"cords" above ceilings

Status
Not open for further replies.
al hildenbrand said:
Ahhh. That becomes the point. . . what the NFPA "thinks".

Instead of defining the new Article 100 term "flexible cord" to extend the NEC into the purview of UL Standards, I think the opposite needs to happen. I think the NEC should, in fact, be clarified to support the distinction already in place as Ryan points to with his citations from UL 62 and UL 817.
Click to expand...

I disagree and 'think' there are valid reasons to treat all cords the same.
 
iwire said:
I disagree and 'think' there are valid reasons to treat all cords the same.
Click to expand...
Staying with the dwelling bath exhaust fan, for the moment, then your thinking would include the cord that connects the exhuast motor to the branch circuit wiring compartment?
 
al hildenbrand said:
Staying with the dwelling bath exhaust fan, for the moment, then your thinking would include the cord that connects the exhuast motor to the branch circuit wiring compartment?
Click to expand...

Since it is usually contained entirely within the listed fixture, I would not necessarily include it. That will require some more thought.
And even if you consider the receptacle mounted in the wiring compartment to be higher than the level of suspended ceiling, I am not ready to consider it "above" it, since it is accessed without removing or even moving any part of the ceiling.
 
K8MHZ said:
I would follow the instructions included with the product.

The UL isn't the only company that lists things.
Click to expand...
And, when your customer points you to the inexpensive fan that he has that is mounted over the dwelling bath tub and is a fan that is not made to be so installed because the fan label does not say it is, you will find that the included instructions make no mention about GFCI protection. Soooo. How will you know that it can't go there?
 
ryan_618 said:
I talked with another person (whom most of you would recognize by name) that is with UL and is on the TCC, he was also stunned, and thinks that major changes need to be made to 400 in the next cycle.
This whole thing is still sort of blowing my mind, as I couldn't tell you how many time I have written this up as a violation.
Click to expand...

Not to beat a dead horse, but you were right in doing so. It's obvious the entire NEC ignores the separation that Mike uncovered. I still believe the best solution is a simple definition in 100 to merge them. That would stand a good chance of passing with Holt and Ode's names on it.
 
George Stolz said:
It's obvious the entire NEC ignores the separation that Mike uncovered.
Click to expand...
But, is that enough of a reason? [IRONY] I can hear the hue and cry now: "It's never been in the NEC before!" That could simplify the work for the CMPs immensely. [/IRONY]
 
iwire said:
I disagree and 'think' there are valid reasons to treat all cords the same.
Click to expand...

I'm just gonna have to agree with Bob on this one.

Not that I don't see where the others are going with this, but when is a flexible cord a power cord and vise versa? Is it marked on the cord?
 
I'll take this a step beyond. It is my opinion, based on the scope statement of the NEC, that the NEC stops at the outlet. Nothing that you plug into a receptacle is within the scope of the NEC.

That being said, there should be a restriction on the use of flexible power cords in any application where they remain plugged in without attention. I have removed a lot of equipment that had a power connection cord, where the cord jacket and conductor insulation had failed over time. If you try to more the power cord the jacket and conductor insulation just falls off. In many cases these cords were not installed above a ceiling, but in the open, but no one ever looks at the cords when they use the equipment, unless the equipment stops working. Maybe the UL standards should be revised to require the use of hardwired connection methods for any type of equipment that would not normally be unplugged when the equipment is not in use.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Maybe the UL standards should be revised to require the use of hardwired connection methods for any type of equipment that would not normally be unplugged when the equipment is not in use.
Click to expand...

You mean like a table lamp????? I understand the difference between turned off and not in use, but the dividing line is a bit murky. If I know that I am not going to use the lamp for two weeks do I unplug it? What about two months?
Or should it only apply to not visible receptacles? What if the lamp is plugged in behind the couch?

(Just exploring....)
 
So, an appliance or equipment power cord will not dry rot the same as a flexible cord will, that's simply amazing. ;)


Roger
 
GoldDigger said:
You mean like a table lamp????? I understand the difference between turned off and not in use, but the dividing line is a bit murky. If I know that I am not going to use the lamp for two weeks do I unplug it? What about two months?
Or should it only apply to not visible receptacles? What if the lamp is plugged in behind the couch?

(Just exploring....)
Click to expand...
I don't know where we have to draw the line. I have seen the lamp cords so hard and brittle that if you move them just a bit, the insulation falls off.
Maybe the standards for the jacket and insulation have to be changed so they do not have this issue.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
I don't know where we have to draw the line. I have seen the lamp cords so hard and brittle that if you move them just a bit, the insulation falls off.
Maybe the standards for the jacket and insulation have to be changed so they do not have this issue.
Click to expand...

I have seen that too, but mostly if not entirely in lamp cords that were at least 40 years old, so maybe the standards and the composition have changed.
If it is exposed to UV, it is a more complicated story.
 
Just my opinion here.

Table 400.4 lists the cables and cords that are covered. If it is not in there, it is not covered by article 400.

Read what 400.1 and 400.2 actually say.

400.1 Scope. This article covers general requirements, applications,
and construction specifications for flexible cords
and flexible cables.
400.2 Other Articles. Flexible cords and flexible cables
shall comply with this article and with the applicable provisions
of other articles of this Code.
Click to expand...

It seems to me if it is not a cord or cable as covered by article 400, then it is just not covered by the NEC.

With occasional random like exceptions, things that are part of listed devices just plain are not covered by the code. The code even says this somewhat obliquely, although it is in 90.7 which is not generally enforceable.

I have never quite understood the hoopla over using cords in lieu of some other wiring means anyway. It seems mostly self serving as good cords can last every bit as long as rigid.
 
petersonra said:
...
I have never quite understood the hoopla over using cords in lieu of some other wiring means anyway. It seems mostly self serving as good cords can last every bit as long as rigid.
Click to expand...
I guess I have never seen a good cord. The power supply cords and the flexible cables permitted by Article 400 have a finite life. I have seen lots of them with no abuse, excessive UV, or other environmental issues that have become dangerous in a 10 to 15 year time frame.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
It is my opinion, based on the scope statement of the NEC, that the NEC stops at the outlet. Nothing that you plug into a receptacle is within the scope of the NEC.
Click to expand...
I agree.

I believe this to be the heart of the matter. I believe UL 62 and UL 817 are deliberately structured to support the legal separation.

Understanding that "the end of the Premises Wiring (System) is at the Outlet" requires a good working knowledge of those two Article 100 defined terms. Many good minds, here, have used a lot of cyberspace ink exploring these terms.

Clarifications in 400 to this end will help, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
al hildenbrand said:
Understanding that "the end of the Premises Wiring (System) is at the Outlet" requires a good working knowledge of those two Article 100 defined terms. Many good minds, here, have used a lot of cyberspace ink exploring these terms.
Click to expand...

While I agree that the NEC should be restructured to end the premises wiring at the outlet, it should be made plain to the casual reader of this thread that it does not. There are many instances of the NEC pushing beyond the outlet, in 400, 422, and many of the references I cited above.

Fundamentally, the NEC stops at the outlet, but it seems the CMPs tend to overlook that. :happysad:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top