I love getting high!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pierre C Belarge said:
Actually, I believe that 310.8(C), (D)
Click to expand...

If that is 'just' ASCR it is not listed so neither 310.8(C) or (D) will apply. ASCR will not comply with 310.11 specifically 310.11(A)(2)

I already mentioned if it was dual rated ....... say XHHW etc. all would be fine. :smile:


and 310.13, the second paragraph do permit the type of cable 480 installed.
Click to expand...

Where can I find 'ASCR' in Table 310.13(A) to go along with that paragraph?
 
hurk27 said:
To me this looks like a common farm type service, with the metering at the pole by the garage and feeders feeding the different loads by aerial cable?

We have a few of these around here on farms
Click to expand...


Now where did I say it is not commonly used? :D


I may have used some in my past. :smile:
 
Well, to tell you the truth, the ACSR is the least of our worries.

The wedge clamps I used aren't listed either. And I didn't see a NRTL sticker on either that pole or the roof while I was there.

No amount of bathing will cleanse me now.
 
chris kennedy said:
I will suggest you give it a shot just the same.
Click to expand...


_bathtime__by_Ellie_Muffin_Girl.gif
smiley-chores036.gif
smiley-chores035.gif
 
iwire said:
It was a joke dog. :D

Back on topic, I seem to recall Bob Alexander and Charlie both mentioning ASCR is in a bit of no mans land as far as the NEC.
Click to expand...
Joke went over my head.:smile:

Reading your other posts, I guess we can tie the triplex up in an NEC knot, so why not just call this setup inside the POCO jurisdiction?

If we strung this past the service point, I guess we would have NEC issues. Now I'm trying to remember if any of the triplex I've seen in the plants were not going to additional service points...and the only ones that come to mind right now are the ones where the POCO may have donated some of the wire to the cause.
 
iwire said:
If that is 'just' ASCR it is not listed so neither 310.8(C) or (D) will apply. ASCR will not comply with 310.11 specifically 310.11(A)(2)

I already mentioned if it was dual rated ....... say XHHW etc. all would be fine. :smile:




Where can I find 'ASCR' in Table 310.13(A) to go along with that paragraph?
Click to expand...
I don't see why it has to be a type listed elsewhere in the code. From Table 396.10(A). (with no Article listed in the right hand column)
Other factory-assembled, multiconductor control, signal, or power cables that are identified for the use
Click to expand...
The issue would be "identified for the use" as that can be read to require a listing, but it doesn't have to be read that way. It is my opinion that the fact that it is extensively used for this exact purpose makes it "identified for the use".
Identified (as applied to equipment). Recognizable as suitable for the specific purpose, function, use, environment, application, and so forth, where described in a particular Code requirement.
FPN: Some examples of ways to determine suitability of equipment for a specific purpose, environment, or application include investigations by a qualified testing laboratory (listing and labeling), an inspection agency, or other organizations concerned with product evaluation.
Click to expand...
 
I can't get past how funny post #5 was, I think I cracked a rib laughing
so hard!!! :D

Why weren't you wearing your "Bee-Suit" making the connection to
the line? :smile:
 
Karl H said:
I can't get past how funny post #5 was, I think I cracked a rib laughing
so hard!!! :D
:smile:
Click to expand...

I'm with you. There's nothing like this forum for good entertainment on the first night of a holiday weekend. Stoke up the Barbee!!:smile: And a big thank you to all who have and still do stand up for our freedoms!!!
 
iwire said:
Don, I have not seen any ASCR that complies with 310.11 and I see nothing that relives the requirements of 310.11.
Click to expand...

Does someone have a response to this man? I would like to see this to a resolution if there is one. I have installed this stuff on the load side of the meter often enough, and never gave it a second thought. Yes, Bob, I was going with the reason that we've always done it this way.
 
In my opinion, it seems that Messenger Supported Wiring is such a distinct wiring, it has it's own article in the 300 section of the NEC would say to me it is its own wiring method. just like romex, AC, Etc...

Multiplex cables utilizing a bare conductor, factory assembled and twisted with one or more insulated conductors, such as duplex, triplex, or quadruplex type of construction, is clearly one of the accepted type allowed in this section. no where does it state this manufactured assembly must use a conductor listed in table 310.13(A) the same way 334 does not require the individual conductors in NM cable? because it is a cable assembly. this is why it's not there. and also this is why it has it's own article in the 300's of the NEC. it is a manufactured wireing method that is reconized by the NEC as a factory assembled cabl just like romex, AC, MC Etc....

I ask this where are the conductors of romex, AC, MC cables listed in the table 310.13(A)????
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top