210.8 and Cord Connectors

Status
Not open for further replies.
iwire said:
They sure wasted a lot of ink using the word cord connectors when just receptacles will do.
Click to expand...
As I read it, I'm finding the use of cord connectors carefully placed to prevent a generalized statement about receptacles inadvertantly restrictively changing types of cords.

Saying that two wire ungrounded extension cords are still allowed is at the heart of the extra "ink" using "cord connector".
 
Thanks for the information on cord connectors; the photo really helped me understand.

I can?t really contribute to this one just now, as I don?t keep a code book at home, and I decline to use the free on-line version (too much work, and I need to get working on the deck in back :wink: ).
al hildenbrand said:
I believe the cord assembly being considered is one that is hardwired on the feed end and has a cord connector on the other end.
Click to expand...
If this really is what we are talking about, then all I can say is that I agree that this is a tricky situation. I have never seen this (cord permanently connected to a box in the wall). It is a common installation? Is it common in certain types of facilities? Just curious. :-?
al hildenbrand said:
The end of the cord and the cord, being site assembled, are part of the Premises Wiring (System), which makes the connection between the cord conductor and the feed conductor nothing more than a splice in a junction box. There is no outlet in that junction box. . . . The outlet is at the contacts of the receptacle in the cord connector.
Click to expand...
Al, you and I have disagreed (at length) before, on the topic of what comprises an outlet. We are going to disagree again. But alas, as I said before, I am defenseless (lacking a code book), and I can?t go for more than one round on this one. So I will state my opinion for the record, without attempting to back up my opinion with code references, and let it go at that.

If you permanently connect a cord to a box in the wall, and if the other end of that cord is a cord connector, then I would say that the ?outlet? is the box in the wall, that the cord connector is neither an outlet nor a receptacle, and that 210.8 does not and should not apply.

There. I?m done. No need to tell me you disagree. I already know that.

By the way, I cannot defend with code references my ?210.8 does not apply.? But I can defend (if called upon to do so) my purely subjective statement that it ?should not apply.?
 
Charlie,

I look forward to your coming within the sphere of access to your Code book.
 
charlie b said:
If you permanently connect a cord to a box in the wall, and if the other end of that cord is a cord connector, then I would say that the ?outlet? is the box in the wall, that the cord connector is neither an outlet nor a receptacle. . .
Click to expand...
Charlie,

For your consideration, until the Book becomes available: This situation is analogous to a residential oven that may, or may not, come from the manufacturer with a flexible metal conduit whip with conductors in place.

If the oven has a whip, from the manufacturer, the whip conductors will be spliced to the branch circuit conductors in a junction box. The splices in this j-box are the point on the wiring system at which current is taken to supply the utilization equipment. The splice to the manufacturer's oven conductors is the outlet on the branch circuit.

If the oven doesn't have a whip, rather it has a splice box in the appliance itself, then the electrician on site provides, the materials to assemble a whip between the branch circuit j-box and the appliance splice box. (Of course, s/he might choose to use a range cord with plug, but that's a separate discussion). When a field assembled whip is used to extend the branch circuit conductors to the appliance splice box, the outlet is now in the appliance splice box.

Given the definition of outlet, the question of whether a cord connector is a receptacle, in part, concerns whether the hardwired cord ending in a cord connector is part of the Premises Wiring (System) or whether it is part of the utilization equipment plugged into it.
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
Maybe you guys should take a look at:

210.50(A)Cord Pendants.
A cord connector that is supplied by a permanently connected cord pendant shall be considered a receptacle outlet.
Click to expand...
That's exactly on my point. Thanks for the citation, Pierre.
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
Maybe you guys should take a look at:

210.50(A)Cord Pendants.
A cord connector that is supplied by a permanently connected cord pendant shall be considered a receptacle outlet.
Click to expand...


does it define what they call a 'cord pendant' ?? ;) just stirring the pot more.

Ive seen these S0 cords hanging from the ceiling/(wired to a j box just above) that hang down with a twist lock on the end where they move the equipment around alot like i said in my Kitchen Hospital receptacle thread.

I like the definitions thats been posted, however no one has responded to the definitions that i posted that are already in the NEC.
 
brother said:
does it define what they call a 'cord pendant' ?? ;) just stirring the pot more.

Ive seen these S0 cords hanging from the ceiling/(wired to a j box just above) that hang down with a twist lock on the end where they move the equipment around alot like i said in my Kitchen Hospital receptacle thread.

I like the definitions thats been posted, however no one has responded to the definitions that i posted that are already in the NEC.
Click to expand...


What is the title of the thread you started?
 
brother said:
. . .no one has responded to the definitions that i posted that are already in the NEC.
Click to expand...
:confused:

I just reviewed this thread and the "hospital" thread Iwire (Bob) references in the OP of this thread, and I'm not sure that I see that you posted definitions.

Instead of dwelling on whether or not, or how, or where; which specific definitions are you thinking of in your Post #28? If its not too much trouble, post the definition again. :smile:
 
Well, I certainly can't argue against Pierre's code citation, and I suspect having the book handy myself wouldn't help. So I'll concede the point.

But just out of curiosity, Al, let me ask this. If there are wires going from a box in the wall to a box in the range, why would it matter who put the wires there? Why should the "outlet" be in the wall, if the manufacturer supplied the wires, and in the range, if the EC supplied the wires? The end result is the same. Would, for instance, a person looking at the installation after it is completed be able to tell which box is the outlet by looking at the wires?
 
charlie b said:
If there are wires going from a box in the wall to a box in the range, why would it matter who put the wires there? Why should the "outlet" be in the wall, if the manufacturer supplied the wires, and in the range, if the EC supplied the wires? The end result is the same. Would, for instance, a person looking at the installation after it is completed be able to tell which box is the outlet by looking at the wires?
Click to expand...
  • The food cooked with the range doesn't care.
  • The electrons don't care
  • The integrity of the circuit is unaffected by the "idea" of an outlet
  • Only the technically astute could tell at a glance where the outlet is, most, but not all of the time.
  • The lawyer, however. . .
If the fire started on this side or that. . . well, the lawyers will take great pains to describe the legal boundary between Utilization Equipment and Premises Wiring, seems to me.
 
al hildenbrand said:
:confused:

I just reviewed this thread and the "hospital" thread Iwire (Bob) references in the OP of this thread, and I'm not sure that I see that you posted definitions.

Instead of dwelling on whether or not, or how, or where; which specific definitions are you thinking of in your Post #28? If its not too much trouble, post the definition again. :smile:
Click to expand...


I was asking did they have the definition of 'cord pendant' and also "cord connector" as i stated in post #9 of this thread.

brother said:
.....And to add more pepper to this thread, "Cord Connector' is defined look at 2008 NEC 626.2 Definitions. LOL
Click to expand...
 
Ok I see the 210.50 has shed more light, and im going 'split' hairs even more. lol

since 210.50 specifically says ".....receptacle OUTLET' and 210.8 (B) just says "receptacles' in the requirement for gfci protection, and the code defines both , "receptacle outlet' and 'receptacle' do you think this gfci requirement still applies since its the 'receptacle' that is to have it and not the 'receptacle outlet'??

Just splitting hairs for light discussion.
 
Last edited:
brother said:
Ok I see the 210.50 has shed more light, and im going 'split' hairs even more. lol

since 210.5 specifically says ".....receptacle OUTLET' and 210.8 (B) just says "receptacles' in the requirement for gfci protection, and the code defines both , "receptacle outlet' and 'receptacle' do you think this gfci requirement still applies since its the 'receptacle' that is to have it and not the 'receptacle outlet'??

Just splitting hairs for light discussion.
Click to expand...



As I get older, the graying of my hair has increased...mostly because of questions like yours. :D
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
Maybe you guys should take a look at:

210.50(A)Cord Pendants.
A cord connector that is supplied by a permanently connected cord pendant shall be considered a receptacle outlet.
Click to expand...

Pierre that reference just reinforces my point.

Cord connectors are not receptacles, that is why for the purposes of Part III of 210 they said consider them as receptacles.

That being said there is no similar language in 210.8.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top