|
|
|
It has a motor for the pump therefore it must comply with 422.32 with a means to disconnect in-sight of the appliance. It must also comply with part 9 of 430Originally Posted by ActionDave
Going to disagree with you Mike.
(B) Appliances Rated Over 300 Volt-Amperes or 1⁄8
Horsepower. For permanently connected appliances rated
over 300 volt-amperes or 1⁄8 hp, the branch-circuit switch or
circuit breaker shall be permitted to serve as the disconnecting
means where the switch or circuit breaker is within
sight from the appliance or is capable of being locked in the
open position. The provision for locking or adding a lock to
the disconnecting means....
Brother Jim look down one more code section and find this one;
422.32 Disconnecting Means for Motor-Driven Appliance.
If a switch or circuit breaker serves as the disconnecting means for a permanently connected motor-driven appliance of more than 1⁄8 hp, it shall be located within sight from the motor controller and shall comply with Part IX of Article 430.
Exception: If a motor-driven appliance of more than 1⁄8 hp is provided with a unit switch that complies with 422.34(A), (B), (C), or (D), the switch or circuit breaker serving as the other disconnecting means shall be permitted to be out of sight from the motor controller.
What you posted was for an appliance that does not have a motor. Just because something is rated in horse power does not mean it is a motor. Look at motor controllers. They are rated in horse power but the only control the motor. Check out the rating of this switch
http://www.intermatic.com/products/t...ers/st01c.aspx
This switch is not a motor but it is rated at 1 hp at 120 volts and 2 hp at 240 volts
here is a motor stater that is "rated" in horse power but there is no motor
http://www.pacificex.com.au/pdf/PEX-...-0112-0112.pdf
The section you posted is for appliances of over 300 watts or that are rated over one eighth horse power. There in nothing in that section that concerns motors. Appliances with motors is one more section down
Here is a section concerning energy savings. Look at how they have rated the airconditioners
Energy ratings system
The familiar yellow stickers with energy ratings stars that appear on major electrical household appliances are a legal requirement across Australia. Energy labels are a government service designed to inform consumers about energy consumption. They are mandatory on the following appliances:
Refrigerators and freezers
Clothes washers
Clothes dryers
Dishwashers
Airconditioners
The star rating is calculated on how efficient a product is, not just how much energy it uses. For example, a 3.5 horsepower airconditioner will use more energy than a 1 horsepower airconditioner. But the larger airconditioner will have a higher rating if it uses the energy in a more effective way.
As one can see the airconditioners are not rated in tonage but instead rated in horse power.
In the lab one horse power is equal to 746 watts of electrical energy.
Last edited by jwelectric; 07-20-2010 at 12:05 PM.
I can see your point, however a DW and disposal are specifically mentioned in 422. It is also how that requirement is enforced here.
IMO 430 is not dealing with these type of motors in appliances.
422.32 Disconnecting Means for Motor-Driven Appliance.
If a switch or circuit breaker serves as the disconnecting means for a permanently connected motor-driven appliance of more than 1⁄8 hp, it shall be located within sight from the motor controller and shall comply with Part IX of Article 430.
Exception: If a motor-driven appliance of more than 1⁄8 hp is provided with a unit switch that complies with 422.34(A), (B), (C), or (D), the switch or circuit breaker serving as the other disconnecting means shall be permitted to be out of sight from the motor controller.
Yes the dishwasher is an appliance where a motor is driving the pump which operates the appliance therefore the section of 422 outlined above applies
By the way, just because something is enforced that way does not make it correcr
Hi all, am reviving this old thread since it pertains to exactly what I am doing.
If I am reading it correctly it is permissible to connect a DW via a correctly sized cord with a plug, and plug it into an outlet in an adjacent cabinet - in this case the sink base, or in an outlet mounted in the wall with the rear of the cabinet cut out for access to the outlet.
If I chose to surface mount a box to the inside of the cabinet is it permissible to simply bring the feed wire through a hole in the drywall and cooresponding hole in the cabinet (this seems like an inelegant way of doing things).
Same question pertains to the garbage disposal - can I also connect it to an outlet via cord and plug, or must it be hard wired?
Finally, must the dishwasher and disposal be on completely seperate circuits?
Many thanks,
Dan
If I remember correctly, my memory is excellent, but my ability to access it is not.
Yes
Yes
Maybe but most likely yes
Many thanks!
Dan
If I remember correctly, my memory is excellent, but my ability to access it is not.
Can you have a dishwasher hardwired, but then have the 14/2 for the d/w run to a junction box, say in a crawlspace or basement, where it then ties into a short cord to be plugged into a receptacle (under the sink, for means of disconnecting)?
I cannot for the life of me imagine why one would. I cannot cite the code restriction, but I am as certain as I can be that one cannot have a cord disappear into a wall or a floor.
Why not just run MC from the DW to a switch box in the sink cabinet?
Thanks for the additional replies.
One of the reasons for the ask is that this DW, a Bosch unit, has the electrical connection at the bottom front of the unit and the feed then runs down, under, and back through a channel in the bottom of the enclosure (ditto with the water line - but through it's own channel). The J-box at the bottom front is extremely small and trying to stuff 12 or 14/2 into it is no picnic. Using a cord/plug would allow me to wire into the J-box with more flexible wire, lay the wire into the channel, feed the electrical, water, and drain lines throught the sink base cab.
Anyway, I've got it squared away - terminated a dedicated circuit in a wall box with a duplex receptacle within the sink base cabinet. I have a second dedicated circuit in the same box for the garbage disposal. Had I thought it out a little more I could have gotten away with one receptacle for both but as it now stands only one outlet on each is live.
Dan
If I remember correctly, my memory is excellent, but my ability to access it is not.
Not to be pedantic or make you miserable, but:
A dedicated circuit for a single appliance is supposed to end in a single outlet, not a duplex.
As you describe, you could have had a duplex with the two receptacles used for the two circuits.
In that event, it is required that they be feed in common by a two pole breaker, such that if one circuit trips, both will go cold. I really need to retrofit the one in my kitchen.....
And of course one uses one neutral conductor, as the two circuits will be at opposite ends of the phase. One does not use one length of NM to bring one hot and one neutral and another to bring another neutral.
This gets so very complicated......you have only violated a small item in the code (using two duplex outlets to terminate two dedicated circuits), there are aspects of the code that are harder to explain than others. This might be one of them.
No worries, Burb, I like to learn and do things as correctly as I can.
Maybe my explanation wasn't clear. I have two completely seperate circuits, both feeding into a single 2 gang box. Although I used two duplex receptacles I broke off the connecting tabs on each side of both receptacles, effectively rendering them (in my mind anyway) 4 single receptacles. The DW circuit is connected to the top of the duplex, the bottom is dead. Same for the BD. Once the DW and GD are plugged into their dedicated receptacle I didn't want anyone to plug anything else in so the others are dead. The only thing common is the 4 gang box. Does this arrangement seem sound or is it still a little wonky?
What I meant by "I could have gotten away with one receptacle for both" was I thought I could have broken the side tabs off one duplex receptacle and wired one circuit to the top and the other to the bottom. I'd still have two separate, dedicated, circuits, sharing only the plastic body of the duplex receptacle.
Dan
If I remember correctly, my memory is excellent, but my ability to access it is not.
What you have done is extremely dangerous.
You have a duplex receptacle, two in fact, where half of the receptacle is unpowered.
A repairman could easily get under there and think he has turned the power off and not actually have done so.
You should reverse what you did. To be fully to code, replace the two duplex receptacles with single receptacles. If you just want to use duplexes, that would be much safer than what you did.
Or change it to one duplex with two hots, opposite sides of the phase, fed by a two pole breaker.
If the neutrals for the two hots are taking different routes (not a shared three-wire circuit) then break the tab on the neutral side as well and be VERY aware of which neutral goes with which hot. I'd tape them together a few inches behind the receptacle, color coded.
The first solution is the best, considering that you have a two gang box. Getting a faceplate to suit might be a pain in the back side.
Last edited by Homeownerinburb; 06-26-2012 at 04:55 PM.
Thank you for that insight. I always build/work to code (which is why I wanted to bounce this off the folks here) but since I do all my own work I often forget that eventually someone other than me might end up having to deal with something.
Thanks Burb, I'll go back and make it right.
Dan
If I remember correctly, my memory is excellent, but my ability to access it is not.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks