Plasma Cutter

[kwired]

How can both Part I and Part II apply to the same device? It's one or the other, or neither.

Part I is titled "General" and applies to all of 630, unless otherwise modified in another part. Or did you mean to mention II and III?
How can both Part I and Part II apply to the same device? It's one or the other, or neither.

 

[K8MHZ]

Part I is titled "General" and applies to all of 630, unless otherwise modified in another part. Or did you mean to mention II and III?
How can both Part I and Part II apply to the same device? It's one or the other, or neither.

Sorry.....you are correct. I meant II and III.

 

[kwired]

Sorry.....you are correct. I meant II and III.

I kind of thought that may be the case.

 

[K8MHZ]

Dude, you have it backward, the scope of 630 tells us in black and white it applies. You are claiming it does not. That means you are the one having trouble understanding how it is written.

Then help me understand. I am here to learn.

Which parts, II, III or IV, apply to plasma cutters?

IV applies to welding cables. Plasma cutters use a torch and hoses with electric conductors in it as a factory assembly. Only the manufacturer has control over the insulation requirement placed in 630.41. Take note of 630.42 (C). The required sign says 'CABLE TRAY FOR WELDING CABLES ONLY'. There is no provision for an N2 gas line, which is needed for a plasma cutter. A gas line is not a welding cable.

What I think happened is that the article had been around a while and then when plasma cutters hit the market, they were thrown into Part I without any thought about the other articles.

630 needs written clarification. The NFPA needs to tell us which type of welder a plasma cutter is to be treated as, or have separate articles for them. An EDM is also a machine that cuts metal by electric means. What type of welder do we assume an EDM should be treated as, code wise?

You are correct about Part I being in black and white about plasma cutters, but that's where it stops. The entire rest of the article is specifically geared toward welders and is distinctly, in black and white, titled as such.

I wonder if there are other articles that specifically mention a particular device in the General or Scope (Part I), and then never, not once again, in the entire article following.

Have any inspectors posted about this yet? It's what they really think that counts. You tell me 630 applies but you don't use it anyway. At least that's what I think you said.

 

[K8MHZ]

I kind of thought that may be the case.

We learned the new math when I was in elementary school and stopped using Roman Numerals way back then, so sometimes I screw them up.

:dunce:

 

[kwired]

We learned the new math when I was in elementary school and stopped using Roman Numerals way back then, so sometimes I screw them up.

:dunce:

I won't try to mess with you with binary, octal or hexadecimal number systems then

 

[K8MHZ]

I won't try to mess with you with binary, octal or hexadecimal number systems then

Thanks and thankfully, you don't come up with the letters and numbers used to identify sections of text in the NEC. It's bad enough as it is.

 

[GoldDigger]

It seems perfectly clear to me:
The entire article applies to plasma cutters, but none of the specific requirements within the article apply.
It is not all that unusual (in terms of formal logic) for something to be covered by a section but not restricted in any way by it.
Possibly the CMP was looking ahead to the future when they would add another section for plasma cutters and did not want to have to change the scope?
More likely they just screwed up and intended either II or III to apply but did not word it correctly.
My take on the current code status: The article applies but does not restrict plasma cutter operation in any way nor does it grant any exception to other more general code provisions.

 

[K8MHZ]

It is not all that unusual (in terms of formal logic) for something to be covered by a section but not restricted in any way by it.

Can you give me another example of that in the NEC?

 

[GoldDigger]

Can you give me another example of that in the NEC?

Not right off hand, but I would not be surprised to find one on careful inspection.

I agree that it is a screw up in that it would seem pointless to explicitly add plasma cutters to the scope if no action relative to them was intended. But rather than trying to guess what the CMP actually intended I am content to apply the current wording.

 

[Mgraw]

It seems perfectly clear to me:
The entire article applies to plasma cutters, but none of the specific requirements within the article apply.
It is not all that unusual (in terms of formal logic) for something to be covered by a section but not restricted in any way by it.
Possibly the CMP was looking ahead to the future when they would add another section for plasma cutters and did not want to have to change the scope?
More likely they just screwed up and intended either II or III to apply but did not word it correctly.
My take on the current code status: The article applies but does not restrict plasma cutter operation in any way nor does it grant any exception to other more general code provisions.

Actually if you look at 2005, when plasma cutters was added, the TCC changed the scope assuming a proposed 630.2 was going to be added by the panel. Don't know why 630.2 was not added but it wasn't.

Plasma cutters are part of "arc welding equipment" in UL listings.

 

[kwired]

Plasma cutters are part of "arc welding equipment" in UL listings.

I don't know a lot about them, but that right there may be a key statement about how they should be treated.

Curious about what may be typically stated on a nameplate. If it would say something like "Listed arc welding equipment" somewhere on the nameplate then I think it is somewhat obvious what article applies.

 

[Mgraw]

I don't know a lot about them, but that right there may be a key statement about how they should be treated.

Curious about what may be typically stated on a nameplate. If it would say something like "Listed arc welding equipment" somewhere on the nameplate then I think it is somewhat obvious what article applies.

Arc welders and plasma cutters have the same information listed as required by their standard.

 

[packersparky]

Can you give me another example of that in the NEC?

Article 422 Appliances maybe? The scope indicates that it apples to anything that is considered an appliance, but not all appliances are mentioned in the article. Just my two cents.

 

[iwire]

Have any inspectors posted about this yet? It's what they really think that counts.

Inspectors are not special.

You tell me 630 applies but you don't use it anyway. At least that's what I think you said.

I am not telling you 630 applies the NEC is telling every one of us 630 applies to plasma cutters. That is fact, to keep questioning it puts you further in left field.

And no, I have never personally used the allowances in 630 to wire a welder or plasma cutter.

I provide full size circuits.

 

[kwired]

Inspectors are not special.




I am not telling you 630 applies the NEC is telling every one of us 630 applies to plasma cutters. That is fact, to keep questioning it puts you further in left field.

And no, I have never personally used the allowances in 630 to wire a welder or plasma cutter.

I provide full size circuits.

If you are wiring for a more general use welder, they often just have a cord/plug already attached and you just provide a matching receptacle and branch circuit. If you were wiring production line machines, especially automated ones, then you may run into some more unique welding machines and would get deeper into what is in 630.