On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 09:53:46 -0400 John Gilmer wrote: | | |> | It's pointless to greatly increase the number of wall outlets. |> | |> | The reality is that folks will routinely plug "electronics" into a power |> | strip (and sometimes a power strip with surge protection.) The | electronic |> | boxes are clustered on a desk or in a cabinet; it's easier just to plug |> | everything into a "local" power strip and only have ONE cord going to | the |> | wall. |>
|> However, if it leads to cords and plugs going behind furniture that could |> cause damage, it would be better to have even the power strip plugged into |> less risky outlet. | | A heavy cord for a power strip is unlikely to be damaged by furniture light | enough to be easily moved. | | In my place I have a special problem in that few of the outlets are under | windows but, rather, are placed on the blank walls between windows. BAD | IDEA. What do folks put again a blank wall? Sometimes it's just a | picture and a chair but it's often a heavy bookcase or cabinet.
That's exactly the problem I have. The outlets are behind bookcases that are stocked full of books. Accessing the outlet is a huge chore. Yet I need electricity often right on top of the bookcase. So a "premanent" extension cord is plugged in before the bookcase is in place.
| If you want to monkey about with the NEC rules on outlet spacing, make it a | requirement there be an outlet UNDER each window.
OTOH, I have seen furniture layouts where that won't work, and the regular case would. The difficulty for the NEC is that the placement really needs to consider where furniture actually will be placed, and that isn't something a builder would necessarily know. I could know, in most cases, for the house I will build. But even then, it might not be appropriate for the next owner.
I do think having TWICE the number as is needed to have one reachable within
6 feet will usually make things reachable. The reason is because whenever one is blocked, there almost always is a place about half way to the next one that is not.