ECN Forum Forums Photo Discussion Forums Violation Photo Forum Violation Photos II

Bozo's Electrical Code, article 99.243:

(1). Where the installation of a proper electrical box and fixed cabling will prove to be either (a) too expensive or (b) too much trouble, it shall be permitted to install any type of cord with minimal support.

(2). Any such cord so installed shall be connected to existing building wiring using splices which shall be left open to allow for air-cooling and visual inspection.

Definitions:

"Too expensive": The estimated cost of following the NEC will exceed $5.

"Too much trouble": The estimated time to complete the job following NEC rules will exceed 10 minutes.





[This message has been edited by pauluk (edited 08-05-2005).]

Is there an actual code violation in the first picture, or is it just showing what the cable goes to?

I'm thinking the conduit body supporting the fixture is a violation.

My thought was that the conduit body was being used as a j-box, which I don't think is kosher..

410.16F The EMT doesn't seem to be supporting the fixture very well, i.e. sag. One could also read in some of 314.23F. RMC would be better choice, that is if the c-codulette is rated to have splices in it.

The other stuff is just crack shack type garbage.

Mark,
What's a crack shack!? Hopefully not a bordello, methinks!
Alan

Crack Shack: See Crack House

Source Urban Dictionary

The use of a conduit body at the base of the light brings up an interesting "loophole."
We can assume that splicing in this body is OK. Oddly enough, had they used a box, they would have had to support it. Conduit bodies have no such requirement.

In the 3rd picture, where the yellow cord enters the sawed off conduit and conduit body, it looks like the stripped off cord jacket is clamped under the conduit body cover. As if he was trying to do that for strain relief to protect the connections inside. Of course he didn't quite meet code....