8cu in box, question

[Smart $]

:thumbsup:Got it- the device may not be "considered" a box- there is no definition of "box".

If that is no good another one that would apply here probably then would be 110.3(B)- unless the egc terminal is rated for 2 egcs, it has to be pigtailed/ looped.

I believe there is an EGC terminal on each side of the "device". Six terminal screws total, three on each side.

 

[user 100]

I believe there is an EGC terminal on each side of the "device". Six terminal screws total, three on each side.

The device in this case (though may not be considered one) must be the "box"- removing it would still disrupt egc continuity.

 

[Smart $]

The device in this case (though may not be considered one) must be the "box"- removing it would still disrupt egc continuity.

Removing the "device" would disrupt the circuit. There's little point to disrupting the EGC continuity. :slaphead:

 

[iwire]

:thumbsup:Got it- the device may not be "considered" a box- there is no definition of "box".

I am thinking it is a device with an integral enclosure.

310.15(E) Integral Enclosure. A wiring device with integral enclosure
identified for the use, having brackets that securely
fasten the device to walls or ceilings of conventional onsite
frame construction, for use with nonmetallic-sheathed
cable, shall be permitted in lieu of a box or conduit body.

 

[Smart $]

I am thinking it is a device with an integral enclosure.

I believe that is correct.

 

[user 100]

I am thinking it is a device with an integral enclosure.

I believe that is correct.

X2 and so, since it would be allowed in lieu of a box, does 250.148(B) still apply? Going by strict language, it would appear it does not- that passage mentions nothing of these integral enclosures, only box(es). But it likely still does b/c the code considers the box and this thing to be equal since it is allowed to be used in place of a box.:?

Come to think of it, the scds seen in a lot of mhs are looped- (complete crap design imo)

 

[user 100]

Removing the "device" would disrupt the circuit. There's little point to disrupting the EGC continuity. :slaphead:

Then why 250.148 to begin with? Suppose the egcs get their continuity thru the device, device is replaced, but egcs are not reconnected thru the new device....... everything downstream of (and maybe including) that device no longer has an egc.

 

[Smart $]

Then why 250.148 to begin with? Suppose the egcs get their continuity thru the device, device is replaced, but egcs are not reconnected thru the new device....... everything downstream of (and maybe including) that device no longer has an egc.

If you ask me (and you did, in a way :lol 250.148 is redundant, to begin with... but in the case of a box with a mounted device, the probability of a circuit passing through not dependent on the device circuit's integrity is much greater. Not the case with the sill recept's. The circuit extension's integrity is reliant upon the device, at least when wired as proposed.