ... which is just not true if NEC is followed as written

(REF: Article 110.3(A)(8) which states: "Other factors that contribute to

the practical safeguarding of persons using or likely to come in contact

with the equipment". The key words are "contribute", "practical",

"safeguarding" .... ACKNOWLEDGED? It just isn't happening if 20-ampere

circuit breakers used in branch circuits are interfaced with "Listed

equipment" rated for use from branch circuit rated at not more than

15-amperes.



I've said enough in the forum to realize the concepts in the NEC are way

above your head, and you just don't have what it takes to understand how

it's suppose to work.

Yes, after all you only have EE's and electricians telling your you're
wrong. We haven't heard from gfre who is/was an electrical inspector,
but I bet he won't agree with you.

And again, if this is indeed a serious safety issue, why the hell does
the NEC allow putting 15 amp receptacles on 20 amp circuits at all?
Everyone knows that people plug all kinds of things into them and almost
no one is going to go look at the breaker. Not that they would even
know to look, because
I'm still waiting for some appliance manuals that say that the appliance
may only be plugged into and used on a 15 amp circuit.





Your logic is extensively flawed, and you've not

presented anything resembling a logical argument except for what's

referred to as "Appeal to Authority". If you are an authority, then

present a logical argument.



Many have, it's just that you ignore it all.

not wanting to blunder into your p**sing match but I have had stupid customers plug 15 amp machines into 18 gauge extension cords, most notably one stapled to a carpeted wall. they used a 3 prong to 2 prong adapter too so theunit wasnt grounded.

so people can and do overload circuits.

really each and every appliance should be over current protected to whatever its normal current is...

On 12/20/2013 3:53 PM, bob haller wrote:
not wanting to blunder into your p**sing match but I have had stupid customers plug 15 amp machines into 18 gauge extension cords, most notably one stapled to a carpeted wall. they used a 3 prong to 2 prong adapter too so theunit wasnt grounded.

so people can and do overload circuits.

really each and every appliance should be over current protected to whatever its normal current is...

Years ago, I got a call from a woman whose window
AC wasn't running. Her son the handyman for apart-
ment complex had used a grey cheater, and then a
lamp cord extension to the power socket on the
far wall.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 12/20/2013 2:53 PM, bob haller wrote:
not wanting to blunder into your p**sing match but I have had stupid customers plug 15 amp machines into 18 gauge extension cords, most notably one stapled to a carpeted wall. they used a 3 prong to 2 prong adapter too so theunit wasnt grounded.

so people can and do overload circuits.

really each and every appliance should be over current protected to whatever its normal current is...


A device is plugged into a "protected circuit". The "device" is
inherently protected by its own design.

On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:23:45 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article s.com,
Let's get it right!
wrote:

replying to Malcom , Let's get it right! wrote:
atlas-bugged wrote:

In article ,
just like a fundie...blame everyone else for their failures. your
inability to debate is demonstrated on almost all of your posts, unless
in your feeble mind calling someone a PLCCF or Liberal or Lefty
qualifies as debate


The difference between my debate and yours is that presented the facts.
Tells me you're in denial! Grow UP!

oh, more sarcasm

Can't be, Malformed. You're too damned stupid to understand sarcasm.

On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 22:43:35 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 12/19/2013 3:43 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2013 19:44:01 +0000, Let's get it right!
wrote:

replying to krw , Let's get it right! wrote:
krw wrote:

On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 18:45:08 +0000, Let's get it right! Now
there's a response I completely expected; zero intelligence.
You're an idiot, plain and simple (with an emphasis on
"simple").



It appears you have a denial problem

It appears that you're just stupid.

... and either refuse to debate the
issue ... or just can't.

You can't even read, so it's difficult to debate.

When you grow up, I'll explain it again to you .. but with
crayons!

When mommy changes your diapers, little boy, perhaps she can teach
you to read.

Power: there is real, total, and imaginary power. Goggle it for
yourself and perhaps you'll be enlightened.

I am an EE. I know a little more about this stuff than you pretend
to, little boy. The fact that you even bring this up shows that
you're flailing, trying to get *SOMETHING* to hang onto. What a
doof.
May the force be with you.

You are the farce.


MAY THE FARCE BE WITH YOU!!! ^_^

LGIR is, it is.

On 12/20/2013 12:44 PM, Let's get it right! wrote:
replying to bud-- , Let's get it right! wrote:
null wrote:

As I have already explained, "listed" devices will be "approved" by
the AHJ under 110.2. 110.3 (inspection) is irrelevant to listed
devices -inspectors do not "inspect" listed devices. They determine
that the listed devices are used according to the manufactures
instructions and the conditions of listing. The system is working as
intended by the NEC and UL. Anyone can submit a code change proposal.
And anyone can petition the UL to change their standards. I am sure
your proposals will be appropriately considered.


What your failing to recognize is they are approving installations that do
no protect "listed" equipment (tenant owned, property owned, etc.).
What's the purpose of NEC if it isn't to protect the public?

Write a code change proposal. I am confident you will receive the
appropriate consideration.

What's the
purpose of the listing effort (Testing for Public Safety) if the
application of listed equipment in facilities allegedly complying to NEC
do not protect the public after all?

Petition UL to change its standards. I am confident you will receive the
appropriate consideration.

A 20-ampere circuit breaker does not limit the exposure
of the 15-ampere rated device to 15-amperes! A 15-ampere circuit breaker
does. You can overload an extension cord utilizing a NEMA 5-15 plug if protected
by a circuit breaker rated at 20-amperes. However, you cannot overload
such extension cord if protected by a 15-ampere circuit breaker.
Acknowledge?

A 15A circuit breaker does not protect #16 or #18 wires. Include in your
petition to UL and the NEC prohibiting anything smaller than #14 wire.
My desk lamp deserves a #14 cord.

And include in your code change proposal correction for the blatant
over-sizing of protection for fixture wires in 240.5-B-2.

Also include in your code change proposal correction for the blatant
over-sizing of circuit breakers for motors, and even worse, welders. And
I don't even want to think about what they do with fire pumps - it could
cause a fire.


I find it amazing this concept is so difficult to understand by the
masses.

Everyone understands your argument.

(REF: Article 110.3(A)(8) which states: "Other factors that contribute to
the practical safeguarding of persons using or likely to come in contact
with the equipment". The key words are "contribute", "practical",
"safeguarding" .... ACKNOWLEDGED?

As I have explained several times, including quoted above, 110.3
(inspection) is not used for "listed" equipment. The AHJ does not second
guess the listing standard. The AHJ determines the device is used
according to the manufacturers instructions and conditions of listing.

I've said enough in the forum to realize the concepts in the NEC are way
above your head, and you just don't have what it takes to understand how
it's suppose to work.

I am a licensed master electrician. I have explained how the NEC and UL
work.

Are you Pete C. in drag?

replying to bud-- , Let's get it right! wrote:
null wrote:

Write a code change proposal. I am confident you will receive the
appropriate consideration.
Petition UL to change its standards. I am confident you will receive the
appropriate consideration.
A 15A circuit breaker does not protect #16 or #18 wires. Include in your
petition to UL and the NEC prohibiting anything smaller than #14 wire.
My desk lamp deserves a #14 cord.
And include in your code change proposal correction for the blatant
over-sizing of protection for fixture wires in 240.5-B-2.
Also include in your code change proposal correction for the blatant
over-sizing of circuit breakers for motors, and even worse, welders. And
I don't even want to think about what they do with fire pumps - it could
cause a fire.
Everyone understands your argument.
As I have explained several times, including quoted above, 110.3
(inspection) is not used for "listed" equipment. The AHJ does not second
guess the listing standard. The AHJ determines the device is used
according to the manufacturers instructions and conditions of listing.
I am a licensed master electrician. I have explained how the NEC and UL
work.
Are you Pete C. in drag?


U.L. isn't the problem. They are doing it right!
The problem is interpretation of NEC. You can't protect a listed device
that utilizes a NEMA 5-15 power cord set from a 20 ampere circuit breaker.
Goggle McMaster Carr, extension cords. None are rated at more than
15-amperes @ 125 VAC. See the problem?

--

replying to clare , Let's get it right! wrote:
clare wrote:

On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 18:44:01 +0000, Let's get it right!
You can easily overload a listed 10 amp extension cord with a NEMA
5-15 plug even on a 15 amp breaker - You seem to be a very strong
advocate for "nanny state" interference at all levels of life - the
government has to protect everybody because they are too stupid to
protect themselves. It's bad enough that way in Canada already. You
can't legislate intelligence, and you can't outlaw stupid. And getting
the government involved in "protecting the people" against everything
just guarantees that "stupid" wins.
Are you a lawyer, or do you just play one on TV?????



This is called an "Appeal to Authority" argument (Goggle it!).

No, I'm not a lawyer. However, I am a Licensed Professional Engineer.
I've engineered "Listed" equipment, and designed branch circuit protection
for DOD facilities. I'm not aware of any fires/shock hazards attributed
to my works over the past 45-years.. However, I've determined the cause
of fires of several facilities .... all due to improper branch circuit
protection, and yet the "As-Built" drawing, reviewed and certified by the
local regulatory agency as complying with NEC, didn't comply!

If there we're accountability for improper branch circuit protection, and
the resulting fires and shock hazards, this problem would be cleaned up.
The forum has really exposed the ignorance and arrogance of the user's of
NEC ... and at all levels.

I'm prepared to support my argument in court, as I've done in the past!
Would you?

--

replying to , Let's get it right! wrote:
trader4 wrote:

It's quite obvious that the NEC doesn't agree with your fire and
shock hazard argument. If this were a real problem of any significance,
then the NEC would simply not allow 15 amp receptacles on a 20 amp
circuit. Everyone knows that 95% of people are going to plug any
appliance with a matching plug into a 15 amp receptacle. Very few
are going to go find the panel and figure out whether it has a 15
or 20 amp breaker. And they wouldn't look because not one appliance
manual I've ever bought has said that it had to be used only on a
15 amp circuit. So, why wouldn't the average person just plug it
in? And the NEC, UL, electrical inspectors all know this is going
on in hundreds of millions of homes. Obviously they don't agree that it's
a

code violation, illegal, dangerous or why wouldn't they do something
about it?
So, if this were indeed a real problem, the
NEC would simply ban putting 15 amp receptacles on a 20 amp circuit.
The fact that they allow it, the fact that electrical inspectors pass these
installs every day, says you'be full of baloney.
Why don't you show us some appliance manuals that say the appliance
can only be used on a circuit with a 15 amp rating? Or some fire,
shocks attributed specifically to this. With millions of appliances
and millions of 15 amp outlets on 20 amp circuits that should be
easy to do......

Here's an 18 gauge extension cord. It's rated at 10 amps. You
could overload that on a 15 amp circuit.

http://www.monoprice.com/Product?seq...FSEV7AodH2cAvA
Here's another one sold at HD, rated at 13 amps. You could overload
that on a 15 amp circuit.

http://www.homedepot.com/p/GE-9-ft-2...i_src=17588969
Acknowledge?
Yes, after all you only have EE's and electricians telling your you're
wrong. We haven't heard from gfre who is/was an electrical inspector,
but I bet he won't agree with you.
And again, if this is indeed a serious safety issue, why the hell does
the NEC allow putting 15 amp receptacles on 20 amp circuits at all?
Everyone knows that people plug all kinds of things into them and almost
no one is going to go look at the breaker. Not that they would even
know to look, because
I'm still waiting for some appliance manuals that say that the appliance
may only be plugged into and used on a 15 amp circuit.
Your logic is extensively flawed, and you've not
Many have, it's just that you ignore it all.


They would both be protected with a 15-ampere circuit breaker. The
listing you quote is the steady state current ratings of the device.
There is a reserve ... and at that reserve current (15-amperes), the
reliability of the conductors deteriorates ... but not to the point it
would ignite cheesecloth (Ref: U.L. Standards for listed extension cords
and power cords".

You acknowledge a 15-ampere circuit breaker provides more protection than
a 20-ampere circuit breaker?

The GFRE with the City of New Orleans certainly does't agree with me ...
and after I proved him wrong. What an arrogant SOB ... and he lacking
BACKBONE!

Have a great X-mas season!


--

replying to The Daring Dufas , Let's get it right! wrote:
the-daring-dufas wrote:

I'm ignorant about a lot of things but I can learn. It's obvious to me
that you may be suffering from H.I.S.I., Pronounced "hissy". It stands
for Humor Irony Sarcasm Impairment. It afflicts most Progressive Liberal
Leftist Commiecrat Freaks who don't have a clue when someone is
pulling their leg. You probably missed the movie "Spaceballs", a Mel
Brooks SciFi parody film. It's a shame you don't understand a catch
phrase from pop culture. You poor thing. ^_^
TDD


And you point? This is hardly the forum to vent gas. Grow Up!

--

replying to , Let's get it right! wrote:
trader4 wrote:

What 15 ampere label? I just looked at a cordless phone base
station, a hair dryer, a Breville electric kettle, and a Brother
multi-function copier/printer. All say UL listed, 120 V, 60 Hz
and the amps/watts, the printer being 9.6A. No where does it
say that it can't be plugged into an outlet that is on a 20 amp
circuit. So, what label exactly are you referring to? If this
is such a danger, then is should be easy to find a user manual
for any of this common appliances that says not to plug it into
a circuit that is greater than 15 amps. I've yet to see one.
Surely you're not
What "it" is that? There is nothing on my appliances labels or
instructions that I'm ignoring. It shows they are UL listed,
120V 50/60 hz, 5 amps, 600 watts, that's all.
You must be a troll. Do you not realize that 20 amp circuits with
15 amp outlets are permitted in the NEC and that they are being
installed by licensed electricians in millions of houses? And
passed by the electrical inspectors?
And you have yet to explain the alleged fire/shock hazard that this
presents compared to a simple floor lamp that uses an 18 gauge cord
on a 15 amp circuit.

Nonsense. There are standard ratings for circuit breakers of
100 amp too, so what? You really are confused.

I just did. I'm waiting for you to show us an appliance manual for
any commonly used household appliances that say that it can only
be used on a 15 amp circuit. I've read many of them over decades and
I don't ever recall seeing any such thing. Cite please.


You missed the point. Even if the label say 0.1 amperes, it's appropriate
to apply the device to a branch circuit of not more than 15-amperes, the
smallest standard size breaker ... which provides the maximum protection..


Goggle McMaster Carr, Three conductor indoor/outdoor extension cords.
Nearly all are rated at a maximum of 10 to 15 amperes at 125 VAC. A
20-ampere circuit breaker will not protect such devices. A 15-ampere
circuit breaker will.

Just because this is the way it's been done in millions of houses doesn't
make it right. In fact, it supports my argument (Get it Right).



--

On 12/23/2013 1:48 PM, Let's get it right! wrote:
replying to The Daring Dufas , Let's get it right! wrote:
the-daring-dufas wrote:

I'm ignorant about a lot of things but I can learn. It's obvious to me
that you may be suffering from H.I.S.I., Pronounced "hissy". It stands
for Humor Irony Sarcasm Impairment. It afflicts most Progressive
Liberal Leftist Commiecrat Freaks who don't have a clue when someone
is pulling their leg. You probably missed the movie "Spaceballs", a
Mel Brooks SciFi parody film. It's a shame you don't understand a
catch phrase from pop culture. You poor thing. ^_^ TDD


And you point? This is hardly the forum to vent gas. Grow Up!


You poor thing, I suppose someone has to pity you. ^_^

TDD

On 12/23/2013 1:47 PM, Let's get it right! wrote:
replying to , Let's get it right! wrote:
trader4 wrote:

It's quite obvious that the NEC doesn't agree with your fire and
shock hazard argument. If this were a real problem of any
significance, then the NEC would simply not allow 15 amp
receptacles on a 20 amp circuit. Everyone knows that 95% of people
are going to plug any appliance with a matching plug into a 15 amp
receptacle. Very few are going to go find the panel and figure out
whether it has a 15 or 20 amp breaker. And they wouldn't look
because not one appliance manual I've ever bought has said that it
had to be used only on a 15 amp circuit. So, why wouldn't the
average person just plug it in? And the NEC, UL, electrical
inspectors all know this is going on in hundreds of millions of
homes. Obviously they don't agree that it's
a

code violation, illegal, dangerous or why wouldn't they do
something about it? So, if this were indeed a real problem, the
NEC would simply ban putting 15 amp receptacles on a 20 amp
circuit. The fact that they allow it, the fact that electrical
inspectors pass these
installs every day, says you'be full of baloney.
Why don't you show us some appliance manuals that say the appliance
can only be used on a circuit with a 15 amp rating? Or some fire,
shocks attributed specifically to this. With millions of
appliances and millions of 15 amp outlets on 20 amp circuits that
should be easy to do...... Here's an 18 gauge extension cord. It's
rated at 10 amps. You could overload that on a 15 amp circuit.
http://www.monoprice.com/Product?seq...FSEV7AodH2cAvA

Here's another one sold at HD, rated at 13 amps. You could
overload that on a 15 amp circuit.
http://www.homedepot.com/p/GE-9-ft-2...i_src=17588969


Acknowledge? Yes, after all you only have EE's and electricians
telling your you're wrong. We haven't heard from gfre who is/was
an electrical inspector, but I bet he won't agree with you. And
again, if this is indeed a serious safety issue, why the hell does
the NEC allow putting 15 amp receptacles on 20 amp circuits at all?
Everyone knows that people plug all kinds of things into them and
almost no one is going to go look at the breaker. Not that they
would even know to look, because I'm still waiting for some
appliance manuals that say that the appliance may only be plugged
into and used on a 15 amp circuit. Your logic is extensively
flawed, and you've not Many have, it's just that you ignore it all.


They would both be protected with a 15-ampere circuit breaker. The
listing you quote is the steady state current ratings of the device.
There is a reserve ... and at that reserve current (15-amperes),
the reliability of the conductors deteriorates ... but not to the
point it would ignite cheesecloth (Ref: U.L. Standards for listed
extension cords and power cords".

You acknowledge a 15-ampere circuit breaker provides more protection
than a 20-ampere circuit breaker?

The GFRE with the City of New Orleans certainly does't agree with me
... and after I proved him wrong. What an arrogant SOB ... and he
lacking BACKBONE!

Have a great X-mas season!


We had a bit of disagreement here when I stated that I installed
breakers sized to protect the wiring not necessarily the equipment.
The argument was that according to the NEC, you can use #12 to an
AC unit and a 30 amp breaker. In my experience I've seen burnt
connections and melted insulation when the wiring is installed in that
way. I've measured actual LRA on an AC unit when it was 102°F outdoors
and the current far exceeded what was on the nameplate. ^_^

Happy Horror Days!

TDD