"cords" above ceilings

Status
Not open for further replies.

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
There are plenty of flexible cords that would negate the theory of deterioration in the suspended ceiling.

It is ridiculous to require a condensate pump to be hard wired when it needs to be remove regularly for maintenance when servicing a piece of HVACR equipment as required by the manufacturer.

Wire it with flex
 

sandsnow

Senior Member
So if a power spply cord is a flexible cord and power supply cords are not covered by the nec, then using a power supply cord to connect an appliance per 422.16 would be permitted. Section 422.16 only recognizes a flexible cord to be used.

Just trying to be just the tiniest bit sarcastic. Of course i wouldnt turn an installation of an appliance with a power supply cord.

Still i cant see how a flexible cord ceases to exist once a manufacturer puts a moulded cord cap on it.
 

cowboyjwc

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Simi Valley, CA
There are plenty of flexible cords that would negate the theory of deterioration in the suspended ceiling.

It is ridiculous to require a condensate pump to be hard wired when it needs to be remove regularly for maintenance when servicing a piece of HVACR equipment as required by the manufacturer.

Forget just deterioration, mice and rats and other rodents love this stuff for some reason. Many a transformer explosion has been caused by them.
 

infinity

Moderator
Staff member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Journeyman Electrician
There are plenty of flexible cords that would negate the theory of deterioration in the suspended ceiling.

It is ridiculous to require a condensate pump to be hard wired when it needs to be remove regularly for maintenance when servicing a piece of HVACR equipment as required by the manufacturer.

I agree, those pumps will fail long before the cord.
 

david

Senior Member
Location
Pennsylvania
I do not see how the scope of 62 or 817 changes the scope of 400.1.

It seems to me you are saying just because 62 and 817 sub-divide flexible cords into two different categories it changes them from being flexible cords.

From what was posted the standerd 817 1.1 and 1.2 both put this products use in a electrical system under the authority of the national electrical code

Scope of 817 1.1in accordance with the National
Electrical Code."
Scope of 817: 1.2 in accordance with the National
Electrical Code."

I guess if it said flexible (power) cord or flexible cord (set)

200.10 (E) Appliances steps beyond the premise wiring system and states before an appliance can be used rather connected to a premise wiring system it must have terminal identification, and interesting to this discussion it steps outside of the flexible cord language it simply says cord period. In fact it says before the appliance can be connected to a cord it must have terminal identification.
 

david

Senior Member
Location
Pennsylvania
What do I do with 680.7
if it comes with a flexible (power) cord I reject the equipment and make you field install a flexible cord because 680.7 said flexible cord not flexible power cord?

This discussion reaches far beyond use of power cords above ceilings let?s make sure what we are saying here.

What do you do with 680.7 limiting the use of flexible cords to three feet in length but go and buy a cord with a molded attachment plug and use any length because it is now a flexible power cord not a flexible cord.
 

sandsnow

Senior Member
So if a power spply cord is a flexible cord and power supply cords are not covered by the nec, then using a power supply cord to connect an appliance per 422.16 would be permitted. Section 422.16 only recognizes a flexible cord to be used.

Just trying to be just the tiniest bit sarcastic. Of course i wouldnt turn an installation of an appliance with a power supply cord.

Still i cant see how a flexible cord ceases to exist once a manufacturer puts a moulded cord cap on it.

First sentence should red "So if a power supply cord is NOT a flexible cord and power supply cords are not covered bu the NEC, then using a power supply cord to connect an appliance per 422.16 would NOT be permitted."
 

david

Senior Member
Location
Pennsylvania
First sentence should red "So if a power supply cord is NOT a flexible cord and power supply cords are not covered bu the NEC, then using a power supply cord to connect an appliance per 422.16 would NOT be permitted."

I agree but i see the scoping of 817 putting the use of a extension cord or a power cord for that matter under the authority of the NEC, and i do not see the scoping of 817 as un-classifying these under the general language flexible cords but rather sub dividing the classification as flexible power cords and flexible cord sets ( extension cords) and other molded end cords.

I totally agree with you if this is not the case than the use of power cords in any location that the code specifically calls out flexible cords as an approved method would rule out power cords in that application
 

al hildenbrand

Senior Member
Location
Minnesota
Occupation
Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
I think we're doing a great job of struggling with how broken the NEC is in relationship to the differences between a field assembled flexible cord and attachment plug vs. a factory manufactured flexible cord with a molded attachment plug. Looking to the existing enforcable language of the NEC, as written, one finds it is frought with omissions, lack of consistent definitions, and specific language that is inherently limiting when placed in relationship to the specific language of NRTL published standards.
200.10 (E) Appliances steps beyond the premise wiring system and states before an appliance can be used rather connected to a premise wiring system it must have terminal identification, and interesting to this discussion it steps outside of the flexible cord language it simply says cord period. In fact it says before the appliance can be connected to a cord it must have terminal identification.
David, 200.10(E) is an interesting reference. I read the section to describe a field assembled flexible cord and an attachment plug. The electrician takes a seperate attachment plug and assembles it with a cut length of flexible cord and then attaches the other end of the cord to the appliance.

This passage is wholly enforceable, in my opinion, consistant with the rest of the passages in the NEC and this published scopes of UL 62 and UL 817.

Because this flexible cord and attachment plug is field assembled, based on the careful reading of Article 100 Definitions, it is NOT part of the "internal wiring of the . . . appliance". That is, simply, the field assembled flexible cord and attachment plug IS part of the Premises Wiring (System).

This comes down to this trade's colloquial understanding of Outlet vs. what the NEC language actually says.

But, is the NEC pushing beyond the Outlet, really?

Consider,
  1. An oven with a factory assembled flexible metal conduit whip is field wired by connecting the whip to the Outlet.
  2. An oven that is hard wired in the field with a field assembled flexible metal conduit whip has the Outlet at the lugs in the oven body.
  3. An oven with a factory installed flexible cord and plug will be plugged into the Receptacle Outlet.
  4. . . . . now, . . the fourth variation is a mind teaser . . . If I, as the electrician, provide and install a flexible cord and plug to the wiring compartment in the body of an oven, and plug the cord into a Receptacle Outlet, is there an Outlet at the end of the cord in the wiring compartment in the body of the oven?
The pattern in #1 and #2 leads me to submit that the location of the last Outlet, the end of the Premesis Wiring (System), is tied to whether I, the field electrician, assemble the line side of the Outlet, or not.



So, in the case of #4, if I get a cord set off the truck and connect it to the back of the oven, the thrust of the new language in the NEC should attempt to convey that an Outlet occurs in the wiring compartment in the back of the oven.
 

sandsnow

Senior Member
In reference to the OP, what's the point of all this?

Is a code change in order to keep extension cords and power supply cords out of the ceiling?
OR...
Are the above cords ok above the ceiling and we should now just ignore it since they are not covered by the nec?
 

cowboyjwc

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Simi Valley, CA
In reference to the OP, what's the point of all this?

Is a code change in order to keep extension cords and power supply cords out of the ceiling?
OR...
Are the above cords ok above the ceiling and we should now just ignore it since they are not covered by the nec?

I think that's exactly his point. ;)
 

al hildenbrand

Senior Member
Location
Minnesota
Occupation
Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
In reference to the OP, what's the point of all this?

Is a code change in order to keep extension cords and power supply cords out of the ceiling?
OR...
Are the above cords ok above the ceiling and we should now just ignore it since they are not covered by the nec?
I think that's exactly his point. ;)
I agree. This is the nature of the question. Ryan, in his OP asks if we have "Any thoughts?" I take that to mean suggestions to help form Proposals for the 2017.
 

david

Senior Member
Location
Pennsylvania
I think we're doing a great job of struggling with how broken the NEC is in relationship to the differences between a field assembled flexible cord and attachment plug vs. a factory manufactured flexible cord with a molded attachment plug. Looking to the existing enforcable language of the NEC, as written, one finds it is frought with omissions, lack of consistent definitions, and specific language that is inherently limiting when placed in relationship to the specific language of NRTL published standards.

David, 200.10(E) is an interesting reference. I read the section to describe a field assembled flexible cord and an attachment plug. The electrician takes a seperate attachment plug and assembles it with a cut length of flexible cord and then attaches the other end of the cord to the appliance.

This passage is wholly enforceable, in my opinion, consistant with the rest of the passages in the NEC and this published scopes of UL 62 and UL 817.

Because this flexible cord and attachment plug is field assembled, based on the careful reading of Article 100 Definitions, it is NOT part of the "internal wiring of the . . . appliance". That is, simply, the field assembled flexible cord and attachment plug IS part of the Premises Wiring (System).

This comes down to this trade's colloquial understanding of Outlet vs. what the NEC language actually says.






I would apply it to a field installed pig tail (power Cord) as well for a range or a dryer .

It steps outside the scope of the premise wiring in that it dictates the terminals in the appliance, to allow the appliance to be connected t o the premise wiring or to a cord that connects the appliance to the premise wiring. Since you do not field assemble a pigtail you attach the pig tail to the terminals
in the field

To me this is the closes hybrid of both since doesn't truly seem to be a flexible cord or a power cord as you have defined them. It must be both

which standard applies to a pigtail? or is it just a cord
 
Last edited:

al hildenbrand

Senior Member
Location
Minnesota
Occupation
Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
I would apply it to a field installed pig tail (power Cord) as well for a range or a dryer. It steps outside the scope of the premise wiring in that it dictates the terminals in the appliance, to allow the appliance to be connected to the premise wiring or to a cord that connects the appliance to the premise wiring. Since you do not field assemble a pigtail you attach the pigtail to the terminals in the field
I'm not sure what the object of "It" is.

Also, in the definition of "Outlet", remember that an Outlet is a point on the premises wiring. . . not an object. In my use of the term outlet, as applied to the connection of a "pigtail" (to use your term for a manufactured length of flexible cord with a molded male attachment plug on one end and nothing on the other end). When I, as the electrician, install the pigtail to the appliance, the point at which the cord conductor connects to the appliance conductor, the appliance conductor being a manufactured part of the factory assembly, that point of connection is the "Outlet". Note, that this is the same thing that happens when I extend a Chapter 3 wiring method in a premises by assembling a length of flexible metal conduit containing a set of THHN conductors, plus an EGC if needed, to connect to the back of a range or an oven. I have assembled a flexible Chapter 3 wiring method right to the terminals in the back of the range or oven, and this is were the Premises Wiring (System) ends, in contact with the appliance terminals. That point of contact is easily seen as the Outlet.

So, in my hypothetical case in #4 in my post above (#91) that new language needs to be added to the NEC to make it clear that a field installed pigtail is part of the Premises Wiring (System).

Ultimately such new language would go a long way to clarify and simplify the legal boundary between NEC Premises Wiring and my liability as an Electrician, and more clearly establishes the liability of the Utilization Equipment manufacturer.
 

david

Senior Member
Location
Pennsylvania
I buy the handbook as a reference to assist in understanding / applying the NEC. I am aware the comments are not a legal reference. Does the code making panel look at the wording used in the hand-book.? If so CMP must not have a problem defining power cords as flexible cords. The handbook uses the term power cord in relationship to flexible cords.

I have nothing more constructive to add to this subject so I am moving on.

As we say goodbye to April soon I will say this, I am hard to get with an April fools joke, I was sitting at my desk listening to Mike on DVD, And the phone rings, I did not answer nor aware that they rang the phone in the other room. She says mike is on the phone I Said mike who, Mike Holt, I jumped Up and ran to the phone. I have stopped talking about Mikes materials to the family .
Anyhow I saw Mike?s comment in this thread I hope all is well from us who know you that you do not really Know.
 

sandsnow

Senior Member
I agree. This is the nature of the question. Ryan, in his OP asks if we have "Any thoughts?" I take that to mean suggestions to help form Proposals for the 2017.

Oops, missed that one little question.

If I were going to make a proposal, it would be to make mention in the scope of article 400 that it applies to power cords listed or field fabricated.
 

sparkyrick

Senior Member
Location
Appleton, Wi
I'm glad I ran across this thread. I'm currently wiring a dental clinic that will have video monitors hanging in each operatory. The monitor mount is firmly attached to a structural support above the suspended ceiling and then pokes through the ceiling down to the monitor. The mount has provisions to snake the monitor's power supply cord through the arm to above the ceiling, where I was told to install a receptacle. I thought that was a no-no, but the GC said "we just did it on the last job". I figured I better call my inspector and run it by him. Personally, I think a receptacle above the ceiling would be a cleaner (and easier) install :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top