Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: Approved wiring for under-cabinet lights

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    1,609
    Quote Originally Posted by packersparky View Post
    (M) One- and Two-Family Dwellings. The following wires and
    cables shall be permitted to be installed in one- and two-family
    dwellings in locations other than the locations covered in
    725.135(B) through (I):
    That language is not mandatory, it is permissive. The list given is not exhaustive.

    Cheers, Wayne

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    1,609
    Quote Originally Posted by Dennis Alwon View Post
    There is no 411.5(D)(1) in the 2017
    In 2017 it's 411.6(D)(1).

    Cheers, Wayne

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    342
    Quote Originally Posted by wwhitney View Post
    That language is not mandatory, it is permissive. The list given is not exhaustive.

    Cheers, Wayne
    That's why I copied the first part in 725.135.

    725.135 Installation of Class 2, Class 3, and PLTC Cables.
    Installation of Class 2, Class 3, and PLTC cables shall comply
    with 725.135(A) through (M).


    725.135(B) through (M) all say "shall be permitted".

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    33,180
    Quote Originally Posted by wwhitney View Post
    In 2017 it's 411.6(D)(1).

    Cheers, Wayne

    I still don't see how that allows nm run with open splices. Chapter 3 wiring methods do not allow that
    They say I shot a man named Gray and took his wife to Italy
    She inherited a million bucks and when she died it came to me
    I can't help it if I'm lucky



  5. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    1,609
    In the 2017 version, 725.135 uses "shall comply", 725.135(A) uses "shall be listed", and 725.135(B)-(M) uses the "shall be permitted" language. In my opinion the "shall comply" language at the start of 725.135 doesn't turn the permissive "shall be permitted" language in 725.135(B)-(M) into mandatory language. Only 725.135(A) is mandatory, and NM cable is listed.

    As a practical matter, does a cable type such as CL2X have any requirements that wouldn't be met by NM cable?

    Cheers, Wayne

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    33,180
    Quote Originally Posted by wwhitney View Post
    As a practical matter, does a cable type such as CL2X have any requirements that wouldn't be met by NM cable?

    Cheers, Wayne
    I have no idea and as I stated earlier it seems ridiculous but that is how I read it.
    They say I shot a man named Gray and took his wife to Italy
    She inherited a million bucks and when she died it came to me
    I can't help it if I'm lucky



  7. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    342
    Quote Originally Posted by wwhitney View Post
    In the 2017 version, 725.135 uses "shall comply", 725.135(A) uses "shall be listed", and 725.135(B)-(M) uses the "shall be permitted" language. In my opinion the "shall comply" language at the start of 725.135 doesn't turn the permissive "shall be permitted" language in 725.135(B)-(M) into mandatory language. Only 725.135(A) is mandatory, and NM cable is listed.

    As a practical matter, does a cable type such as CL2X have any requirements that wouldn't be met by NM cable?

    Cheers, Wayne
    If that is the case and none of the cable types in 725.135(B) through (M) are mandatory, I could install NM cable for a Class 2 circuit in a riser in any building (for example).

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    1,609
    Quote Originally Posted by packersparky View Post
    If that is the case and none of the cable types in 725.135(B) through (M) are mandatory, I could install NM cable for a Class 2 circuit in a riser in any building (for example).
    Seems like the "shall be permitted" revision in 2014 screwed up the meaning of 725.135. You are probably reading it the way it is intended, but I don't think the language actually says what is intended.

    In 2011, the comparable section is 725.154, which says "shall comply with any of the requirements described in 725.154(A) through (I)." 725.154(A) says, for example "(A) Plenums. Cables installed in ducts, plenums, and other spaces used for environmental air shall be Type CL2P or CL3P." Very clear and direct language.

    Cheers, Wayne

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    1,609
    Quote Originally Posted by Dennis Alwon View Post
    I still don't see how that allows nm run with open splices. Chapter 3 wiring methods do not allow that
    (2017) 411.6(D)(1) doesn't require a Chapter 3 wiring method, it just requires a Class 2 cable supplied by a Class 2 power source.

    So the question is what is a Class 2 cable and can NM cable be used as a Class 2 cable? I can't find a definition of "class 2 cable". Does it necessarily mean one of the cable types listed in (2017) 725.179? The wording of 725.130(B) seems to leave the door open to other cable types.

    This leaves me a bit confused.

    Cheers, Wayne

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado
    Posts
    2,620

    Article 725

    I have a novel idea. How 'bout a complete re-write of 725. This thing has turned into a convoluted mess. And with all the new products limited power products that are coming out at furious pace we all are going to be referring to this more often. Take for example the practice of reclassifying a class 2 circuit to class 1. Wildly misunderstood and misapplied.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •