ECN Forum Forums Photo Discussion Forums Photos for General Discussion Does the NEC permit this?

2004 Cal.EC 400.10 Flexible cords and cables shall be connected to devices and to fittings so that tension is not transmitted to joints or terminals. Which I believe is refering more to connection to the appliances etc... But does this FPN cover this application. FPN Some methods of preventing pull on a cord from being transmitted to joints or terminals are knotting of the cord, winding with tape, and FITTINGS designed for the purpose.

I don't like it simply because you can't unplug it.

If they wanted it hard-wired, shouldn't it have a disconnect instead of this engineered marvel?

Silly me...I thought that's what twistlocks were for...?

Mike (mamills)

It's been awile since I've seen these- and personally, I think that the idea has some merit.

Growing up, we were always told of how fires start because plugs get only partly pulled out, and then get hot. This device is one way to reduce this risk.

The ones I remember were flexible enough that you could bend them out of the way if you wanted to unplug something, but did a decent job of keeping the plug in the socket. The only "downside" was that, with the advent of the three-prong plug, right angle plugs, etc., the things often just didn't fit.

I a perverse way, the use of these things might almost be required by the UL listing- of the alarm system. I wouldn't be surprised if security comes running if this machine gets unplugged- and UL's alarm folks really frown on false alarms.

That looks a heck of a lot like an extension cord to me. Is it, Joe?

I don't think that 422.33 would allow this if it were meant to be used as the disconnecting means.

It looks like a good tug on the cord might pull off the whole face of the receptacle and both the metal and plastic plates with it

It would appear that one could fairly easily remove the plug from the receptacle. I would say that it's not really secured in place, but rather is guarded from accidental disconnection.

As Mike said, I don't see that it does anything that's much different from a Twist-Lock(R).

Let me ask the big question ... does this come as a unit (faceplate and keeper) or do we drill and tap the plate? If it comes as a unit, is it approved? If so, we have no argument (no legality argument); if not we have a violation in the modification of the plate.
That's my 2 cents worth.

If you look carefully, the retainer is a 3 sided box fixed with screws set diagonally, so it will be a lot more rigid than appears at first glance.
Alan

I don't think it was an extension cord. I will check when I get home on Sunday.

The first comment about the twist lock seemed to be made, because it would not require this type of setup.

The outer cover was added on the top of the existing cover, so if this cord was pulled away the entire assembly would be damaged!

I will add a closeup later.