K8MHZ
Senior Member
- Occupation
- Electrician
Excellent. It's the same in my ol' 2008 as well.
This has been some good practice of NEC Hopscotch.
Thanks for pointing that part of 210.50 out to me.
Cord Connectors
- Thread starter RB1
- Start date
- Status
Excellent. It's the same in my ol' 2008 as well.
This has been some good practice of NEC Hopscotch.
Thanks for pointing that part of 210.50 out to me.
When iwire mentioned 210.8 and asserted that they must be considered receptacles, I knew there had to be something else there somewhere, because other wise that wouldn't make any sense, so I started looking.
K8MHZ
Senior Member
- Occupation
- Electrician
When iwire mentioned 210.8 and asserted that they must be considered receptacles, I knew there had to be something else there somewhere, because other wise that wouldn't make any sense, so I started looking.
I looked, too, and come up with a different opinion because I landed in a different area of the NEC.
I have to keep telling myself......we don't just read the NEC, we have to navigate through it like a maze.
All the more reason to have the NEC in digital format, much easier to search the blasted publication with a computer than with battle scarred hands and eyes.
:happyyes:
- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
- Occupation
- Hospital Master Electrician
Both formats have their ups and downs.
K8MHZ
Senior Member
- Occupation
- Electrician
Both formats have their ups and downs.
Yep. But as the NEC gets bigger and bigger, the digital format starts to get more desirable. Especially with tablets and Kindles. Now the printed NEC is actually bigger than the computer needed to read the digital version. And the computers are CHEAPER than the printed NEC!!
al hildenbrand
Senior Member
- Location
- Minnesota
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
Having just posted, having a lazy morning, I missed the posts #21 and on, mea culpa. I'm repeating what y'all have said.
Ah. I had looked at the '11, but didn't think to look at the '08. Your argument sounded intriguing, like something I would start tilting at, so I was looking . . .
And, having not noted in "About Me" that you list 1905 as your current NEC, I hadn't thought to check it, either.
User's word-for-word quote of the '14 is unchanged from the '08, for your edification, Marky. And "receptacle outlet", being defined in Article 100, a two-word term, ties back to "receptacle", the single-word term by being defined, simply, as:
Ah. I had looked at the '11, but didn't think to look at the '08. Your argument sounded intriguing, like something I would start tilting at, so I was looking . . .
And, having not noted in "About Me" that you list 1905 as your current NEC, I hadn't thought to check it, either.
User's word-for-word quote of the '14 is unchanged from the '08, for your edification, Marky. And "receptacle outlet", being defined in Article 100, a two-word term, ties back to "receptacle", the single-word term by being defined, simply, as:
Last edited:
K8MHZ
Senior Member
- Occupation
- Electrician
Having just posted, having a lazy morning, I missed the posts #21 and on, mea culpa. I'm repeating what y'all have said.
Ah. I had looked at the '11, but didn't think to look at the '08. Your argument sounded intriguing, like something I would start tilting at, so I was looking . . .
And, having not noted in "About Me" that you list 1905 as your current NEC, I hadn't thought to check it, either.
User's word-for-word quote of the '14 is unchanged from the '08, for your edification, Marky. And "receptacle outlet", being defined in Article 100, a two-word term, ties back to "receptacle", the single-word term by being defined, simply, as:
Yes, admittedly, I missed 210.50 (A).
So, the answer to the OP's question, 'is a cord connector body a receptacle?' would be, yes, IF supplied by a permanently installed cord pendant. If not supplied by a permanently installed cord pendant, then no, a cord connector body is not a receptacle.
OK with that?
al hildenbrand
Senior Member
- Location
- Minnesota
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
Sorry. I wasn't trying to grind on you. Posts #21 on to just before mine wrapped up the thread for the OP quite fine.
I didn't think to delete my post.
K8MHZ
Senior Member
- Occupation
- Electrician
I didn't consider it to be grinding, more of hashing out the details, I thank you for that.
al hildenbrand
Senior Member
- Location
- Minnesota
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
:thumbsup:...................
I'm going to agree with you- my earlier interpretation regarding ext cords was wrong- having combed thru 210,406,590 and the link supplied by al hildenbrand, I cannot find anything that clearly suggests that ext cords, even temporarily, are part of the premises wiring system per the art 100 definition- since the end of the ext cord isn't considered an outlet (a point along the wiring system where current is taken), the fem ext cord connector cannot be considered a receptacle.
Last edited:
Iwire,
You hit the nail right on the head. I asked the question in regard to a prototypical plan for a Publix supermarket that shows a weatherproof junction box mounted on top of a floor duct with flexible cord terminating in a cord connector that supplies scales sitting on top of the bakery cases. The plans do not call for GFCI protection for the cord connector even though the area clearly meets the definition of a kitchen. I referenced 210.50(A) and 400.8(1) in the plan review comment, but was unsure if the reference to 210.50 was correct being that it is located in Part III of Article 210. The last sentence of 400.8(B) was changed in the 2011 Code to include cord connector body and now reads "Where used as permitted in 400.7(A)(3), (A)(6) and (A)(8), each flexible cord shall be equipped with an attachement plug and shall be energized from a receptacle outlet or cord connector body". That appears to differentiate between the two. I wish CMP 6 would have rejected the proposal on the grounds that, for the purpose of the NEC, a cord connector body and a receptacle outlet are the same. Being that that these are prototypical drawings with standard details, I am guessing that there are a lot of these in Florida. Thanks for all of the help.
RB.
You hit the nail right on the head. I asked the question in regard to a prototypical plan for a Publix supermarket that shows a weatherproof junction box mounted on top of a floor duct with flexible cord terminating in a cord connector that supplies scales sitting on top of the bakery cases. The plans do not call for GFCI protection for the cord connector even though the area clearly meets the definition of a kitchen. I referenced 210.50(A) and 400.8(1) in the plan review comment, but was unsure if the reference to 210.50 was correct being that it is located in Part III of Article 210. The last sentence of 400.8(B) was changed in the 2011 Code to include cord connector body and now reads "Where used as permitted in 400.7(A)(3), (A)(6) and (A)(8), each flexible cord shall be equipped with an attachement plug and shall be energized from a receptacle outlet or cord connector body". That appears to differentiate between the two. I wish CMP 6 would have rejected the proposal on the grounds that, for the purpose of the NEC, a cord connector body and a receptacle outlet are the same. Being that that these are prototypical drawings with standard details, I am guessing that there are a lot of these in Florida. Thanks for all of the help.
RB.
- Status