Code Violation ??

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

electriwest

Member
We installed Seagull Lighting LV cable 9373-12 through out a large (12,000 sq') custom home in
the Winter Park area of Colorado. The State Electrical Inspector claims we are in violation of Article 400-7 & 8 of the 1999 NEC because we ran the cable from the load side of the transformer to the lights through walls and ceilings (not exceeding recommended distances for voltage drop). We've asked Seagull Lighting if this cable is UL listed for our installation but have yet to get a response. We believe that the intent of this article pertains to line voltage and not low voltage. What is everyone else's opinions? We are requesting a reply as soon as possible as this is keeping us from a final electrical inspection.
 
roger

roger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Fl
Occupation
Retired Electrician
Re: Code Violation ??

I wish I had good news, but 400.7 and 8 do not distinguish between any voltages. There is 411.4 that would also be a problem.

This is from their web site

"The low voltage Ambiance cable" if running cable through
combustible materials, must be enclosed in the 9435 track with 9439
cover or listed conduit.

You can visit their site here. http://www.seagulllighting.com go to Secification and Tech data.

Roger

[ May 23, 2003, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: roger ]
 
rick5280

rick5280

Senior Member
Re: Code Violation ??

I wasn't able to follow the link to Seagull lighting, but I would like to know if this wiring method is fed from a class 1, 2, or 3 power supply? What is the voltage? Would Article 725 apply?

If the manufacturer states what roger says, then there is that limitation, but that is not what the inspector said.

Rick Miell
 
H

hurk27

Senior Member
Location
Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
Re: Code Violation ??

Roger
"The low voltage Ambiance cable" if running cable through
combustible materials, must be enclosed in the 9435 track with 9439
cover or listed conduit.
Click to expand...
As it say's this sleave is only for the running of the cables through combustible materials. I.E. the cabnet walls.

The NEC still doesn't allow lamp cord at any voltage installed within finished walls.
400.8 Uses Not Permitted.
Unless specifically permitted in 400.7, flexible cords and cables shall not be used for the following:
(1) As a substitute for the fixed wiring of a structure
( 2) Where run through holes in walls, structural ceilings, suspended ceilings, dropped ceilings, or floors
 
roger

roger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Fl
Occupation
Retired Electrician
Re: Code Violation ??

Wayne, I don't understand your post. Aren't you quoting the same article numbers I quoted earlier.
Maybe you didn't understand my meaning, but to clarify it, it's the same as yours.

I pointed out the manufactures comments on their cable just to indicate that, if it had to be in a raceway by there own recommendation, I wouldn't think they are going to say it can be run thru walls and ceilings.

Roger
 
L

luke warmwater

Senior Member
Re: Code Violation ??

There is an older thread on this topic that I'm trying to find. Roger and Wayne are correct.
We install many of the Seagull 'Ambiance' systems, we buy the lamps by the 100 count. The wire is Not rated for concealment in a wall. My experience with this system is that Seagull will reply this wire is not rated for concealment in a wall. My local supplier has even gone to the extent of having their invoices state this.
I think it is a great system when installed properly. We have one jurisdiction that will allow it to be dropped in the wall to the basement, they have an ammendment. Otherwise, you have to use a Chapter 3 wiring method.
Remember, Amps are Amps.
 
roger

roger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Fl
Occupation
Retired Electrician
Re: Code Violation ??

Wayne, no appology needed. (but thanks) I could have been a little more clear in my post.

Roger
 
R

rrrusty

Senior Member
Location
Colorado
Re: Code Violation ??

I am unfamilar with Seagull but I have run into situations like this myself; The only solution that I came up with is to run NMB from the transformer to the cabinet area then have the NMB stub into the cabinet on the left side so a box can be installed into the stud cavity; Then you can run your FMC(Juno Lts) from the fixture to the J-Box or if you need to run NMB because the customer decided to change fixture type the you are set for LV/120V; But 411-4 refers you to article 3 so he might gig you on that one as well
 
H

hurk27

Senior Member
Location
Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
Re: Code Violation ??

Rusty
But 411-4 refers you to article 3 so he might gig you on that one as well
Click to expand...
How can a AHJ gig someone using N/M as the NEC requires us to use a wiring method in chapter 3 and this means using N/M, conduit, FMC or any wire-way allowed in chapter 3. which will be code compliant. the code treats these low-voltage lighting systems just like normal voltage systems (120v) this is these low-voltage lighting systems can have a very high current on them and someone could get into trouble real quick with them. I just did one that used a 450 va transformer a 12 volts this circuit has 37.5 amps on it. Now There are many who think that just because it is low voltage it is safe, but put that much current on let say 18 awg lamp cord and you are asking for a fire with out the proper fuses protecting the wire. the other thing is the voltage drop is more pronounced at 12v as a 5 volt drop would not affect a 120 volt circuit but at 12 volts it would cut the briteness of the lite in half. so you see this is why the code does not want flexable cords in behind finished walls or even going through them. and if we half to then we are to use a wiring method that is acceptable in chapter 3.

[ May 23, 2003, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: hurk27 ]
 
R

rrrusty

Senior Member
Location
Colorado
Re: Code Violation ??

hurk 27:When I refered to the 411-4 gig it was in reference to the 9373-12 that was used; Sorry about any misunderstanding; Not trying to offend anyone
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top