"cords" above ceilings

[raider1]

:dunce:

Ah. Thank you. Terms.

Chris,

Your comment gets me back to Ryan's selections from the standard. I realize that I am describing the elephant while being blindfolded and only standing in one spot. The full body of the UL (or any NRTL) standard along with any manufacturer required installation instructions will help this discussion.

I do note, that UL 817.1.1 says that power-supply cords are to be in accordance with the NEC . . .

The NEC is silent about "power-supply cords".

Is the NEC silent in regards to "Power-supply cords"?

Could I run a power supply cord for an appliance through a wall to a receptacle on the other side?

If the power supply cord is of a type listed in 400.4 would Article 400 not apply?

This really is a good discussion.

Chris

 

[al hildenbrand]

Is the NEC silent in regards to "Power-supply cords"?

UL 62.1.3 is real interesting in the way it uses the words "power-supply cord". It has all the hallmark of a three word term worthy of a definition some where in the Standard. The fact that, then, UL 817.1.1 leads off with the three word term pretty much cinches it, in my opinion.

I don't see how Article 400 gets into play with power-supply cords when 62.1.1 leads with the term "flexible cord" and then takes pains to tell us what is NOT flexible cord in 62.1.3, AND, because:

NEC 400.1 Scope. This article covers general requirements, applications, and construction specifications for flexible cords and flexible cables.

 

[raider1]

UL 62.1.3 is real interesting in the way it uses the words "power-supply cord". It has all the hallmark of a three word term worthy of a definition some where in the Standard. The fact that, then, UL 817.1.1 leads off with the three word term pretty much cinches it, in my opinion.

I don't see how Article 400 gets into play with power-supply cords when 62.1.1 leads with the term "flexible cord" and then takes pains to tell us what is NOT flexible cord in 62.1.3, AND, because:

UL 62.1.3 just states that "Power supply cords" do not fall under the scope of UL 62. I don't see anything there that states a power supply cord is NOT a flexible cable just that a separate standard addresses Power supply cords and cord sets.

Chris

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The scope of UL 817 includes cord sets which are extension cords. If the NEC were to separate UL 62 and UL 817 then any extension cord would fall out of the purview of the NEC.

Chris

Extension cords used as intended and within their listing are not under the purview of the NEC.

 

[raider1]

Also from the UL Whitebook Category (ELBZ) Cord Sets and Power-Supply Cords.

Under Cord sets;

"A cord set consists of a length of flexible cord assembled (1) to an attachment plug or current tap as line fitting and cord connector as a load fitting, and with or without a through-cord switch, or (2) with a series-connected current tap and pendant switch........"

So it seems apparent to me that a cord set is a flexible cord according to UL.

Chris

 

[GoldDigger]

So it seems apparent to me that a cord set is a flexible cord according to UL.
Chris

Seems to me that says that a cord set includes a flexible cord. While NEC says that flexible cord becomes a cord set instead when ends are put on it.

A Denver omelette includes eggs. It is not an egg. :happyno:

... although it may be subject to some of the regulations governing cooking and serving eggs. :happyyes:

 

[al hildenbrand]

UL 62.1.3 just states that "Power supply cords" do not fall under the scope of UL 62. I don't see anything there that states a power supply cord is NOT a flexible cable just that a separate standard addresses Power supply cords and cord sets.

I'll bet flexible cable is another silence.

Maybe George, or someone else with a searchable form of the NEC, can run a search of "flexible cable" and list the citations. Out of the references that George posted in Post # 11, only 400 uses the term.

 

[iwire]

Extension cords used as intended and within their listing are not under the purview of the NEC.

590.6(B)(2) seems to contradict that view.

 

[al hildenbrand]

So it seems apparent to me that a cord set is a flexible cord according to UL.

That's just it, though. UL 62, which scope includes flexible cord, says a cord set is NOT in the scope of UL 62. AND it tells us specifically that flexible cord assemblies with fittings or wiring devices of any sort are what puts the assembly containing flexible cord OUTSIDE of the scope containing just flexible cord.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Also from the UL Whitebook Category (ELBZ) Cord Sets and Power-Supply Cords.

Under Cord sets;

"A cord set consists of a length of flexible cord assembled (1) to an attachment plug or current tap as line fitting and cord connector as a load fitting, and with or without a through-cord switch, or (2) with a series-connected current tap and pendant switch........"

The key word is "assembled" following "flexible cord".

 

[al hildenbrand]

590.6(B)(2) seems to contradict that view.

Temporary Wiring?

Does the AHJ approve the installation of a cubical workers pencil sharpener, or cell phone charger?

 

[cowboyjwc]

Temporary Wiring?

Does the AHJ approve the installation of a cubical workers pencil sharpener, or cell phone charger?

We could. How much do you think we could charge for that?

 

[iwire]

Temporary Wiring?

Does the AHJ approve the installation of a cubical workers pencil sharpener, or cell phone charger?

I am missing your point. Don asserted that the NEC does not apply to listed extension cords. IMO my code cite shows the NFPA feels otherwise.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

590.6(B)(2) seems to contradict that view.

That section, along with many others in the NEC is not valid as it is outside the scope of the NEC per 90.2.

 

[iwire]

That section, along with many others in the NEC is not valid as it is outside the scope of the NEC per 90.2.

Don I know that is your opinion but I do not agree.

Inspectors enforce the sections in the NEC and that is the real world, not the forum world.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Don I know that is your opinion but I do not agree.
Inspectors enforce the sections in the NEC and that is the real world, not the forum world.

Any law, even an invalid one, can be enforced until such time as it is ruled to be invalid by a court.

It is unlikely that these minor details would ever be taken to court, so even though they are invalid they will continue to be enforced.

 

[Strathead]

For all the discussion in this thread about what the code does or doesn't allow, I ask a simple question, why? As a simple electrician without code writing expertise, I wonder...

I can understand prohibiting runs of cord for any significant length, basically as a substitute for permanent wiring solutions, but to prohibit, say the little condensate pump on an evaporator pan above the T bar seems unnecessary. Or one that always gets me, 2 or 3" of SO cord from a suspended light fixture in the conference room. The wording becomes the rub, but is there what about this prohibition is necessary for the "practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity?" (article 90.1(A)

 

[raider1]

For all the discussion in this thread about what the code does or doesn't allow, I ask a simple question, why? As a simple electrician without code writing expertise, I wonder...

I can understand prohibiting runs of cord for any significant length, basically as a substitute for permanent wiring solutions, but to prohibit, say the little condensate pump on an evaporator pan above the T bar seems unnecessary. Or one that always gets me, 2 or 3" of SO cord from a suspended light fixture in the conference room. The wording becomes the rub, but is there what about this prohibition is necessary for the "practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity?" (article 90.1(A)

The issue is that flexible cord will breakdown over time and the insulation will drop off and cause a risk of fire and electric shock. Cords installed above a suspended ceiling are concealed so the damage is not readily viable so the dangerous situation could remain unseen.

Chris

 

[Gregg Harris]

The issue is that flexible cord will breakdown over time and the insulation will drop off and cause a risk of fire and electric shock. Cords installed above a suspended ceiling are concealed so the damage is not readily viable so the dangerous situation could remain unseen.

Chris

There are plenty of flexible cords that would negate the theory of deterioration in the suspended ceiling.

It is ridiculous to require a condensate pump to be hard wired when it needs to be remove regularly for maintenance when servicing a piece of HVACR equipment as required by the manufacturer.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

There are plenty of flexible cords that would negate the theory of deterioration in the suspended ceiling.

...

...and there are plenty that fail...maybe the real issue is the construction standard for flexible cords and cables.