Question about 480 Volt Extension cord

[petersonra]

Fair enough.


Here is a pretty typical occurrence, we get hired to go to a store to add a bunch of receptacles.

Why?

Because either a fire marshal or electrical inspector was checking the store and finds a ton of extension cords supplying display items might be the TVs, or it might be seasonal displays etc.

The FM or EI will cite them on using cords as a substitute for permanent wiring. The store can either comply or if they stall long enough the FM will threaten them with closing the store. I wont say they close places often but it does happen enough store mangers get the message.

I agree such a situation might well be a fire code violation. That does not mean the it is a NEC violation as you were previously claiming.

One might also be able to credibly argue it is being used as a substitute for permanent wiring in such a situation.

neither would apply to the situation being discussed in this thread, nor does it have anything to do with whether it was a factory assembly or not.

 

[GoldDigger]

I agree such a situation might well be a fire code violation. That does not mean the it is a NEC violation as you were previously claiming.

One might also be able to credibly argue it is being used as a substitute for permanent wiring in such a situation.

I would also expect some fire marshals to distinguish between extension cords being used because the attached cord on the load was too short versus being used to allow three loads to be plugged into one receptacle.
Using multiple extension cords in series is also a concern, especially indoors. Get one which is the right length in the first place.
Each connection adds voltage drop and a place for a fault to occur.

 

[iwire]

I agree such a situation might well be a fire code violation. That does not mean the it is a NEC violation as you were previously claiming.

One might also be able to credibly argue it is being used as a substitute for permanent wiring in such a situation.

In my example I just gave that is precisely the violation and I said that.

neither would apply to the situation being discussed in this thread, nor does it have anything to do with whether it was a factory assembly or not.

I did not say that it did.

Also I have never claimed what the OP wants to do is any sort of violtion. All I have claimed is that the NEC Articles 400 and 406 apply to what the OP is asking about.

Here is a code section regarding a likely listed, factory produced appliance. It is clearly 'beyond the outlet'.

422.45 Stands for Cord-and-Plug-Connected Appliances.
Each smoothing iron and other cord-and-plug connected
electrically heated appliance intended to be applied
to combustible material shall be equipped with an
approved stand, which shall be permitted to be a separate
piece of equipment or a part of the appliance.

Can the inspector enforce this if necessary?

Does the NEC apply to it?

In my opinion without a doubt yes.

 

[iwire]

Using multiple extension cords in series is also a concern,

And a typically a listing violation I believe.

 

[GoldDigger]

Can the inspector enforce this if necessary?

Does the NEC apply to it?

In my opinion without a doubt yes.

:thumbsup:
To which I add:
Does it belong in the NEC? Arguable. But since it is there, it cannot be ignored.
When would the electrical inspector rather then the fire marshal be in a position to see the equipment in use to make that call? An interesting question, but one which should not :angel: affect compliance.

 

[petersonra]

IMO, if the code specifically requires something it is required. Even if it is really a design issue.

 

[iwire]

To which I add:
Does it belong in the NEC? Arguable.

I agree with you on that. Questionable for sure.

But since it is there, it cannot be ignored.

That is my position and there are many examples of the NEC going beyond the outlet. IMO the fact they have been in the NEC for years has set the precedent that the NEC applies beyond the outlet.

When would the electrical inspector rather then the fire marshal be in a position to see the equipment in use to make that call?

EIs shop and they can enter public areas without any reason as far as I know. Also sometimes FMs ask for the EIs to come with them on inspections.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The cord would have such labeling and testing. ...

Yes the cord would but the field constructed cord set (a cord with ends) would not have such labeling. If a cord does not = a cord set, then 400 does not apply to cord sets. If cord does = cord set, then the field assembly a of a cord set is prohibited by 400.20.

 

[GoldDigger]

Yes the cord would but the field constructed cord set (a cord with ends) would not have such labeling. If a cord does not = a cord set, then 400 does not apply to cord sets. If cord does = cord set, then the field assembly a of a cord set is prohibited by 400.20.

Well, in my role as guardhouse lawyer, I have to point out that field assembled cords will usually not be shipped, so the testing and labeling section in 400.20 does not ever get triggered.

 

[iwire]

Yes the cord would but the field constructed cord set (a cord with ends) would not have such labeling. If a cord does not = a cord set, then 400 does not apply to cord sets. If cord does = cord set, then the field assembly a of a cord set is prohibited by 400.20.

It is not a listed cord set, it is a listed cord and listed connectors.

To me what you are saying would be the same as calling my MC wiring once completed a 'manufactured wiring system'.