Receptacles and suspended ceilings

[roger]

Does anybody have any idea why a code panel wishes to exclude cords from above a suspended ceiling ?

Originally Posted by roger
The change clarifies that flexible cords cannot be located above a suspended ceiling. However, wiring within a raised floor is permitted, because this space is not considered a concealed space.


Under the raised floor isn't considered concealed space but above a suspended ceiling is ?
That's bulls**t !!!

There's got to be an actual reason !
Why would anyone on a code panel care if there was a cord above the drop ceiling ?

David

David, I actually agree with you.

BTW, to clarify for you or anyone reading your post, the commentary isn't mine.


Roger

 

[Smart $]

...please answer yes or no to the following question.

Since "Pendants" are specifically permitted to be connected by flexible cord, 400.7(A)(1), you say it is legal to run this cord strapped to a structural ceiling, through a door way, then strap it to a wall for say 10 feet, then through a hole in the wall, then strap it up a wall to a suspended ceiling, then through a hole in this suspended ceiling to a receptacle located above the ceiling, is this correct?

Remember yes or no, I don't need your expert "intent" interpretation.

I can't in good conscience dignify your question with a yes or no answer. Your question is outright absurd. Even if I didn't know a lick of code, I would never install a pendant (or any item of 400.7) in such a manner, legal or not (except perhaps a temporary power and/or lighting run). One thing I would like to point out to all readers is that in this discussion I am only assuming the role of agitant. In "real life" I am an advocate of 400.8, but not wholeheartedly. Some situations need to be excepted...

However, as you mentioned "a waste of ink" earlier, paul32 brings up (as I had thought of doing) the counterpoint... where is the referenced "specifically permitted in 400.7"? Is the phrase "Unless specifically permitted in 400.7" a waste of ink?

From a totally new perspective, consider the following depiction, where the yellowish object represents a flexible cord or cable that is supported at the very top of its run and hanging perfectly plumb. Is it above and/or concealed by the suspended ceiling?

Consider the following depiction in the same manner. Is it above and/or concealed by the suspended ceiling?

In both cases the answer is NO, it is not above the ceiling... it is above itself for the entire length. If you said it is above the ceiling in either case, you are not a very technical minded person. Yes, it is above the plane of the ceiling, but not the ceiling itself. As to whether it is concealed by the ceiling, who's to say? How big must the gap in the ceiling be before it is considered not concealed by the ceiling?

[Added] Oh, btw, I drew the depiction without the perimeter walls for the sake of clarity... typically one would not even be able to see the ceiling from the depicted viewpoint.

 

[Smart $]

I think the underfloor is allowed only under the conditions as defined by Article 645 and is intended to address the needs of modern day computer rooms. There are other parameters that must be met per article 645 to be compliant.

Perhaps, but there are no noted exceptions to 400.8(5)

With regard to the receptacles above the ceiling. I think we can all agree, it's done all the time. It nevertheless is not allowed by the code (except where exceptions apply) and probably should be a topic of discussion for the 2008 code.

Agreed!

 

[roger]

Awww come on, give me a yes or no answer to my question, absurd or not, it will make it easier on you.

You seem to want to selectively pick what is SPECIFICALLY allowed by "Unless specifically permitted in 400.7 that you brought to the table.

You have been putting your post together since around 4:00 or 5:00 PM this afternoon, I saw when you started your reply but wasn't concerned enough to log the exact time, but it sure took you a long time.

This is the second thread where you have not directly answered a question I have asked, is this going to be a pattern?

Help a naive (maybe) person out here and answer the question please.

It maybe easier just to admit you had too many beers when you were making your statement that those here have no reading comprehension skills and move on.

Here is where you told us we couldn't comprehend yesterday at 11:41 PM;

All in all, everyone seems to be reading 400.8 as if the phrase "Unless specifically permitted in 400.7..." is not even there!

Now maybe you see me as being illiterate, naive, or a sarcastic Witt, but I can assure you the others you are demeaning with your statement are not. (well maybe there are some other sarcastic Witt's

)

Since you want to put more words in your answers than a yes or no, lets go back to your your questioning our reading ability again and tell me who by name in this thread can not understand "Unless specifically permitted in 400.7..."

Yeah, I'm putting you on the spot but I don't really expect an answer with your track record.


Roger

 

[Smart $]

Goad me all you want, you will not get a yes or no answer to your question. No I don't want to selectively pick what is or isn't specifically permitted. The only thing I intended [with emphasis] is to point out that 400.7 and 400.8 contain a circular reference which cannot be resolved in the vernacular sense. It really is this simple!

 

[roger]

Okay,

you will not get a yes or no answer to your question.

I didn't think so and with that being the case, let's move on to other topics.

Roger

 

[infinity]

Goad me all you want, you will not get a yes or no answer to your question. No I don't want to selectively pick what is or isn't specifically permitted. The only thing I intended [with emphasis] is to point out that 400.7 and 400.8 contain a circular reference which cannot be resolved in the vernacular sense. It really is this simple!

I have heard this argument before but I agree with Roger and Mike Holt. The latter is the one who created the graphic and commentary that Roger posted.

 

[ceknight]

I can't in good conscience dignify your question with a yes or no answer.

You probably should consider it, since you brought it up. Roger handed it back to you in a recognizably absurd counterexample and asked whether you were willing to stick to your claim.

If you're as technically-minded as you implied, you would've already seen that and answered his question. With a "yes", I might add.

From a totally new perspective, consider the following depiction, where the yellowish object represents a flexible cord or cable that is supported at the very top of its run and hanging perfectly plumb. Is it above and/or concealed by the suspended ceiling?

Yes, it is above the suspended ceiling. It's not directly above a suspended ceiling tile, but it's very much above the ceiling.

Consider the following depiction in the same manner. Is it above and/or concealed by the suspended ceiling?

Same answer, sorry. If you think ceilings disappear when you cut holes in them, you have failed to understand the concept "ceiling".

In both cases the answer is NO, it is not above the ceiling... it is above itself for the entire length.

It may be above itself, but it's also above the ceiling.

Sure, you can describe any situation in many different ways, but you have to use the most salient description for any particular context. And you aren't.

If you said it is above the ceiling in either case, you are not a very technical minded person.

I'll take issue with that, too. I'm a better logician than I am electrician, and I still maintain that it's above the ceiling.

 

[dlhoule]

Help a naive (maybe) person out

Roger, will you quit talking about me like that. It may be true but you don't have to point it out to everybody.

IMO if you have a grid for a ceiling up there and go above the height of that grid, you are above the ceiling.

 

[roger]

Roger, will you quit talking about me like that. It may be true but you don't have to point it out to everybody.

IMO if you have a grid for a ceiling up there and go above the height of that grid, you are above the ceiling.

I'm sorry Larry. I know in reality you are not naive so I want do it again.

Boy, your second sentence does show you are not very technically minded though.

Whew, I tickled myself there.

Trevor and Chris, thanks for your support


Roger

 

[kbsparky]

I find it interesting in all this discussion that only a few have realized that the use of an item like a condensate removal pump on an air handler located above a suspended ceiling should qualify as exempt from 400.8, due to its being identified in 400.7(A)(8). Such an item is certainly itended to be used with flexible cord connection, and be located to permit ready removal for maintenance and repair.

With that in mind, I respectfully disagree with that part of Mike Holt's graphic that shows such an installation to be a violation.

On another note, no one has answered the issue (raised earlier in this thread) of using a receptacle above a ceiling to provide power for low voltage devices, such as wireless nodes for local area networks (LAN). These devices utilize so called "Wall warts" for their power source. Such devices are plug-in transformers (and thus have no "flexible cord" associated with them), and their output terminals are usually along the lines of 12 VAC or 12 VDC, and as such provide the beginnings of "Class 2" wiring.

IF you want to look elsewhere in the Code you will find that class 2 wiring is indeed allowable in such spaces as above suspended ceilings, and the provisions of 400.8 do not apply to such installations!

 

[iwire]

With that in mind, I respectfully disagree with that part of Mike Holt's graphic that shows such an installation to be a violation.

That makes two that disagree and hundreds of electricians and inspectors that are wrong.

I am entirely with Roger on this, I can't even believe this is under debate.

 

[roger]

I find it interesting in all this discussion that only a few have realized that the use of an item like a condensate removal pump on an air handler located above a suspended ceiling should qualify as exempt from 400.8, due to its being identified in 400.7(A)(8).

Just because others including myself have not mentioned it in their posts does not mean we have not realized this, the bottom line is, until there is some specific allowance to do so, it remains a violation if we are reading 400.8, what say you?

Such an item is certainly itended to be used with flexible cord connection, and be located to permit ready removal for maintenance and repair.

Yep, I agree, I also agree that most electric retractable movie screens are too, but once again, until there is some specific allowance to do so it remains a violation if we are reading 400.8.

With that in mind, I respectfully disagree with that part of Mike Holt's graphic that shows such an installation to be a violation.

Mike is just pointing out the fact, maybe you should make a proposal to change this fact.

On another note, no one has answered the issue (raised earlier in this thread) of using a receptacle above a ceiling to provide power for low voltage devices, such as wireless nodes for local area networks (LAN). These devices utilize so called "Wall warts" for their power source. Such devices are plug-in transformers (and thus have no "flexible cord" associated with them), and their output terminals are usually along the lines of 12 VAC or 12 VDC, and as such provide the beginnings of "Class 2" wiring.

In your opinion tell us where you start the "Class 2" wiring, before or after the transformer, right or wrong, this will give you your answer.

IF you want to look elsewhere in the Code you will find that class 2 wiring is indeed allowable in such spaces as above suspended ceilings, and the provisions of 400.8 do not apply to such installations!

Same as above, where do you start the "Class 2" wiring, before or after the transformer?

Roger

 

[kbsparky]

Just because others including myself have not mentioned it in their posts does not mean we have not realized this, the bottom line is, until there is some specific allowance to do so, it remains a violation if we are reading 400.8, what say you?

I assert that if a piece of utilization equipment is manufactured to be installed above a ceiling, such as a projector, or a condensate pump and is a listed piece of equipment, then by association that listing means that it falls under the exceptions provided by 400.7, and can be allowable since 400.8 recognizes there are circumstances where such installations are permitted.

Yep, I agree, I also agree that most electric retractable movie screens are too, but once again, until there is some specific allowance to do so it remains a violation if we are reading 400.8.

See previous paragraph. The listing of such a piece of equipment which is specifically manufactured to be installed in a ceiling and comes with a line cord for power trumps 400.8 since it can be exempted by use of 400.7(A)(8)

Mike is just pointing out the fact, maybe you should make a proposal to change this fact.

It was my hope that those who work with Mike would point out this contradiction to him and maybe he can modify his graphic to reflect the exceptions provided by 400.7.

In your opinion tell us where you start the "Class 2" wiring, before or after the transformer, right or wrong, this will give you your answer.

The class 2 wiring starts at the transformer output terminals. But as I pointed out before, these devices do not have a flexible cord, as they plug directly into the receptacle. Do not lose sight of the discussion that 400.8 deals with flexible cords, and wall warts should not be subject to that section, since they have none.

 

[iwire]

I assert that if a piece of utilization equipment is manufactured to be installed above a ceiling, such as a projector, or a condensate pump and is a listed piece of equipment, then by association that listing means that it falls under the exceptions provided by 400.7, and can be allowable since 400.8 recognizes there are circumstances where such installations are permitted.

If this view is correct than there would be no need for 645.5(B)(1) as that equipment is already listed for the purpose.

For what it is worth I doubt you will find any of these condensate pumps specifically listed for use above a ceiling.

It was my hope that those who work with Mike would point out this contradiction to him and maybe he can modify his graphic to reflect the exceptions provided by 400.7.

So the NEC handbook authors are also mistaken?

It's possible but unlikely everyone has this wrong except you and 'smart'.


2002 NEC Handbook

The flexible cords and cables referred to in Article 400 are not limited to use with portable equipment. They may not be used, however, as a substitute for the fixed wiring of a structure or where concealed behind building walls, floors, or ceilings (including structural, suspended, or dropped-type ceilings). See 240.5 and 527.4(B) and (C) for the uses of multiconductor flexible cords for feeder and branch-circuit installations, and for overcurrent protection requirements for flexible cord. See 410.30 for cord-connected luminaires.

 

[Smart $]

...the plot thickens and on the edge of my seat again...

 

[iwire]

...the plot thickens and on the edge of my seat again...

If you lived where I do you would not be on the edge of your seat.

There is no plot.

No concealed cords unless specifically allowed....end of story.

 

[roger]

Since Bob already addressed the "listed for the use" part I'll leave it there, but

The class 2 wiring starts at the transformer output terminals. But as I pointed out before, these devices do not have a flexible cord, as they plug directly into the receptacle. Do not lose sight of the discussion that 400.8 deals with flexible cords, and wall warts should not be subject to that section, since they have none.

my point exactly, so why bring it into this thread, grasping for straws as smart has been doing?

Smart, how about answering the questions I have asked you in this thread and the other, I know you will avoid the yes or no part since you are going to selectively pick the issues, but what about the other questions?

This is not "goading" you, I am sincerely interested in both threads.

Roger

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

Most of the concealed screens and the ceiling mounted projectors come with a mounting bar that has provisions for mounting a 1900 box that will have the face of the receptacle face down into the room area from the ceiling, with a plate mounted flush with the bottom of the ceiling tile. I just did an inspection where this was the case, I did not take pictures, maybe next time.

Wall warts are transformers, and as per 450.13(B), can be installed in "hollow spaces" (above suspended ceilings). The conductors on the load side are Class 2 if the transformer is listed as such.

I am glad everyone seems to be quite vocal about their stance in this thread, it shows a passion for what we do. Eventually all of this kind of stuff will pass through a "ceiling" of painful threshold and get ironed out. (sorry that was a poor attempt at being funny! , I guess that my humor would violate some rule in the NEC.

Smart, you say you cannot read minds, yet you know the intent... would you not need to read their minds to know their intent?

 

[Smart $]

Smart, you say you cannot read minds, yet you know the intent... would you not need to read their minds to know their intent?

Perhaps. But I did not purport to know the intent, just that there is intent beyond the semi-concise wording put to print.

All proponents of the "not allowed no matter what" interpretation are pointing to references outside 400.7 and 400.8. Yet nobody seems to be addressing the main issue I put forth. So if you want any direct answers from me, answer that one question first to an unquestionable degree (I seriously doubt any of you can). So I ask you all again, why is the phrase, "Unless specifically permitted in 400.7..." in 400.8?