680.22(A) Receptacles

[ibew501ed]

What about for a pool where there is no light. Then you have to bolt throught to connect #8 to GC. Then a T-11 box would be wrong.. right??

I believe the #8 bonding conductor from all the metal parts of the pool gets connected to the frame of the pool pump which in turn is electrically connected to the panel via the #12 insulated EGC and or the cord

 

[Davis9]

Doesn't 680.21(A)(5) cord and plug connections say we can do this.

I think for the motor side but the Branch circuit side?

It says cord and plug connections, I see more than 1 type of connection there? And it's not a Receptacle(per definition). It is referred to as a connector. I don't see that listed as a Wiring method listed in 680 21 (A)(1)-(5)?

Tom:-?
Probably wrong but makes for lively discussion.:grin:

 

[Dennis Alwon]

What about for a pool where there is no light. Then you have to bolt throught to connect #8 to GC. Then a T-11 box would be wrong.. right??

Sometimes there is no connection of the bonding wire to any electrical. Suppose there is no pool light and a double insulated motor. In this case the epb wire just connects all the metal rebar etc specifed in 680.26 and ends at the pool pump where no connection is made. The wire must be left there in the event that other electrical equipment is added. Sometime the pool motor would be changed to a non insulated motor in which case the bonding wire would then connect to the pump.

There is no direct connection between the epb wire and any other wiring except thru the casing of a motor, etc as mentioned earlier.

To answer the question the T-11 box is fine and never gets the #8 equipotential bond connected to it.

 

[iwire]

Where in 680 22 (A) does it allow the female cord end?

Tom that section does not say we have to use a receptacle, it says if we use a receptacle we shall do it in a certain way.:smile:

 

[Davis9]

Right but it lists acceptable branch circuit wiring methods, I do not see SO or SJO as one of them?

Tom

What I'm getting at is, what stops me from running 200' of SO back to the panel? Where is the line for footage?

 

[iwire]

Right but it lists acceptable branch circuit wiring methods, I do not see SO or SJO as one of them?

Cord is not a wiring method at all, but we can use it as per Article 400.

What I'm getting at is, what stops me from running 200' of SO back to the panel?

Your own sense of pride.

Also IMO 400.8(1) would prohibit that.

 

[Davis9]

Where in Wiring methods for this section is it allowed, IMO if it is installed before the cord and plug it is a wiring method, no?

Tom

 

[iwire]

IMO if it is installed before the cord and plug it is a wiring method, no?

Chapter 3 covers wiring methods, Cords are covered in Chapter 4 'Equipment for General Use'

 

[mpd]

Chapter 3 covers wiring methods, Cords are covered in Chapter 4 'Equipment for General Use'

680.21 (A), does not permit a flexible cord for branch circuit wiring

 

[iwire]

680.21 (A), does not permit a flexible cord for branch circuit wiring

IMO it is not branch circuit wiring any more then the factory installed cord on a pump.

And again that section is called wiring methods, cord is not a wiring method.

 

[480sparky]

680.21 (A), does not permit a flexible cord for branch circuit wiring

400.7(A)(7) and (9) seems to say it can, then 400.8(1) says it can't.

 

[mpd]

IMO it is not branch circuit wiring any more then the factory installed cord on a pump.

And again that section is called wiring methods, cord is not a wiring method.

that looks like a field installed cord, and where does the branch circuit wiring end, i would think where the cord connector is

 

[iwire]

that looks like a field installed cord, and where does the branch circuit wiring end, i would think where the cord connector is

Lets say I agree with that point.

Per the NEC cord is not currently a 'wiring method'. Maybe it used to be called a wiring method?

 

[mpd]

Lets say I agree with that point.

Per the NEC cord is not currently a 'wiring method'. Maybe it used to be called a wiring method?

but if it is branch circuit wiring it is not permitted to be used per 680.21 (A) (1), what do you think?

 

[Davis9]

but if it is branch circuit wiring it is not permitted to be used per 680.21 (A) (1), what do you think?

This is what I'm trying to say.

Tom

 

[Davis9]

Lets say I agree with that point.

Per the NEC cord is not currently a 'wiring method'. Maybe it used to be called a wiring method?

Exactly, it isn't a wiring method but it is being used as such since there is a permanent connection to the junction box.

Tom

 

[iwire]

Exactly, it isn't a wiring method but it is being used as such since there is a permanent connection to the junction box.

That may be the best argument yet, 400.7(A)(6) or (8) specifically allows cord to be used but 400.7(B) requires those cords to be energized from a receptacle.

 

[mpd]

That may be the best argument yet, 400.7(A)(6) or (8) specifically allows cord to be used but 400.7(B) requires those cords to be energized from a receptacle.

excellent!!!

 

[Davis9]

Hopefully Pierre will see all of this and make a determination of his own and let us know what he thinks.

Tom:smile:

 

[PetrosA]

Here I go again

/begin rant

I'm not going to speak to conformity to code, but to what I'd like to see in the future.

The cord ends in the first picture are fool proof in the sense that you don't get the connection until the waterproof (IP66) conditions are met. An "in-use" cover is far from foolproof, as the cover on the right in the second photo clearly shows, and this is a dedicated wet-environment connection! When are we going to adopt better standards?

This link is for IP66 compliant ends and receptacles, which could all be made to a lower "residential" or "spec" grade standard to reduce price while maintaining the IP66 rating. "In-use" is a joke if the intent is to create a true safe use practice. Wouldn't it be better and safer if outdoor/wet environment products were made to conform to a truly waterproof standard?

/end rant