ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Al Hildenbrand - Minneapolis - obituary
by bcpappas - 02/02/23 08:01 PM
Violation?
by renosteinke - 01/27/23 09:52 PM
Does NEC 551.71 (F) apply to dwellings?
by BigB - 01/20/23 10:46 AM
Power submeter connections
by HotLine1 - 01/19/23 09:09 AM
New in the Gallery:
Burger King crown sillyness
Burger King crown sillyness
by wa2ise, December 11
240/208 to a house
240/208 to a house
by wa2ise, October 9
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 23 guests, and 17 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,749
Member
Here's the close up.

This is not acceptable as installed. The existing cover was used to secure the screws that attached the add on cover and "holder", I doubt that this was listed or "approved"

Remember, here in the USA we use the NEC and the definition of approved is very clear.

[Linked Image]


Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
R
Member
It appears from the close up picture that there is a violation of 406.4(D).
Don


Don(resqcapt19)
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,803
Member
Does that say "NOT US APPROVED" on the blue tape?
Alan


Wood work but can't!
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,749
Member
No, it includes the UL listing information for the cord.

Approved is defined as "acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction."

See the FPN for those who might be that person.

Thanks Don, I agree that your 406 reference is the correct citation.


Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 134
R
Member
I like it....
True story...teenagers arrive at camp...have choice of unplugging a freezer or a clock that are plugged into one outlet. Needless to say a week or two later there was a science experiment in the freezer. I like the idea of keeping something plugged in. Let's face it we don't want 30 amp discos on the walls of our homes but I also don't want my daughter's friends unplugging the freezer to play their CDs.

I'm sure it's not designed to be used at a strain relief. It's an airport; any free outlet will be occupied or unplugged by the first traveler with a dead notebook or cell battery. So...what's on the other plug.

I still like it. Anyone able to find where to buy it. I can't possibly be a homebrew. It looks to nice, lacking duct tape, etc.

RSlater,
RSmike

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,749
Member
A "traveler with a dead notebook" was using the top of the receptacle.

Seems practical, but is it going to meet 110.2?


Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,432
Likes: 3
Member
I see screws there that could be used to remove the clamp that holds the plug in rather easily.
Not a bad idea as far as plug retention goes, saves important equipment being inadvertantly disconnected.

Joined: May 2005
Posts: 23
T
Member
I don't think this is a violation of 406.4(D). The stainless steel cover complies. There is no possibility of debris or other objects being allowed into the box, due to a gap between the receptacle and the cover plate.

Just because the accessory plate gives the receptacle a recessed appearance, doesn't mean that the receptacle doesn't project from it's cover plate. [Linked Image]

It looks to me as though the cord can be removed easily enough with a lift and a counter-clockwise motion. [Linked Image]

Edit to add:
Quote
Seems practical, but is it going to meet 110.2?
If it's UL listed, then the AHJ doesn't have much to stand on. Using 110.2 as a last-ditch citation is pretty flimsy, IMO.

[This message has been edited by The_Judge (edited 05-28-2005).]

Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
R
Member
Quote
I don't think this is a violation of 406.4(D). The stainless steel cover complies. There is no possibility of debris or other objects being allowed into the box, due to a gap between the receptacle and the cover plate.
That section has nothing to do with preventing debris into the outlet box. Its purpose is to make sure that the attachment plug can be fully inserted into the receptacle. That cover will prevent full insertion with some types of attachment plugs and can lead to a poor connecting and damage if the load is high. Look at the new (2005) Exception #2 to this section. This permits a cover over the receptacle itself with a maximum thickness of 0.04 inches. This exeception was placed into the code over strong objections from UL. Their objections were based on the fact that the attachment plug cannot be fully inserted. The extra thickness of the device in this thread appears to far exceed 0.04".
Don


Don(resqcapt19)
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,749
Member
Most AHJ's and Electricians really do understand what 110.2 states!

The fledgling code reader will learn this in time, in the meantime the concept may delight some, and if the product is listed that's just fine!

I would put the burden of proof of the installer.

110.2 Approval. The conductors and equipment required or permitted by this Code shall be acceptable only if approved.

FPN: See 90.7, Examination of Equipment for Safety, and 110.3, Examination, Identification, Installation, and Use of
Equipment.

See definitions of Approved, Identified, Labeled, and Listed.


Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Featured:

Tools for Electricians
Tools for Electricians
 

* * * * * * *
2023 National Electrical Code (NEC)
2023 NEC Now Available!
 
* * * * * * *

2020 Master Electrician Exam Preparation Combos
2020 NEC Electrician
Exam Prep Combos:
Master / Journeyman

 

Member Spotlight
Trumpy
Trumpy
SI,New Zealand
Posts: 8,432
Joined: July 2002
Top Posters(30 Days)
BigB 4
triple 3
Popular Topics(Views)
303,025 Are you busy
232,129 Re: Forum
216,836 Need opinion
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5