Debate over cord definition

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

brother

Senior Member
Location
"I have learned, in whatsoever STATE I am, therewi
I think this is petty, but its still a debate that was going on. It's my understanding that cords cannot be installed above suspended ceilings 2008 NEC 400.8 even though I don't see any real safety issues with it.

Well, there's this camera that some people wanted to install and the receptacle is above the ceiling. As you can see, they want to plug the camera in there above the ceiling, and they claim it's just a plug in transformer and that the cable is not a 'cord' its a just a low voltage cat 5 or whatever cable to the camera and its just low voltage above the ceiling its not 120 on the cable. They claim its not a 'cord' by definition, even though I say it is.

I see no real safety issue with this, but the language in the code does not seem to allow it and in my opinion its a silly debate. But what is your understanding of this article, is it a code violation or no?
 
I see no real safety issue with this, but the language in the code does not seem to allow it and in my opinion its a silly debate. But what is your understanding of this article, is it a code violation or no?
Click to expand...

Its a very real safety issue.
Flexible Cord is not intended to replace the permanent wiring of a building and is intended to be visible for its entire length.
It tends to deteriorate in hot locations, such as a ceiling.

In the 02 and 05 code cycles, the language on cords above the ceiling was tightened up to make it clear that cord is not allowed above a suspended ceiling.

And a suggestion with the utmost respect to you. If you feel strongly that the rules in 400.8 are silly, please consider making a code proposal for the 2014 NEC. But you will need some technical substantiation on why you feel its safe.
 
Tom,
The posts in this thread have created question in my mind which I have not answered yet by checking Code sections.
I understand and appreciate the limitations of 400.8.
That said, if Brother's wiring can be classified as Class 1 or Class 2 as defined in Art 725, is it a violation of 400.8 to use cord above a ceiling as Art 725 wiring ?
 
augie47 said:
Tom,
The posts in this thread have created question in my mind which I have not answered yet by checking Code sections.
I understand and appreciate the limitations of 400.8.
That said, if Brother's wiring can be classified as Class 1 or Class 2 as defined in Art 725, is it a violation of 400.8 to use cord above a ceiling as Art 725 wiring ?
Click to expand...

IMO if the product used is listed in Table 400.4 then article 400s restrictions apply regardless of the application.
 
iwire said:
IMO if the product used is listed in Table 400.4 then article 400s restrictions apply regardless of the application.
Click to expand...

I can buy that. So if one uses a PLTC cable, etc. in a Class 1 or 2 application, all is fine ?
 
brother said:
I think this is petty, but its still a debate that was going on. It's my understanding that cords cannot be installed above suspended ceilings 2008 NEC 400.8 even though I don't see any real safety issues with it.

Well, there's this camera that some people wanted to install and the receptacle is above the ceiling. As you can see, they want to plug the camera in there above the ceiling, and they claim it's just a plug in transformer and that the cable is not a 'cord' its a just a low voltage cat 5 or whatever cable to the camera and its just low voltage above the ceiling its not 120 on the cable. They claim its not a 'cord' by definition, even though I say it is.
Click to expand...

If this application is a plug in transformer (known by some as a "wallwart"), and the cable on the load side is a Art 725 cable, there is no issue with plugging in the wallwart above a drop (suspended) ceiling.

Actually, it is one of the reasons why there is no restriction on receptacles being located above drop ceilings.
 
I agree with Pierre.

If its a plenum space its plenum cable, if not then CMR CMG.

I wish they made a plenum rated aftermarket plug and cord.

Then we could avoid this discussion altogether.

I just don't see it as a big big issue. If I can rewire the device with a plug and cord that has a plenum rating, regardless of class1, 2, 3, its should not then matter. Of course, not all devices lend themselves to rewiring.
 
Last edited:
iwire said:
Or we could just do our job and run a chapter 3 wiring method. :cool:
Click to expand...

Oh I agree, I would hardwire a power supply off the outlet, but, a lot of the jobs I am thinking about have a spec and it doesn't pay for that type/amount of work. I stopped doing the best practice thing, since its neater, stronger, without being paid for it.
 
The reason some have such an issue for cord installation is that they are not aware of the requirement, and are affected AFTER the install. All of a sudden it becomes more of an issue. Yet these same installers will adhere to other code requirements without a thought...because they are aware of those requirements.;)



Just take a look at which chapter the Article for cords (Art 400) is located. Chapter 4 is EQUIPMENT. The NEC considers cords equipment, not wiring methods. Take a peek at the next Article as well.
 
I forgot about TC. I will try getting a change order to replace the non-permissible cords when I see them. $)
 
tom baker said:
Its a very real safety issue.
Flexible Cord is not intended to replace the permanent wiring of a building and is intended to be visible for its entire length.
It tends to deteriorate in hot locations, such as a ceiling.
Click to expand...
For the very common case of the IEC cable, to be used on a LCD or plasma telly hanging through the roof, if the real issue is heat affecting the cable then the answer is not to ban the installation outright, but to use suitably rated cable. "Hot condition" IEC cable sets exist, which are rated to 120F rather than the standard 70F.
 
tom baker said:
Its a very real safety issue.
Flexible Cord is not intended to replace the permanent wiring of a building and is intended to be visible for its entire length.
It tends to deteriorate in hot locations, such as a ceiling.

In the 02 and 05 code cycles, the language on cords above the ceiling was tightened up to make it clear that cord is not allowed above a suspended ceiling.

And a suggestion with the utmost respect to you. If you feel strongly that the rules in 400.8 are silly, please consider making a code proposal for the 2014 NEC. But you will need some technical substantiation on why you feel its safe.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood my post. I do not feel that the rules of 400.8 are all silly, I said the debate was silly. see my quote.
...
brother said:
I see no real safety issue with this, but the language in the code does not seem to allow it and in my opinion its a silly debate. But what is your understanding of this article, is it a code violation or no?
Click to expand...

The debate these guys were haveing on what truly is a 'cord' by definition. The Nec doesn't really define what a 'cord' is from what I understand. I have my understanding of what a 'cord' is and they have theirs. I believe that plug in transformer with the hardwired/manufactered 'corded' cable going to the camera is a cord, just like the 'cord' on your plug in transformer/converter for the cell phone to charge.

I don't see a safety issue with plugging in that transformer (or wall wart as Pierre calls them, if we are talking about the same thing), but I still have to say that in my opinion the NEC will not allow it because of the way the language is written.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top