"Where subject to physical damage" is a phrase open to a variety of interpretations. In the case of service cables the consequences of that possible damage should be given serious consideration, in my opinion.
I don't know much about power company fusing, but from the stories of the POCO workers when these cables short in a residence they shoot fire until the workers disconnect them.
With this understanding of potential fire hazard I provide the best physical protection. IMO if Type SE is exposed, outside or inside a residence...it is subject to physical damage.
My personal opinion is that using SE is the cheap way of doing it. I prefer doing services in RNC and copper wire. But the contractor I work now can make more money using SE, so SE cable is what we use.
And as far as I'm concerned, the load side from the meter (on residential services) is always subject to damage. If it were up to me, all load sides from the meter would be mandatory conduit.
Re: Service Cables-Protection-Art.230.50#95531 09/22/0508:03 PM09/22/0508:03 PM
Please understand what that I am trying to say here.
As a licensed contractor that has been through the price battles of trying to win a bid just so there will be work for my help, I must defend the man trying to make a dollar.
I have desires and wishes that I would like to implement in the electrical trade but the bottom line for the contractor is the making of a profit. The desires of the help although very important do not make a profit and if I don’t make a profit then there will be no employees.
To use a quote such as, “My personal opinion is that using SE is the cheap way of doing it” may very well be a true statement the truth of the matter still lies in what the market will allow for a profit.
edited for spelling
[This message has been edited by jw electric (edited 09-23-2005).]
Re: Service Cables-Protection-Art.230.50#95532 09/22/0509:32 PM09/22/0509:32 PM