Feeder vs Branch Circuit?

[don_resqcapt19]

So are you saying the AHJ cannot force the removal of that plug strip based on Article 400?

That is exactly what I am saying, assuming the plug strip is has not been physically attached to some part of the building. Attaching the plug strip would be installing..setting it on the ceiling tile is not.

It would be interesting to see how that would play out if push came to shove in a court.

I would expect that the court would rule the sections based on the scope statement.

But in the real world those sections are enforced and not looked at as outside the scope of the NEC.

Only because most in the real world don't read the words in the code book

If we want to stick within the scope all the required outlets and switches are design issues that should not be in the NEC yet they are and they are regularly enforced.

I agree, that for the most part these are design issues and not code issues.

 

[iwire]

I would expect that the court would rule the sections based on the scope statement.

I do not think either one of us really has a clue what the courts would say.

I think there is also something called precedent that the court apply.

 

[iwire]

The way I see the difference, Bob, is that nailing a box onto a stud, attaching a conduit to that box, running wires through the conduit and into the box and attaching them to a receptacle, then screwing the receptacle securely onto the box does, collectively, constitute "installing" the receptacle. Placing a portable lamp onto an end table and plugging it into a wall outlet does not, in my opinion at least, constitute "installing" the lamp.

I was not talking about if the NEC applied to those receptacles or not I was pointing out requiring outlets is a design issue and outside the scope of the NEC.

 

[One-eyed Jack]

I'm not sure that this flies. 240.3 says that equipment shall be protected in accordance with the article listed in table 240.3.

240.4 talks about the protection of conductors. And the Parts of Art 440 listed in T240.4(G) only talk about branch circuit conductors for Air Conditioning & Refrigeration equipment. A feeder would have to be protected by 240.4.

I think the #8 feeder in Gus' example would be a violation.

If a branch circuit is equipment ref. T240.3 then a feeder can be a specific conductor application ref.240.4(G)

 

[RB1]

Augie,

I hate to ruin your fun but Article 440 amends the rules of Article 430. The feeder rule of 430 will prevail in your scenario .

 

[One-eyed Jack]

Augie,

I hate to ruin your fun but Article 440 amends the rules of Article 430. The feeder rule of 430 will prevail in your scenario .

I agree. This directs us to 440.22 which loops all the way around to the MOCP for air cond/ref.

 

[augie47]

It was mainly for thoughful converstion. Speaking of which, I'm not sure where the Code states Art "440 ammends the rules of 430".
Can you reference that ?

 

[RB1]

440.3(A) These provisions are in addition to, and amendatory of, Article 430 and other articles in this code, which apply except as modified in this article.

 

[One-eyed Jack]

it was mainly for thoughful converstion. Speaking of which, i'm not sure where the code states art "440 ammends the rules of 430".
Can you reference that ?

430.63 (2)

 

[pfalcon]

I tend to say that if it is not "installed" it is not subject to the rules in the NEC. Pluging a cord or plug strip into an outlet above the ceiling is not installing the cord or plug strip.

I have stated in the past, and still maintian, that many of the rules in the code, especially in Article 422 are total invaild as they are completlety outside the scope of the code.

422 is valid in that it applies to the design. Ex: Build a house with a microwave shelf. The receptacle provided must meet 422. Ex: After the build, if the HO asks you to install a mounted microwave then the receptacle you wire to power it must meet 422.

So are you saying the AHJ cannot force the removal of that plug strip based on Article 400?

He can if it's part of your installation inspection (designed in). Without an intent for the receptacles there is no basis to reject it.

It would be interesting to see how that would play out if push came to shove in a court. But in the real world those sections are enforced and not looked at as outside the scope of the NEC.

Again, if it's not required by a design then who is going to refuse to unplug it to pass inspection. If it is required by design then the inspector has scope to judge it.

If we want to stick within the scope all the required outlets and switches are design issues that should not be in the NEC yet they are and they are regularly enforced.

IMO, wiring established as part of a design is and should be subject to the NEC. Forcing inclusion of specific wiring such as the number/location of outlets/switches isn't all good.

Ex: Installing a built-in microwave should be a builder/buyer issue. If elected, then the wiring practice is a NEC issue.