"cords" above ceilings

[al hildenbrand]

Fundamentally, the NEC stops at the outlet, but it seems the CMPs tend to overlook that. :happysad:

While we are lead to hold the members of the CMPs in high esteem, I believe that the occassional member is not above a little review of the fundemental definitions.

 

[al hildenbrand]

There are many instances of the NEC pushing beyond the outlet, in 400, 422, and many of the references I cited above.

But, is the NEC pushing beyond the Outlet, really?

Consider,

1. An oven with a factory assembled flexible metal conduit whip is field wired by connecting the whip to the Outlet.
2. An oven that is hard wired in the field with a field assembled flexible metal conduit whip has the Outlet at the lugs in the oven body.
3. An oven with a factory installed flexible cord and plug will be plugged into the Receptacle Outlet.
4. . . . . now, . . the fourth variation is a mind teaser . . . If I, as the electrician, provide and install a flexible cord and plug to the wiring compartment in the body of an oven, and plug the cord into a Receptacle Outlet, is there an Outlet at the end of the cord in the wiring compartment in the body of the oven?

The pattern in #1 and #2 leads me to submit that the location of the last Outlet, the end of the Premesis Wiring (System), is tied to whether I, the field electrician, assemble the line side of the Outlet, or not.



So, in the case of #4, if I get a cord set off the truck and connect it to the back of the oven, the thrust of the new language in the NEC should attempt to convey that an Outlet occurs in the wiring compartment in the back of the oven.

 

[roger]

While we are lead to hold the members of the CMPs in high esteem, I believe that the occassional member is not above a little review of the fundemental definitions.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


Roger

 

[al hildenbrand]

I woke up still mulling over my words. A key change is the green highlight below.

But, is the NEC pushing beyond the Outlet, really?

Consider,

1. An oven with a factory assembled flexible metal conduit whip is field wired by connecting the whip to the Outlet.
2. An oven that is hard wired in the field with a field assembled flexible metal conduit whip has the Outlet at the lugs in the oven body.
3. An oven with a factory installed flexible cord and plug will be plugged into the Receptacle Outlet.
4. . . . . now, . . the fourth variation is a mind teaser . . . If I, as the electrician, provide and install a flexible cord and plug to the wiring compartment in the body of an oven, and plug the cord into a Receptacle Outlet, is there an Outlet at the end of the cord in the wiring compartment in the body of the oven?

The pattern in #1 and #2 leads me to submit that the location of the last Outlet, the end of the Premesis Wiring (System), is tied to whether I, the field electrician, assemble the line side of the Outlet, or not.



So, in the case of #4, if I get a cord set off the truck and connect it to the back of the oven, the thrust of the new language in the NEC should attempt to convey that the final Outlet of the branch circuit occurs in the wiring compartment in the back of the oven.

 

[raider1]

Here is my 2 cents FWIW.

1. We have a standard, UL 62, that specifically addresses flexible cords and cables such as elevator cables etc... This standard does not address power supply cords and cord sets.

2. We have a standard, UL 817, that specifically address power supply cords and cord sets.

From reading the scope of both standards I do not see where a power supply cord or cord set is not also a flexible cord or cable.

If a cord set is constructed of a type of cord listed in 400.4 then IMHO Article 400 would still apply.

Chris

 

[raider1]

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


Roger

I know that I need a lot of professional help.

 

[al hildenbrand]

If a cord set is constructed of a type of cord listed in 400.4 then IMHO Article 400 would still apply.

So I, as the electrician that wires the building, am to make sure that the cord that is attached to a manufactured appliance by the manufacturer under its standards, say, a pencil sharpener, is in compliance with the NEC?

 

[raider1]

So I, as the electrician that wires the building, am to make sure that the cord that is attached to a manufactured appliance by the manufacturer under its standards, say, a pencil sharpener, is in compliance with the NEC?

What section of 400 would apply to a pencil sharpener with a 2' long appliance cord?

Chris

 

[raider1]

So I, as the electrician that wires the building, am to make sure that the cord that is attached to a manufactured appliance by the manufacturer under its standards, say, a pencil sharpener, is in compliance with the NEC?

So I as an inspector should allow a 50 cord set stapled to a wall run up above a suspended ceiling and plugged into a ceiling mounted projector or condensate pump?

Chris

 

[al hildenbrand]

What section of 400 would apply to a pencil sharpener with a 2' long appliance cord?

400.8(1) The pencil sharpener must be hard wired.
400.8(7) A loose cord is not physically protected.
etc.

The sections of other Articles that describe overcurrent protection.

 

[al hildenbrand]

So I as an inspector should allow a 50 cord set stapled to a wall run up above a suspended ceiling and plugged into a ceiling mounted projector or condensate pump?

:thumbsup: Well, that is THE question. We're back to the OP.

 

[raider1]

400.8(1) The pencil sharpener must be hard wired.
400.8(7) A loose cord is not physically protected.
etc.

The sections of other Articles that describe overcurrent protection.

400.8(1) would not apply as 400.7(A)(3) would permit the portable "appliance" to be cord and plug connected.

400.8(7) is subjective as to what is deemed "physical damage" when using a portable appliance.

422.11(A) would most likely apply and I really doubt that a pencil sharpener would have a marked overcurrent protective device rating.

Chris

 

[raider1]

:thumbsup: Well, that is THE question. We're back to the OP.

Yes we are.

Chris

 

[al hildenbrand]

So I as an inspector should allow a 50 cord set stapled to a wall run up above a suspended ceiling and plugged into a ceiling mounted projector or condensate pump?

What is a "50 cord set"? I don't recognize the term.

 

[raider1]

What is a "50 cord set"? I don't recognize the term.

Sorry I meant a 50 foot long cord set.

Chris

 

[al hildenbrand]

So I as an inspector should allow a 50 foot cord set stapled to a wall run up above a suspended ceiling and plugged into a ceiling mounted projector or condensate pump?

If changes were made to the NEC to support the separation of UL 62 and UL 817, I'd think that your role would be to ask for the documentation that shows the 50 foot cord set is part of the "as manufactured" appliance. If not, the cord set is field assembled and is clearly under the NEC and the AHJ.

 

[raider1]

If changes were made to the NEC to support the separation of UL 62 and UL 817, I'd think that your role would be to ask for the documentation that shows the 50 foot cord set is part of the "as manufactured" appliance. If not, the cord set is field assembled and is clearly under the NEC and the AHJ.

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

 

[GoldDigger]

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

I would hope that the NEC would still have jurisdiction to prevent listed extension cords from being run through walls!
Or would that just be a listing condition of the cord?

 

[al hildenbrand]

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.

:dunce:

Ah. Thank you. Terms.

Scope of 817:
"1.1 These requirements cover power-supply cords for use as supply connections for appliances in
accordance with the National Electrical Code.
1.2 These requirements also cover cord sets for use in extending a branch circuit supply to the
power-supply cord of a portable appliance by means of flexible cord in accordance with the National
Electrical Code."

Scope of 62:
"1.1 These requirements cover fixture wires, hoistway cables, and flexible cords for use in accordance with
the National Electrical Code.
1.2 An elevator cable that contains one or more optical-fiber members is limited (see 8.6) to carrying
optical energy that has been ruled not hazardous to the human body.
1.3 These requirements do not cover armored cords or assemblies of flexible cords or fixture wires with
fittings or wiring devices of any sort (such as cord sets, power-supply cords, and Christmas-tree and
decorative-lighting outfits, which are covered in requirements separate from this standard) nor do these
requirements cover any type of wire or cord for use at a potential higher than 600 V."

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".

 

[raider1]

I would hope that the NEC would still have jurisdiction to prevent listed extension cords from being run through walls!
Or would that just be a listing condition of the cord?

That is the crux of the issue at hand.

As currently laid out does Article 400 apply to listed cord sets.

Chris