overhead triplex

[don_resqcapt19]

But lets live in the real world and in the real world 310 applies to cables.

I am not sure what the "real world" is when applied to a legal document. In my opinion the only "real world" of a legal document is the words of that document.

 

[Volta]

Per the scope statement, Article 310 applies to conductors, not cable assemblies. It you want to apply it to cable assemblies, then we eliminate NM (which would be fine with me)

Well, let's look at that.

310.1 Scope. This article covers general requirements for conductors and their type designations, insulations, markings, mechanical strengths, ampacity ratings, and uses. These requirements do not apply to conductors that form an integral part of equipment, such as motors, motor controllers, and similar equipment, or to conductors specifically provided for elsewhere in this Code.

Informational Note: For flexible cords and cables, see Article 400. For fixture wires, see Article 402.

310.10 Uses Permitted. The conductors described in 310.104 shall be permitted for use in any of the wiring methods covered in Chapter 3 and as specified in their respective tables or as permitted elsewhere in this Code.

(A) Dry Locations. Insulated conductors and cables used in dry locations shall be any of the types identified in this Code.....

Cable assemblies include conductors. That is so well understood that it is not even defined within the NEC, save for Service Cables. Cables have not been specifically excluded from the scope of Article 310.

But if we were to assume that assemblies of conductors are not subject to the scope of Article 310, we may as well go for broke and exclude them from the scope of the entire NEC:

90.2 Scope.
(A) Covered. This Code covers the installation of electrical conductors, equipment, and raceways; signaling and communications conductors, equipment, and raceways; and optical fiber cables and raceways for the following:
(1) Public and private premises, including buildings, structures, mobile homes, recreational vehicles, and floating buildings
(2) ....

Would you then argue that all non-optical fiber cables are not within the scope of the NEC? :angel:

 

[iwire]

I am not sure what the "real world" is when applied to a legal document. In my opinion the only "real world" of a legal document is the words of that document.

The real world is how installers, contractors, inspectors and AHJs actually use and enforce the NEC. The real world is not what would happen if we took it to a court of law because no one does that.

 

[kwired]

They attempted to address that within the titles of the ampacity tables..."not more than 3 current carrying conductors in a raceway or cable", but based on the scope statement none of the rules in 310 that talk about cables are valid.

Maybe I am missing something but doesn't it say "in a raceway or cable" in the title of the table?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Maybe I am missing something but doesn't it say "in a raceway or cable" in the title of the table?

That is what I said in my post, but that does not make the Article apply to cables, it makes the ampacity tables apply to the conductors that are part of the cable assembly.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

....Cable assemblies include conductors. That is so well understood that it is not even defined within the NEC, save for Service Cables. Cables have not been specifically excluded from the scope of Article 310.

There are at least 12 NEC articles that include the term "cable" in the title of the article.
The code does not use the terms conductors and cables interchangeably. Scopes must state the scope of the article, and the scope of 310 does not include cables.

But if we were to assume that assemblies of conductors are not subject to the scope of Article 310, we may as well go for broke and exclude them from the scope of the entire NEC:

There are specific articles that apply to cables. Cables are included in the scope of the NEC, but are not included in the scope of 310.

Would you then argue that all non-optical fiber cables are not within the scope of the NEC? :angel:

I have never said that cables are not within the scope of the NEC. I said they are not within the scope of Article 310.

 

[kwired]

That is what I said in my post, but that does not make the Article apply to cables, it makes the ampacity tables apply to the conductors that are part of the cable assembly.

I do not disagree, we use the ampacity tables to determine conductor sizes and not cable sizes:blink:

 

[iwire]

I have never said that cables are not within the scope of the NEC. I said they are not within the scope of Article 310.

Don, I owe you a ton, I have leaned so much about the NEC and NFPA from you I could never return the favor.

That said I think your position here is a bit nuts.

 

[Volta]

.....

I have never said that cables are not within the scope of the NEC. I said they are not within the scope of Article 310.

But to be fair-minded about it, the applied logic must be the same for both 310.1 and 90.2.

Are cables within the stated scope of the NEC?

My answer? Yes. Although while they're not specifically mentioned, they are certainly within the associated scope, as the stated scope includes conductors.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Don, I owe you a ton, I have leaned so much about the NEC and NFPA from you I could never return the favor.

That said I think your position here is a bit nuts.

I guess my real position is that 310 does not apply to the construction of a factory made cable assembly. The triplex is a factory made cable assembly that is "identified" for use as an outside overhead wiring method. I don't see the rules in 310 that you cited as applying to the construction of a factory cable assembly.

What is the conductor type in UF cable?

...by the way it is not me that is nuts...it is the code....

 

[kwired]

I guess my real position is that 310 does not apply to the construction of a factory made cable assembly. The triplex is a factory made cable assembly that is "identified" for use as an outside overhead wiring method. I don't see the rules in 310 that you cited as applying to the construction of a factory cable assembly.

What is the conductor type in UF cable?

...by the way it is not me that is nuts...it is the code....

I can can possibly see your point as meaning typical overhead triplex does not contain conductors recognized by art 310, but before I thought you were referring to any and all cable types.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I can can possibly see your point as meaning typical overhead triplex does not contain conductors recognized by art 310, but before I thought you were referring to any and all cable types.

My original statement did say that and that is exactly what the scope says. As I said in a previous post, I am sure that is not the intent of the code, but it is what the words say.
I am not sure how I can say 310.10(C) or (D) does not apply to the triplex and still say that the rest of the Article does, so I just say that the Article does not apply to cable assemblies.

I don't think that the intent of 310 is to apply to the construction of factory cable assemblies. In the cable articles, other than 396, the construction of the cable is spelled out in the article. It also is in 396 for field assembled messenger wiring. It is not for "other factory-assembled, multiconductor control, signal, or power cables that are identified for the use". The only issue, to me is the term "identified" as that term is permitted to, but not required to, be read as "listed".