This is an interesting change. I was taught to think that ONE reason for all the efforts to separate class 2 and 3 wiring from class 1 and power wiring was to protect the technician who thinks he is only dealing with 24 volts from inadvertently getting nailed with higher voltages. I guess this change pretty much nullifies that notion. All they must be concerned with is fire, induction, and fire/smoke characteristics of unprotected cabling!
Re: 725.52(A) Ex. #2#79456 01/01/0210:31 AM01/01/0210:31 AM
Just changing the the wiring method doesn't make a Class 2 system a Class 1 system. I realy have no idea what CMP 16 was trying to do here. If this is applied in the way that it reads, it does away with 725.55 and I don't think that is the intent. Don(resqcapt19)
Re: 725.52(A) Ex. #2#79458 01/01/0210:52 AM01/01/0210:52 AM
I think the key phrase in this is "installed as Class 1 circuits." This, as you point out, would require the use of an article 300 wiring method.
I can't imagine why someone would want to just go out & change & existing Class 2 or 3 installation, but there are plenty of times in new work where going to Class 1 makes sense.
This issue was posed at an IAEI chapter meeting several years ago (can't remember which chapter & when) & the response was split about evenly.
If the entire installation complies with Class 1 wiring requirements with an article 300 wiring method, I don't see the hazard that would be introduced. When I see an article 300 wiring method, I presume I'm dealing with at least 120 volts. On the other hand, I have seen lighting outlets wired with doorbell wire and telephone wire. What a surprise that would have been for someone if they cut the cable!
Don, sometimes I think the new code books should come with a deck of Tarot cards.
[This message has been edited by Tom (edited 01-01-2002).]
Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example.
Re: 725.52(A) Ex. #2#79459 01/01/0211:26 AM01/01/0211:26 AM