ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues Pendent receptacle question. Is this install code?

He cited 400.8(1)<cords not permitted> As a substitute for the fixed wiring of a structure.

If the pendant or the pigtail under the floor was started in a box, he was OK with it. You just could not have an extension cord for a load that was in regular use.
Needless to say power strips and orange cords suddenly disappeared.
Nobody ever argued with him. I am nowhere near that these days so I am not sure what the current thinking is in Ft Myers.

I just asked my wife and she says the "city of Bonita" will let you get away with an extension cord if it is strapped to the wall. That is as confusing to me.

Getting back to the original question, I don't think a cord connector in a 1900 box meets 210.23(H)(1) (pendant boxes)



That was why I asked if a Bell box with threaded entries and the appropriate strain relieving connector, would fill the bill.

Greg:

"That was why I asked if a Bell box with threaded entries and the appropriate strain relieving connector, would fill the bill"

Yes, by definition...that would be compliant.

The debate revolves around using 'cord' where a Chapter 3 wiring method could/should be installed.

A good example is the power for the 'spot' refrig/freezers in the 'club' stores that are rolled out for "specials".

I think we are getting back to your first answer. What does the AHJ say.
We always had that issue under a raised floor.
The most practical answer was a whip with SO cord and the appropriate Russell Stoll connector but it is hard to find a code compliant way to do it and the things they would agree to were far worse. The typical answer was FMC and a box but that is not legal either because there are no FMC connectors that are legal on a whip. Without the FMC being strapped to the surface within a foot of the box, the thing pulls apart. Same with a cord connect style R/S on FMC. It will not hold.

I think Joe T has some pictures I took showing the scary stuff that happens.

The best suggestion is to talk to the local AHJ.

I have seen a lot of scary things over the years, with SO/SOW/SJ, and yes even good old 'zip cord'.

I see a few 'cord drops' attempts in warehouses still by guys who slip in under darkness. The ECs that are the 'regulars' know the drill.

This gets back to 'you reap what you have sown.'

Prior to the '99 code, there was no problem with making your own equipment using ordinary boxes or cord caps. Then, along came an activist (no point naming him at this point).

That fine gent flooded electrical forums with pictures of damaged home-made 'power strips.' The usual culprit was simply missing screws, with physical damage coming in second. Next thing you knew, the code had that 'pendant' provision in it, and everyone was applying 'pendant' requirements to cords that lay on the floor.

Since then, there have also been two new code requirements adopted regarding 'industrial' covers.

I believe the code panel worded the 'pendant' requirement with the cast-iron "FS" box and Kellums grip in mind. Alas, the wording also allows for the use of a "Bell" box - and a simple field-added cord connector was banned. They also inadvertently banned the very nice Daniel Woodhead, UL-listed product (it has an integral clamp and no hub). Unintended consequences.

On another front, OSHA piled on, trying to incorporate unique GFCI requirements.

The biggest irony is that all this hoopla can be traced directly to UL's refusal to list 'power strips' for years on end, citing an expansive application to the 90-watt load calculation in commercial settings.

Let me give you one of the laws of life: where there is a need, it will be met. If you prevent folks from buying a solution, they will make one.

I'll give you another: It's simply impossible for any code panel to write a rule that can foresee every possible circumstance, now and forever.

Taking pictures of damaged equipment and using them to write a rule that you then apply to entirely different situations is nothing more than fraud put forth by a tyrant. The 'reformer,' in this case, has done this several times. I call it 'bait and switch.' Alas, it seems to be a common tactic these days.

There's also the arrogance of someone assuming that they possess the wisdom to second-guess decades of success by experienced professionals.