1 members (Scott35),
477
guests, and
11
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,682 Likes: 3
OP
Administrator Member
|
Home owner decided to install a drop ceiling and wanted the soft glow of lights above the cloth material that he used. Fortunately he was stopped before the soft glow became an open flame.
Alan Nadon
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 582
Member
|
Alan, Who determines the distance required from an incandescent bulb to combustibles? I'm not familiar with an easy referenced code to indicate a violation. I have a wall sconce that is sometimes very close to the curtains (depending on the position of the curtain), but I'm not sure it's a violation.
Ron
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,443 Likes: 3
Member
|
Ron, Does it have to be an electrical violation to constitute disconnecting a thing like this?. Common-sense would tell me that a thing like this can only end in tears.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 806
Member
|
I would think the use of open-cleat lampholders, what appears to be zip cord and the nice flying splice from the ceiling box is more than enough to warrant the red sticker. Plenty of electrical reasons for a disconnect here. And since there is always the possibility of one of those incand. bulbs shattering and dropping hot glass and maybe sparks on the cloth, come on. What more do you need? A better solution would be an enclosed luminare, wired with proper methods and preferably flourescent. That would give the desired effect with minimal or no hazards. edited to add: And last time I checked, open cleat lampholders were hard to get and somewhat pricy. It probably would have cost less to do it right anyway. [This message has been edited by mxslick (edited 07-26-2006).]
Stupid should be painful.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 58
Member
|
Regarding the clearance issue, the closet code section (2002 - art. 410.8) would probably be a good place to start. Aren't the distances specified because of "distance to combustibles" and "protection from physical damage" issues?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 582
Member
|
I'm not saying that the installation method is a good one, I'm suggesting that a keyless lampholder doesn't seem to be a violation. I was not able to see the zip cord or the splice without a box. Clearly those violations should be tagged, but the lampholder itself .... I'm not sure that is a technical violation of the NEC. That area is not a closet.
Ron
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,498
Member
|
I claim that light installation (or at least the stuff used) is close to 100 years old! That's twisted cloth lamp cord! That stuff belongs into a museum!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 745
Member
|
Ranger: As strange as it may sound, that stuff is still available here. Our city recently completed a full remodeling/rebuilding project of a turn of the century railroad depot (the last century, that is ). The electrical system in the building was completely replaced, but the lighting fixtures throughout consist of the traditional (for that time) bare light bulbs in new brass sockets hanging from the 12' high ceilings with that twisted cloth covered rubber "drop cord" stuff. Really strange in a remodel where everything alse is completely code compliant - boxes, conduit, receptacles, circuit breakers, etc. They were going for "atmosphere", I guess... Mike (mamills) [This message has been edited by mamills (edited 07-27-2006).]
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,498
Member
|
Yeah, you still get it here too, but the price is _real_ steep! So with that kind of job I'd guess old work.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 399
Member
|
Check NEC 2005 Section 110.3 (A) 5 Lampholders are not luminaires or else 410.65 would be the place to start. Alan--
Alan-- If it was easy, anyone could do it.
|
|
|
Posts: 356
Joined: August 2006
|
|
|
|