K8MHZ
Senior Member
- Occupation
- Electrician
I am reasonably confident that it was not a code violation 40 years ago!
And I am reasonably confident that it still isn't.
I am reasonably confident that it was not a code violation 40 years ago!
And I am reasonably confident that it still isn't.
Do they make them with GFCI, TR receptacle, WR receptacle, and a WP in use cover?
You forgot something: make it a code requirement to use itNow there's an idea! Take a common, inexpensive, reliable, proven safe over time device and add electronics and plastic to make it expensive, larger, more difficult to use all for a questionable amount of added safety and most definitely less reliable.
Why didn't I think of that?
Now there's an idea! Take a common, inexpensive, reliable, proven safe over time device and add electronics and plastic to make it expensive, larger, more difficult to use all for a questionable amount of added safety and most definitely less reliable.
Why didn't I think of that?
First we need to define what is safe:happyyes:Proven safe?
I want to see the source of this proof
Proven safe?
I want to see the source of this proof
To the best of my knowledge, as long as these devices have been around, there have been no field problems.
Tom Lichtenstein, Ext. 42160
Staff Engineer, Regulatory Services
Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
(847) 272-8800
Thomas.R.Lichtenstein@us.ul.com
First we need to define what is safe:happyyes:
Those adapters probably did originate many many moons ago as a legitimate product and intended to be used as adapters in edison wall sockets, or even lampholders. Many of those older lampholders were built better than today when it comes to their current carrying ability, and there was no aluminum shells and really cheap connecting devices like many edison lampholders have today. Look at a new edison base fuseholder - yes you can find some out there, and they are not built as poorly as a typical lampholder as they need to be able to carry more current then what is usually demanded from a lampholder.
I am coming in to this one late. My view is that the adapter does not meet the NEC definition of ?receptacle,? despite the appearance of the ability to plug something in to it. By definition, a receptacle is installed at the outlet. This adapter is connected to (I won?t use the word ?installed,? but Bob and I have disagreed on that point in the past) a thing that is itself installed at the outlet. The lampholder is connected at the outlet. The outlet is the 4x4 box that is nailed to a 2x4 and that has wires coming into it from a branch circuit. The adapter is not touching the 4x4 box, and the branch circuit wires are not touching the adapter. Thus, the adapter is not at the outlet, and is therefore not a receptacle.
Agreed. No yoke no receptacle.
406.7
(B) Connection of Attachment Plugs. Attachment plugs
shall be installed so that their prongs, blades, or pins are not
energized unless inserted into an energized receptacle or
cord connectors.
That article is all about the attachment plug. The point is that you can't build one that gets energized by having something other than the plug itself inserted. Specifically, this is the article that prohibits the "widow maker," as it is sometimes called. That is the thing with a male plug on both ends, and is sometimes used to (illegally) connect a portable generator to a dryer outlet, so as to power the whole house. I would say that inserting an attachment plug into one of the adapters under discussion is the same as inserting it into a cord connector. You are just missing the cord. Again, the article is not about the receptacle or the cord connector, and it doesn't prohibit the use of the adapter. The article is all about the exposed metal prongs of an attachment plug being energized by virtue of a power source being connected somewhere else.406.7 (B) Connection of Attachment Plugs. Attachment plugs shall be installed so that their prongs, blades, or pins are not energized unless inserted into an energized receptacle or cord connectors.
That article is all about the attachment plug. The point is that you can't build one that gets energized by having something other than the plug itself inserted. Specifically, this is the article that prohibits the "widow maker," as it is sometimes called. That is the thing with a male plug on both ends, and is sometimes used to (illegally) connect a portable generator to a dryer outlet, so as to power the whole house. I would say that inserting an attachment plug into one of the adapters under discussion is the same as inserting it into a cord connector. You are just missing the cord. Again, the article is not about the receptacle or the cord connector, and it doesn't prohibit the use of the adapter. The article is all about the exposed metal prongs of an attachment plug being energized by virtue of a power source being connected somewhere else.
Agreed. No yoke no receptacle.
406.7
(B) Connection of Attachment Plugs. Attachment plugs
shall be installed so that their prongs, blades, or pins are not
energized unless inserted into an energized receptacle or
cord connectors.
That is interesting.
..
The definition of 'receptacle' doesn't say anything about a yoke. It's the definitions of single vs. multiple that have the word in it.
So, are the places one plugs a cord into a corded power strip receptacles? What is considered a yoke?