|
This outlet is about five inches below an overhanging cabinet, so there's not much chance of anything falling against the prongs, but that's a good thought anyway. I think upside-down doesn't work well when you're plugging in a wall wart, either: they tend to be designed to have most of their mass hanging down below the outlet rather than supported above it.
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:06 |
|
|
Right, that's another reason upside down plugs are annoying. Although in that case I'm more inclined to blame whoever designed the transformer, because come on, do you really need a polarized plug?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:This also turned out to be a 20A circuit, with correct gauge wire, but with a 15 amp three-prong outlet. FYI that is allowed, due to a 15A outlet not allowing in a 20A plug because of the different prong configuration. Also, there is no mention at all in the code book about the correct way to mount an outlet. It's entirely one's personal opinion. kid sinister fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Oct 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
Every place I've ever lived has used the upside-down outlet to indicate a half-hot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
kid sinister posted:FYI that is allowed, due to a 15A outlet not allowing in a 20A plug because of the different prong configuration. If that is true, that is a very dumb reason, because extension cords and octopuses exist. It's trivial to plug enough things into a single outlet to draw more than the 15A rated current. But I guess at the least it means I'm not allowed to be mad at the previous owner(s) for it. I can just be mad about the lovely splice jobs, paint on the outlet, and paint on the loving metal leads.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:If that is true, that is a very dumb reason, because extension cords and octopuses exist. It's trivial to plug enough things into a single outlet to draw more than the 15A rated current. Actually, the code book says that extension cords and multi-outlet adapters aren't allowed for permanent use. Well, multi-outlet surge protectors are allowed to always be plugged in, but that's it. kid sinister fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Oct 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
A few years ago I was helping my dad run some wires through a crawlspace, the fishtape slid down the wall and went KAPOP on the plug for the worklight. It wasn't even a week after he installed a different outlet upside down and explained exactly why he did it that way. Theres really no reason to not put in your outlets upside down that I know of other than underhand toilet paper roll syndrome. I've never seen a polarized wall wart so those still plug in fine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
I was running a wire through a drop ceiling once, had a small fish tape tied to the end to have something to hold on to. I put the thing down on a ceiling tile on the other side of a block wall I was working against.  Whoops. Came across this one today. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
My apartment has a bunch of switched outlets that I basically have to tape the switch on to use anything permanent with. They decided to have the switch control the upper socket of two separate outlets - the lower socket is always on. This didn't bother me until I picked up a surge protector for my router and modem - it's the on-wall type and it uses the top outlet for power while covering the bottom one and having a plastic prong to go into the bottom ground for anchoring. Hence having to tape the switch. Might ask if they'll swap the wires on that outlet, I hate taping switches.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
My residential wiring instructor has been beating "ground pin up, or neutral blade up if mounted sideways" into me so fiercely that I am seriously considering flipping the outlets around in my lovely apartment. The only thing holding me back is that I'm pretty sure that like every other system in this building, looking at it too closely will remind the universe of it's existence and everything will stop working in a fit of retroactive consequences.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
Javid posted:They decided to have the switch control the upper socket of two separate outlets - the lower socket is always on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 09:31
|
|
|
kid sinister posted:FYI that is allowed, due to a 15A outlet not allowing in a 20A plug because of the different prong configuration. Shouldn't the circuit breaker not exceed the rating of the outlet? If you have 20A wiring and a 20A breaker with a 15A outlet... What happens when you draw 20A off it? That's 33% more than the outlet is rated for, over time that's going melt things. Half the outlets in my apartment either don't work, or the plugs are really loose and drops power to devices if you jiggle the wire... Landlord said it would cost some ridiculous price to have new ones put in, so I just did it. I do have one of these switches, for bathroom and shower lights, and fan. Toggle, push on/push off buttons. Sometimes they're a bit finicky. I don't even wanna know what the rats nest in there looks like... 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 12:10
|
|
|
chrisgt posted:Shouldn't the circuit breaker not exceed the rating of the outlet? If you have 20A wiring and a 20A breaker with a 15A outlet... What happens when you draw 20A off it? That's 33% more than the outlet is rated for, over time that's going melt things. You can't physically plug a 20 amp device into a 15 amp outlet, so this arrangement is safe from that perspective. When you plug multiple devices into an outlet by whatever means, it is on you to not exceed the limitations of the circuit, and that is equally true whether it's a 15 amp or 20 amp outlet/circuit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 13:57
|
|
|
slap me silly posted:You can't physically plug a 20 amp device into a 15 amp outlet, so this arrangement is safe from that perspective. When you plug multiple devices into an outlet by whatever means, it is on you to not exceed the limitations of the circuit, and that is equally true whether it's a 15 amp or 20 amp outlet/circuit. Yes, but it's idiot protection... If you plug 20A of devices into a 15A plug it's going to be a problem. If you put a 15A breaker on the circuit it would just trip. People are stupid... I can't say I've never pushed it, just because it was conveniente.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
slap me silly posted:You can't physically plug a 20 amp device into a 15 amp outlet, so this arrangement is safe from that perspective. When you plug multiple devices into an outlet by whatever means, it is on you to not exceed the limitations of the circuit, and that is equally true whether it's a 15 amp or 20 amp outlet/circuit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
Hello all, just found this thread, and I will enjoy spending time reading through all 89 pages. I hope this could be a place where I, as a construction idiot who is not handy, can ask a question: my wife and I had a custom house built from the ground up, ie from napkin sketches working with a designer (who we thought was actually an architect but he wasn't - that's another story) to blueprint to an actual house. We had a horrible experience with our builders, and now 1.5 years after breaking ground, they are still not done. There are still many problems outstanding. But there is one problem that I'm trying to wrap my brain around. So here's the question: we have stucco which in many cases goes practically down to the ground. Building code here (in Minnesota) states that stucco needs to end 2" above hard surfaces, and 6" above soft surfaces. There are many places where obviously that isn't happening. The builders met with us (with one of the stucco laborers present), and said "no problem, we can just raise that up". A few weeks later, we got a call from the president of the stucco company who wanted to meet. What he said was that there is ALSO a code issue in that the stucco has to overlap the sill plate a certain amount (and MAYBE the foundation too? I didn't fully understand). But as the foundation wasn't built up high enough, he couldn't fulfill that code requirement and also have the required distance between the stucco and the ground. When I asked him why he didn't stop right there and discuss this flaw with the builders, he just shrugged his shoulders. When I asked how we can fix this problem so that the stucco is entirely to code, he said, "well, you can lower the ground around the house to expose more foundation which would give you your distance". Keep in mind this is after about $100K of landscaping has been done. I'm not trying to be gauche by discussing money, just trying to give a sense of the magnitude of what he is recommending. Retaining walls will have to be moved/altered, the driveway will need to be ripped up, etc. Also, if the ground is excavated out more, how will we get into our garage?? How will we get to our front door?? Is this problem as hosed as I think it is?? I'm not looking for legal advice, and if there's any reply I won't hold you to it - I'm just looking for SOME sense of where we might be heading with this. We have a forensic engineer coming out to look at all of the problems with the house, but that's not for weeks and the suspense is killing me!! Again, having found this thread I will read it cover to cover. Misery loves company after all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
nmfree posted:This was common when people still used table lamps to light (usually living) rooms, instead of today where living rooms generally have lights mounted in/to the ceiling like any other room. I just moved into a brand new build and the living room is still like this - no lights, but switched upper outlets.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
eunos posted:I, as a construction idiot who is not handy, can ask a question: You may find yourself in need of a lawyer in the near future.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
What constitutes a soft surface? Can you put a 2 inch piece of tin around the base of the house, attach it to the foundation at the code height for hard, and put a small ring of gravel around everything so dirt doesn't come back in? I only say this because stucco is far from my dream house outer walls. You probably don't want a half-assed solution. Content: Since we are on contractor gently caress-ups. My mom's neighbor is building a house from scratch. The contractor put in pvc plumbing not up to code (the psi was too low). The city wrote two notes on the build permit, one was your standard technical code violation in pen saying what is wrong. The second was in a red marker and took up 1/3 the page the said TARE IT ALL OUT AND USE THE CORRECT PSI PVC. Two Feet From Bread fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Oct 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
eunos posted:
Remember that Architect is a legally protected term, "Designer" is not. Also that in a lot of jurisdictions you don't need an architect or engineer's stamp for residential plans.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
chrisgt posted:If you plug 20A of devices into a 15A plug it's going to be a problem. No, it's not. UL tests 15 and 20 amp outlets to the same standards; a 15A outlet can safely handle 20A. It just doesn't indicate that 20 amp equipment can potentially be used without tripping a breaker.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
eunos posted:Hello all, just found this thread, and I will enjoy spending time reading through all 89 pages. I hope this could be a place where I, as a construction idiot who is not handy, can ask a question: Yeah, questions get asked here pretty often. I've asked my fair share. Here's my understanding, as someone who has yet to actually build such structures but who has spent a lot of time reading the code and going back and forth with the city planning department on plans. Basically, you're dealing with issues of water getting into your structure and ruining it. Water is the devil, and must be kept away from basically everything that isn't concrete. Where I am, the rule is 6 inches of separation, which basically means that the top of the slab has to be at least 6 inches "above grade" (i.e. above ground level) and everything else is built on top of that. The "soft surface" thing isn't something I'm familiar with but I'm guessing it means "ground that plants can grow on" (because plants can basically hold water against the house and cause problems that way), so you might be safe if you had some properly-drained surface that plants can't grow on. But don't take my word for it; this is all defined in the code and you can (and should, judging from the people you're working with) read the code yourself. Additionally, you need to make certain that rain can't get into any "cracks" in the house (i.e. transitions between material types, like where the stucco ends and the sill plate/slab begins). The overlap that the stucco guy is talking about is to ensure that when water flows off the end of the stucco, it can't access the sill plate. You should be able to accomplish something equivalent by adding flashing at the bottom of the stucco, though I don't know how easy that would be to do at this point. Short version, though, you're getting hosed, and should seriously consider lawyering up because the people you're working with aren't working to code, which is the bare minimum of making a safe, durable house. TooMuchAbstraction fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Oct 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Two Feet From Bread posted:What constitutes a soft surface? Can you put a 2 inch piece of tin around the base of the house, attach it to the foundation at the code height for hard, and put a small ring of gravel around everything so dirt doesn't come back in? I assume soft surfaces means grass/earth/mulch and such. A moat of gravel around the house isn't exactly what me or my wife was looking for as far as "landscaping solutions". Also there is significant stucco that isn't even 2" above the soft surfaces, so even if we could turn every "soft surface to hard" we still wouldn't be there. Besides, the whole point of the code is to prevent water from leaching up behind the stucco and damaging the walls. I don't want a solution that adheres to the letter of the law but violates the spirit. I want a safe, stable, durable structure. Regarding the choice of stucco: the fake architect and my wife came up with stucco. Frankly, while I support my wife and am fine with the whole "designing your dream home" thing, I've pretty much let her make all of the moves. I don't have a ton of interest in "fancy". I could live in a box. Bad Munki posted:You may find yourself in need of a lawyer in the near future. Done and done. Again, we have the "forensic engineer" or whatever they're called (our legal construction "expert" who will testify if needed) to look at ALL of the house's problems. I just was hoping to get some perspective sooner than that with this problem as I am impatient to know how hosed we are (or frankly how hosed the builders are), and this is the one fault that I'm having a tough time seeing a fix. And again, I'm not looking for legal advice here. I'm just looking for a casual conversation. In my 11 years of being registered and lurking the forums I know that in between all of the stupid memes and catchphrases, there's a lot of intelligence and talent at SA.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:The "soft surface" thing isn't something I'm familiar with but I'm guessing it means "ground that plants can grow on" (because plants can basically hold water against the house and cause problems that way), so you might be safe if you had some properly-drained surface that plants can't grow on. I assume (and again I'm ignorant in the topic of construction. poo poo, check that, with all of the fuckery I'm boning up REAL fast!!) that the reason it's higher for soft surfaces is that those soft surfaces can hold water for longer after a rain (compared to a driveway or a terrace) so there more time where the water will be leaching up the foundation wall. My understanding is that you want enough distance between "ground level" and the stucco so that any water leaching up the foundation wall will evaporate before it gets to the stucco. Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. And BTW, thanks for replies. My wife and I have been very sad puppies for the last year or so, dealing with all of the builder's fuckery.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
eunos posted:I assume soft surfaces means grass/earth/mulch and such. A moat of gravel around the house isn't exactly what me or my wife was looking for as far as "landscaping solutions". You only need to do everything to code until you get your certificate of occupancy then you can undo any stupid fixes you did to pass inspected. Lots of people do stupid tricks to pass code, like making a bedroom into an office so the inspector can approve it with too small windows, then moving the bed back into it once the inspector approves. You just have to remember to re-do it when you sell. Obviously I'm not talking about skimping on wiring or something, but if a gravel moat for 2 weeks gets you to pass inspection that might be worth it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You only need to do everything to code until you get your certificate of occupancy then you can undo any stupid fixes you did to pass inspected. Lots of people do stupid tricks to pass code, like making a bedroom into an office so the inspector can approve it with too small windows, then moving the bed back into it once the inspector approves. You just have to remember to re-do it when you sell. Code exists for a reason. It's not just a bunch of hoops to jump through to get a building approved for occupation. Like the poster said, they want a durable structure. You're not going to have that if you have major water ingress problems, especially if you live somewhere where it freezes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
keyboard vomit posted:Remember that Architect is a legally protected term, "Designer" is not. Also that in a lot of jurisdictions you don't need an architect or engineer's stamp for residential plans. I know that. In Minnesota a "non-architect" designer can design a single family, detached dwelling (ie no multifamily, no commercial). But it is not legal to call yourself an architect when you're not. Which is what we were dealing with. When cornered, he said that, "well, I'm a non-licensed architect" which from a legal perspective is the square root of negative one. In hindsight we would've checked his licensure with the state before hiring him. So we were naive for sure. But hell, I'm sure 99% of people who go to a doctor's office don't check their credentials before their visit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Code exists for a reason. It's not just a bunch of hoops to jump through to get a building approved for occupation. Like the poster said, they want a durable structure. You're not going to have that if you have major water ingress problems, especially if you live somewhere where it freezes. Code also has a lot of dumb poo poo in it. Like for example: where I live if you do earthquake retrofits to code you actually have to use fewer reinforcing bolts than recommended by earthquake safety experts because the code was written decades ago and never updated. So to retrofit to code and be safe, you have to do half the work, get it inspected then finish it. Or when code requires all doors have lights above them (and switches to all the lights in the room by the door) but you can install a floor to ceiling fully-opening "architectural window" and magically not need to have the light above the door and a switch panel next to it. Preventing water ingress and meeting code aren't the same thing and if they can do both without making major permanent modifications to their home then that's the best option.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Code also has a lot of dumb poo poo in it. Like for example: where I live if you do earthquake retrofits to code you actually have to use fewer reinforcing bolts than recommended by earthquake safety experts because the code was written decades ago and never updated. So to retrofit to code and be safe, you have to do half the work, get it inspected then finish it. That's weird. The specs for anchor bolts that I read when planning my workshop specified maximum gaps between bolts (at, if I recall correctly, 4'), but didn't say anything about minimum spacing. Usually the code is like that -- it specifies the bare minimum you are required to do, and the inspector will happily approve plans that go above and beyond that. quote:Or when code requires all doors have lights above them (and switches to all the lights in the room by the door) but you can install a floor to ceiling fully-opening "architectural window" and magically not need to have the light above the door and a switch panel next to it. Yeah, okay, you can always play by the rule of law instead of the spirit and thereby sidestep things. When I first started floating the idea of building a workshop in my backyard I had a ton of people telling me to call it a shed so I wouldn't have to meet as stringent of requirements, too. quote:Preventing water ingress and meeting code aren't the same thing and if they can do both without making major permanent modifications to their home then that's the best option. Absolutely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:That's weird. The specs for anchor bolts that I read when planning my workshop specified maximum gaps between bolts (at, if I recall correctly, 4'), but didn't say anything about minimum spacing. Usually the code is like that -- it specifies the bare minimum you are required to do, and the inspector will happily approve plans that go above and beyond that. That's specifically because its a city-ordinance where I live and was written poorly. Luckily you don't have to get permits at all for earthquake retrofits here so we just didn't get permits and did everything the way that was recommended. However, the grand-fathered in sewer line that has multiple junctions with itself...that's another story.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
Zhentar posted:No, it's not. UL tests 15 and 20 amp outlets to the same standards; a 15A outlet can safely handle 20A. It just doesn't indicate that 20 amp equipment can potentially be used without tripping a breaker. I... did not know that! I have been assuming that a 15A socket is not (necessarily/guaranteed to be) safe to run 20A through. I have to replace all these outlets within 6' of the kitchen sink with GFCI anyway, so it's not a big deal, but huh. Good to know.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I have to replace all these outlets within 6' of the kitchen sink with GFCI anyway, so it's not a big deal, but huh. Good to know. You should only have to replace ONE of those outlets with a GFCI, as they are almost certainly in series. To meet code you just need to apply a sticker (which will come with the GFCI) to the other outlets.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Motronic posted:You should only have to replace ONE of those outlets with a GFCI, as they are almost certainly in series. To meet code you just need to apply a sticker (which will come with the GFCI) to the other outlets. They are not in series, and would not be to code if they were. One is for the fridge & microwave, one is for the stove, one is for the garbage disposal/dishwasher, etc. etc. A modern kitchen typically has at least three independent circuits. I have four breakers that affect the kitchen (if you include the lights and fan). At least in my local code, the disposal and I think the stove each have to be on their own 20A circuits. Citations: quote:Kitchen Countertop Receptacles, Two Circuits Required. and from My city's kitchen remodeling guidelines quote:4a. Two electrical circuits are required for the outlets serving the counters. You can also have a third separate 15-amp circuit for the fridge, instead of running it on one of the 20A circuits, if you want. This appears to have been done in my kitchen. I have also found several places online recommending a separate 20A circuit just for the garbage disposal and dishwasher: in any case the disposal is not allowed to share one of the countertop circuits. My garbage disposal is currently plugged into a grounded, non-GFCI outlet under the sink. I don't remember if that outlet is shared with anything else in the house, but I don't think so. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Oct 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:They are not in series, and would not be to code if they were. One is for the fridge & microwave, one is for the stove, one is for the garbage disposal/dishwasher, etc. etc. A modern kitchen typically has at least three independent circuits. I have four breakers that affect the kitchen (if you include the lights and fan). Thanks for explaining code to me. From your post, I took this to be accessible outlets in the kitchen. Your fridge does not need a GFCI. And your stove (especially if it's electric) sure as hell does not. Your dishwasher is borderline, and the garbage disposal is going to trip a GFCI. And if you want strict interpretation of current NEC they aren't allowed on the same circuit. So are you trying to be safe with what you have, or are you gutting a kitchen to the point where you need to do full electrical revamp and pull a permit?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
The fridge's outlet is on the wall just to the right of the fridge, so it's visible from the countertop and it is within 6' of the sink. The stove's outlet is also on the level with the other outlets above the counter, and is within 6' of the kitchen sink. It is on a shared 15A circuit, which used to also be the fan in the ceiling but I recently pulled out that fan and put a pocket light in the hole, so now it's sharing that circuit and the new hood is sharing one of the 20A countertop circuits instead. The outlet under the sink for the disposal (and dishwasher if I had one) is not GFCI either. All told there are at least four circuits serving my kitchen, and three of them have outlets at countertop level and visible. Are you saying I don't have to GFCI the fridge one anyway? I am not doing a major remodel, I'm just trying to make my kitchen safe, but a remodel is probably in our future (say, five years from now or so). e. And I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic about me explaining code to you, but A) your statement that my countertop outlets were surely in series led me to believe you were not likely to be familiar with CA code, and B) I don't remember what you do for a living so I apologize if you're an electrician and I'm telling you obvious poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:e. And I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic about me explaining code to you, but A) your statement that my countertop outlets were surely in series led me to believe you were not likely to be familiar with CA code, and B) I don't remember what you do for a living so I apologize if you're an electrician and I'm telling you obvious poo poo. I've until very recently been a fire marshal, i.e. chief code enforcement officer for my jurisdiction amongst the fire investigation poo poo. Leperflesh posted:The fridge's outlet is on the wall just to the right of the fridge, so it's visible from the countertop and it is within 6' of the sink. That's really an odd setup, and puts it into a grey area of not really being an "equipment receptacle" which would be exempt. Who the hell placed that somewhere other than behind the fridge if it's on it's own circuit (presumable as an equipment outlet)? I suppose you could still sell it that way if the microwave it on it as well, but that's going to depend on the inspector. Just sounds like some electrician or GC needs to be smacked upside the head on that one. Leperflesh posted:The stove's outlet is also on the level with the other outlets above the counter So this is a gas stove and the power is for the ignitors? Even at that, what the hell was this builder thinking? My previous advice was based on reasonable and customary installation. It doesn't sound like that's what you have here so I'm gonna bail out on this one, as what you have going on sounds like a poo poo show that needs someone who knows what they are talking about to actually see it to sort out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
When I was remodeling kitchens for SEARS, every single outlet in the kitchen had to be replaced with gfi. Even the one for the microwave in the cabinet above the stove. Even if we're running a brand new circuit. I had to confirm that with pretty much everyone, because my first remodel job required 18 outlets total. Then they gave us compression valves for all plumbing hook ups.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
Motronic posted:I've until very recently been a fire marshal, i.e. chief code enforcement officer for my jurisdiction amongst the fire investigation poo poo. Ohhh yeah. Yeah I recently installed smoke detectors based on your thread? When we refinanced the new bank wanted photos that we met detector code so now we do. That's a good thing. quote:That's really an odd setup, and puts it into a grey area of not really being an "equipment receptacle" which would be exempt. Who the hell placed that somewhere other than behind the fridge if it's on it's own circuit (presumable as an equipment outlet)? I suppose you could still sell it that way if the microwave it on it as well, but that's going to depend on the inspector. Just sounds like some electrician or GC needs to be smacked upside the head on that one. This is a 1958 house that has been molested by previous owners a couple of times. It is indeed a gas stove, and I think at some point someone rearranged cabinetry/countertops without rearranging anything else. The poor positioning of the overhead lighting and the mismatch between the sink's counter (weird tiles with concrete between them) and the laminate countertop on the other wall suggests the positioning of both is not original. There are also at least two layers of flooring, which hilariously prevent the pocket door from being slid closed so it has been trapped in its pocket for some substantial number of years. If I could get it out of there I could cut the bottom inch off and it'd become useable, but I can't get it out without cutting something. All that aside: if this kitchen were totally up to code, the above-counter outlets have to be on at least two 20A circuits, period. That part is unequivocal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:There are also at least two layers of flooring, which hilariously prevent the pocket door from being slid closed so it has been trapped in its pocket for some substantial number of years. If I could get it out of there I could cut the bottom inch off and it'd become useable, but I can't get it out without cutting something. Set up a circular saw parallel to the ground, right above the ground, and open the door into it.  (Note: do not actually do this)
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:06 |
|
|
I have a circular saw but I was thinking of doing it with my jigsaw instead. But yeah, not really important, I don't even care about having a door there. It's just funny and stupid. How hard would it have been to open the door and take it off its rail before gluing the new linoleum floor on top of whatever floor(s) are under it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:19
|
|