AC roof-top unit as a raceway

[smallfish]

Feeder conductors with an equipment grounding conductor are piped into the bottom of a roof-top AC unit. Once inside the roof-top AC unit, these insulated conductors are not run in any raceway but are bundled together and pass three feet through the unit through a bushed hole into a diconnnect switch mounted on the outside. The conductors return thru a bushed hole back into the AC unit and are then wire-nutted to short conductor leads extending from a bushed hole in the controller enclosure. (Apparently the factory-installed leads were meant to be wirenutted outside its control enclosure, but inside the AC unit.) It looks wrong, but is it correct to run un-enclosed feeder conductors inside an AC unit and is it correct to wire nut the conductors to the factory leads without this termination being enclosed in some kind of box enclosure? The wires do not appear to be subject to abuse.
Thanks

 

[iwire]

IMO that is fine but ugly.

 

[augie47]

there are other opinions
grab yourself a cup of coffee and take a look :

http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=120195&highlight=roof

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

IMO that is fine but ugly.

Why would you assume ugly ? I think it looks better than a goose neck and unneeded sealtight. Do need to stay out of plenum area and you can run the required 120 recept along with it.

 

[donselectric]

would it have made that much of a diff if you came up the side to the disco??
i wouldnt let that go neither...its not fac so i want protection....

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

would it have made that much of a diff if you came up the side to the disco??
i wouldnt let that go neither...its not fac so i want protection....

protection from what ?
We are on a roof top. Had they ran it on outside would been in sealtight and you made 1 more hole in the roof.

 

[iwire]

would it have made that much of a diff if you came up the side to the disco??
i wouldnt let that go neither...its not fac so i want protection....

It is protected, it is in an enclosure.

Cite a code section to fail it.

 

[jusme123]

It is protected, it is in an enclosure.

Cite a code section to fail it.

Bob, would you consider the floor mounted AHU units, in larger buildings, to be considered as 'enclosures?'

 

[iwire]

Bob, would you consider the floor mounted AHU units, in larger buildings, to be considered as 'enclosures?'

Yes, take a look at the Article 100 definition of enclosure.

 

[jusme123]

the whole point of the disconnect is to deenergize all open wiring(unprotected conductors) and components within the enclosure. When the disconect is in the 'off' position, there should be minimal risk within the enclosure of being injured. With unprotected conductors with 480V live in a unit with the disconnct in the 'off' position, hardly offers a minimal risk of injury.

 

[augie47]

the whole point of the disconnect is to deenergize all open wiring(unprotected conductors) and components within the enclosure. When the disconect is in the 'off' position, there should be minimal risk within the enclosure of being injured. With unprotected conductors with 480V live in a unit with the disconnct in the 'off' position, hardly offers a minimal risk of injury.

all well and good. now, put on an inspector's hat and reject it noting a Code reference

 

[jwjrw]

the whole point of the disconnect is to deenergize all open wiring(unprotected conductors) and components within the enclosure. When the disconect is in the 'off' position, there should be minimal risk within the enclosure of being injured. With unprotected conductors with 480V live in a unit with the disconnct in the 'off' position, hardly offers a minimal risk of injury.

But the disconnect and the enclosure are two different things. I thought I read it went thru unit to disconnect on side,back inside unit. You only remove power from the load in a disconnect.