Strange Outlet ID Needed.

[Michael Chambers]

One of our fellow franchisees just inspected a house that had these outlets installed all over. Can anybody shed any light on just what they are? As far as I'm aware, they were working okay as outlets, but I don't have any information as to where the hots and neutrals were located. Thanks a lot for any help you can offer on this.

[BARRY ADAIR]

the ones i've seen were 110 VAC receptacle designed for use with the thin profile lamp plugs
28299
they may need more gray or sparser hair to recall these ;~)

[Don Martin]

Standard two prong outlet, only more so.

There are a variety of 3 and 4 plug receptacles that were available for 2 prong plugs. I haven't seen that specific one but would guess it is one of them.

[Michael Chambers]

Thanks guys! That's pretty much what we came up with, but hadn't seen this one. We very much appreciate your input on this.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Those parallel/tandem obsolete receptacles have been discussed before several times.

The obsolete receptacle (pre NEMA standards) is/was supplied with a MWBC, likely originally fused or current limited at 10A, and goes back to the pre-war 10A max current limited requirements for convenience receptacles for (220, 240,) 250V appliances.

Allowed for straight blade in-line 250V plug cap ("220/240v) OR a 125V parallel blade non-polarized ungrounded cord cap.

One of the few non-grandfathered obsolete items, should be replaced, not designed for todays appliances, likely required at the time of listing a current limited 10A max circuit, and likely supplied with undersized neutral (grounded conductor) for a MWBC, obviously not properly supplied with an equipment grounding (bonding) conductor either.

[Jerry Peck]

One of the few non-grandfathered obsolete items, should be replaced, ...

Please expand on that "non-grandfathered obsolete items, should be replaced" statement.

I am not aware of a requirement in the NEC which requires one to remove a still-active 'old' or 'obsolete' device which was legally installed at the time of its installation - if there is such a requirement I would like to know of it.

[Gregory Booth]

Those parallel/tandem obsolete receptacles have been discussed before several times.



Allowed for straight blade in-line 250V plug cap ("220/240v) OR a 125V parallel blade non-polarized ungrounded cord cap.
.

............that recept appears to be polarized.......Greg

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Please expand on that "non-grandfathered obsolete items, should be replaced" statement.

I am not aware of a requirement in the NEC which requires one to remove a still-active 'old' or 'obsolete' device which was legally installed at the time of its installation - if there is such a requirement I would like to know of it.

fused service neutrals were also at one time "legal" and too, must be removed, as were and are "bootleg grounds".

We've been here before. Combo Tandem/parallel 10A 125/250 convenience receptacle device affording four or more devices via MWBC at single outlet are unsafe, obsolete, and must be removed. Current limitation requirements for branch circuits supplying convenience receptacles mandate 15A minimum capacity, and have for decades, and in the case of 125V circuits for scores.

- - - Updated - - -


............that recept appears to be polarized.......Greg

You are mistaken.

[John Kogel]

............that recept appears to be polarized.......Greg

Slots on the left are wider, I agree, that could mean it is polarized, if wired correctly.

[Gregory Booth]

- - - Updated - - -[/COLOR]



You are mistaken.


...........OK. So tell us Watson, what's the purpose of the different size blade slots?..........Greg

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

I disagree regarding "size" or "height" of the blade slots not being of a "polarized" configuration; I believe you are being fooled by the angle and lense distortion in addition to paint and shadow, a true "polarized" slot is longer/taller at both top and bottom compared to the "hot" slot.

Pre-NEMA type 2 co-planar (blades in line, not parallel) 10A 125/250V cord plug (bladed cap) or socket to bladed cap converter. Older radios, heat generating appliances, fans, etc.

I doubt the circuit is current limited to 10A.

For a time non-lighting circuits (convienence receptacles) were limited to 10A. When 125V convience receptacle circuits were allowed to be 15A or greate, for a greater time 250V convienence receptacles were still required to be current limited to 10A.

Three receptacles or devices on a strap is the max legal .even replacement ungrounded exception,l has been so limited for years and years.

I find it highly unlikely the pictured receptacle is supplied with DC power. "Polarization" is a misnomer in re: AC, BTW.

[Gregory Booth]

I disagree regarding "size" or "height" of the blade slots not being of a "polarized" configuration; I believe you are being fooled by the angle and lense distortion in addition to paint and shadow, a true "polarized" slot is longer/taller at both top and bottom compared to the "hot" slot.

Pre-NEMA type 2 co-planar (blades in line, not parallel) 10A 125/250V cord plug (bladed cap) or socket to bladed cap converter. Older radios, heat generating appliances, fans, etc.

I doubt the circuit is current limited to 10A.

For a time non-lighting circuits (convienence receptacles) were limited to 10A. When 125V convience receptacle circuits were allowed to be 15A or greate, for a greater time 250V convienence receptacles were still required to be current limited to 10A.

Three receptacles or devices on a strap is the max legal .even replacement ungrounded exception,l has been so limited for years and years.

I find it highly unlikely the pictured receptacle is supplied with DC power. "Polarization" is a misnomer in re: AC, BTW.

...........you are mistaken.......Greg

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

...........you are mistaken.......Greg

ignorance on your part is not proof of an error on my part.

[Gregory Booth]

ignorance on your part is not proof of an error on my part.

.............based upon the photo, it is all conjecture on my part, and therefore I have no idea of the true dimension of the blade slot. You, Watson, being omniscient know without question what the real story is. In any event, I'm not trying to prove any error on your part - you always offer that proof very nicely with your bizarre replies..........Greg

[Garry Sorrells]

The OP picture was a grand idea that has not disappeared , at least in concept/desire for 4 outlets at one location one piece of hardware.

http://www.hubbell-wiring.com/press/pdfs/H4416R.pdf

[Garry Sorrells]

Started to site multiple quotes and for some reason sanity returned to me. This is possibly like beating a dead horse, which is not my intention. Nor is it to my desire to generate snarky responces with attitude. So...................

HG.
Found Jerry's question about the assertion of removal required for something that was obsolete, though fine at time of installation and still active. Would like to see the actual authoritative source that you use as reference for your position.

After enlarging the OP pict it does appear (not a camera angle issue) to have different sized blade slots. Since I can not find a source that provides the specifications of a similar (appearance) outlet as the original post picture depicts. I then question your determination of the likely design other than your insistence on equal blade slot size that may support your argument to possible design specifications. But, if the blade slots are of different size then we return back to the question of a source directing the replacement of the grandfathered outlet or "non-grandfathered obsolete items, should be replaced" .

HG, you have been a great source of authority sourced information, please provide one on this topic of the "non-grandfathered obsolete items, should be replaced" .

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

The OP picture was a grand idea that has not disappeared , at least in concept/desire for 4 outlets at one location one piece of hardware.

http://www.hubbell-wiring.com/press/pdfs/H4416R.pdf

Sorry Garry S., missing your "point" are you disputing the three-on-a-strap rule (NEMA standards)? Those are two-pole devices...you may not power from a single pole. Further note limitations on "Listed"-ness.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Started to site multiple quotes and for some reason sanity returned to me. This is possibly like beating a dead horse, which is not my intention. Nor is it to my desire to generate snarky responces with attitude. So...................HG.Found Jerry's question about the assertion of removal required for something that was obsolete, though fine at time of installation and still active. Would like to see the actual authoritative source that you use as reference for your position. After enlarging the OP pict it does appear (not a camera angle issue) to have different sized blade slots. Since I can not find a source that provides the specifications of a similar (appearance) outlet as the original post picture depicts. I then question your determination of the likely design other than your insistence on equal blade slot size that may support your argument to possible design specifications. But, if the blade slots are of different size then we return back to the question of a source directing the replacement of the grandfathered outlet or "non-grandfathered obsolete items, should be replaced" .HG, you have been a great source of authority sourced information, please provide one on this topic of the "non-grandfathered obsolete items, should be replaced" .

Garry S.As soon as I was replying to your first, you were busy posting a second contribution.

This obsolete receptacle pictured by the OP was continued and limited availability for a time and for replacement use only, not anymore.The obsolete receptacle type was required to be current limited to 10 A (that's TEN not fifteen amps) that's on the distribution/line side of the supply circuit(s). The obsolete receptacle allows pre-NEMA tandem and parallel bladed cord caps (of numerous expired US patents and configurations, 125V and 250V, modern caps, as well as "foreign" types) and obsolete NEMA type 2 co-planar cord caps.

Just as a "fused" Service "neutral" is NOT "grandfathered" any longer FOR SAFETY, nor a "bootleg ground" "grandfathered" FOR SAFETY, neither is the photographed.

An underwriter (insurer) will not cover, It (the pictured) is a defect/deficinency, must be reported/disclosed, it is a HAZARD/Life Safety as well as property "issue". Wooden boxes for "service" terminals, Stranded wire for 20A, 15A single pole branch wiring, Service or distribution boxes installed above tubs or in shower rooms, there are scores of conditions/instlltions, issues, that MUST be reported as defects and must be corrected, removed, moved, etc. FOR LIFE SAFETY, that MUST be disclosed/reported upon in HI.

In this case, numerous electrical (and listed) products "in the field" can be "plugged in" to the pictured - and distasterous results can occur. The item is a design and configuration which is of an inherent "problem" for years.

Even IF the residence is strictly half a split single phase AC (120V "service", such as "30A" service) and the device has been altered and powered by a single circuit which is current limited to 10A AND the solid (not stranded) copper supplying same is sufficiently sized, it is still a safety hazard, due to the non-restrictive nature of the proximity of co-planar slots allowing for insertion of a 250V (two-pole) non-grounding/bonding co-planar cord cap, and performance issues having 4 powered outlet receptacles on an altered single yoke (heating). HI is neither new construction code inspection, nor property maintenance/hability/occupancy code inspection.

There are myriad reasons same & similar aren't being produced. I have posted docs, images and links on similar and identical subject "outlets" and provided history on same.

Sadly numerous significant and historical data, reports, investigtions, etc. which used to be hosted and publicly available at UL were taken down several years ago with revamping of their site and hosting, and overall change "in direction" with the competing NTLs, world market, corporate divestitures, litigation, etc.

Perhaps you might re-read Dini's papers (white paper project UL, CPSC, NFPA, et al) and try better search parameters.