Line voltage and low voltage in bored hole

[electrofelon]

The SER is power cable not a power conductor.

I understand your position and would agree with you if it were not for the exception #1. Why is that exception there for certain cable types if (A)(2) is not talking about conductors in cables too?? It is a complete waste of ink. I am forced to conclude they mean conductors whether or not they are in a cable assembly or not. SER is not on the list in the exception, so I conclude it must be separated from a communications cable by at least 2".

 

[iwire]

I understand your position and would agree with you if it were not for the exception #1. Why is that exception there for certain cable types if (A)(2) is not talking about conductors in cables too?? It is a complete waste of ink. I am forced to conclude they mean conductors whether or not they are in a cable assembly or not. SER is not on the list in the exception, so I conclude it must be separated from a communications cable by at least 2".

I don't know what to tell you other than your conclusion is incorrect, I am moving on.

 

[tom baker]

You cannot take THHN conductors, run them into a box and staple them to a stud. However you can do that with a cable. Cable and conductors are not the same thing. The NEC defines NM cable "as a factory assembly of two or more insulated conductors enclosed within an overall
nonmetallic jacket."

I agree with you, clearly the NEC does not require seperation between a low voltage cable and a cable, or more correctly, a chapter 3 wiring method. Those that disagree should publish their own Understanding the NEC text showing how this is a violation.
Its time to move on, maybe this post subject should be like the ground up, or ground down and we don't allow it.

 

[tom baker]

I do not really agree with that. The code seems to treat a power cable the same as a conductor. Perhaps it is analogous to the the idea of object permanence: An outer sheath doesnt make the conductor go away See 800.133(A)(2) and exception #1 (that is the code section I was thinking of in my previous post).

Ok so if you believe this to be true, then email Mike@MikeHolt.com, ask him your question and let us know the answer.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The code tends to interchange the use of the terms conductors and cables. These terms are not defined in the code and they probably should be. The CEC is addressing this issue for their 2018 code. The following is from an article that appeared in a recent issue of the IAEI Magazine.

[FONT=&quot]In this article we will discuss upcoming changes regarding definitions of conductors and cables for the 2018 Canadian Electrical Code Part I (CE Code). In June of this year the Technical Committee for the CE Code voted on and agreed to the following definition changes in Section 0 of the CE Code:
Conductor — a conductive material that is con*structed for the purpose of carrying electric current. a wire or cable, or other form of metal, installed for the purpose of conveying electric current from one piece of electrical equipment to another or to ground.
Bare conductor — a conductor having no cover*ing or electrical insulation.
Covered conductor — a conductor covered[/FONT][FONT=&quot] with a dielectric material having no rated dielectric strength.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Insulated conductor — [/FONT][FONT=&quot]a conductor covered with a dielectric material having a rated dielectric strength.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Cable — [/FONT][FONT=&quot]a complete manufactured assembly of one or more insulated conductors which may also include optical fibres, fillers, strength mem*bers, insulating and protective material, having a continuous overall covering providing electrical, mechanical and environmental protection to the assembly.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Jacket — [/FONT][FONT=&quot]a non-metallic covering on a cable which provides mechanical and environmental pro*tection for the cable.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Wire — [/FONT][FONT=&quot]see Conductor.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[electrofelon]

Ok so if you believe this to be true, then email Mike@MikeHolt.com, ask him your question and let us know the answer.

Mike holt is just a man like everyone else.

I like how everyone just says I am wrong and doesn't comment about the wording in the exception. It says what it says whether you like it or not. Shouldn't that wording be eliminated or it changed to say just "cable assemblies" or "all cable assemblies" then?

 

[wwhitney]

I understand your position and would agree with you if it were not for the exception #1. Why is that exception there for certain cable types if (A)(2) is not talking about conductors in cables too?? It is a complete waste of ink. I am forced to conclude they mean conductors whether or not they are in a cable assembly or not. SER is not on the list in the exception, so I conclude it must be separated from a communications cable by at least 2".

I agree with your logic except I'm not convinced that "nonmetallic sheathed" cable as listed in the 800.133(A)(2) Exception 1 means only type NM. I would think it would cover all cables with a nonmetallic sheath, including SER.

For example, in 300.4, Protection against Physical Damage, section (B)(1) covers nonmetallic sheathed cable passing through metal framing members. Do you feel that SER cable is not included in the requirements of 300.4(B)(1)?

I think the intention is to include all cable types in 800.133(A)(2) Exception 1.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[steve66]

I don't understand. What would be your response if you were cited on 800.133?

Wouldn't the outer covering on SER cable also be considered a "continuous and fixed nonconductor" per exception #2?

 

[steve66]

The code tends to interchange the use of the terms conductors and cables. These terms are not defined in the code and they probably should be. The CEC is addressing this issue for their 2018 code. The following is from an article that appeared in a recent issue of the IAEI Magazine.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

Actually, cable is defined, but only in and for article 800. That probably makes it even more confusing.

 

[electrofelon]

I agree with your logic except I'm not convinced that "nonmetallic sheathed" cable as listed in the 800.133(A)(2) Exception 1 means only type NM. I would think it would cover all cables with a nonmetallic sheath, including SER.

For example, in 300.4, Protection against Physical Damage, section (B)(1) covers nonmetallic sheathed cable passing through metal framing members. Do you feel that SER cable is not included in the requirements of 300.4(B)(1)?

I think the intention is to include all cable types in 800.133(A)(2) Exception 1.

Cheers, Wayne

I had considered that, but I concluded that since they also mention type UF cable in the exception, that "nonmetallic sheathed" must refer specifically to article 334, otherwise there would be no need to put UF in the list. Your reference to 300.4(B) is worth considering. Upon re-reading that however, IMO they are referring to article 334 there. IT just seems too sloppy and confusing to used "non metallic sheathed cable" as a homograph.

Wouldn't the outer covering on SER cable also be considered a "continuous and fixed nonconductor" per exception #2?

IMO then the insulation of a conductor would qualify so communication cables could be run with power conductors, then they should just eliminate 133(A)(2) all together. (I interpret the last word in exception 2, "wire" to refer to the communication wire not the power and light wire. If you take "wire" to refer to the power and light conductor, then you may have a sound argument, however there is still the logical inconstancy of what would then be duplicate and un-necessary wording in exception 1).


I actually dont have a dog in this fight. I know it it be common knowledge and practice to place communication wires in close proximity to power cable assemblies, and am pretty sure that is the intent of the code. However, as we often do on this forum, I find a logical problem in some of the wording. I feel there are several options for (A)(2):
1. If cables are not conductors, just eliminate the discussion of cable in the exception 1 as it thus serves no purpose. (perhaps add an informational note stating such).
2. Rephrase the exception to more generally refer to all cable assemblies.

...And yeah yeah I know: I am free to make a proposal for the next code cycle