ECN Forum
Posted By: renosteinke "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/05/15 12:44 AM
I figure it's time we had a thread to specifically address the use of fittings that accomplish, as best I can tell, things you're not allowed to do.

Now, it's possible that my understanding of the NEC is flawed. After all, all of the fittings I intend to bring up are UL listed- and UL, as a matter of policy, will NOT list something for which there is no code-compliant use.

Today's fitting is a new one, proudly introduced by Bridgeport Fittings. The fitting is intended to allow for the direct connection of MC to EMT. Look at it here: http://www.bptfittings.com/Home/ProductDetail?id=00781747944562

Now, the existence of this fitting brings up any number of tangents ... but I'd like to limit our discussion to one: namely, is there EVER a circumstance where you can use this fitting?

Some might say "sure- I can eliminate a box and just extend the MC wires back into the pipe, as far as I need to go, until I get to a box I really need."

The problem is- and feel free to correct me here- I think the NEC requires the wires to be marked with insulation type, etc. .... and NO ONE makes MC with marked wires.

What do you think?
Posted By: HotLine1 Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/05/15 05:01 AM
Common acceptable practice is the use of 'from-to' fittings to eliminate the need for a box. Over the many years I have been in the trade, I have seen, used, made up many a transition from cable to raceway, etc.

To get to the core of your topic, the markings on conductors IMHO in a situation would not raise a question.

I seem to remember seeing markings on some #12 or 10 MC. It was stranded for sure. I'll reach out for the EC who is on that job to check. I'm not disputing what you say Reno, I just feel it is something that just gets by without ????


Posted By: gfretwell Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/05/15 06:02 PM
I agree if you extended the conductors from MC cable through the EMT it is a technical violation. I also think that, presented with it, I would say it was better than another splice.
There should be marking on the MC cable that will suffice to tell me what the conductors are.

If this is FMC that they are using, no foul at all.
You should be pulling a marked discrete conductor anyway.

Since you don't have a firmly mounted box it will make strapping that EMT termination more important. (assuming you are transitioning to a whip)
Posted By: Tesla Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/06/15 03:33 AM
The only thing missing is the markings...

But, since they erupt from a listed cable assembly -- MC -- and the EMT is even more protection than the aluminum 'tape' used by the MC...

I don't see a problem.

I've never heard "boo" about it from any inspector.

Now, obviously, if the MC was internally marked you'd be satisfied...

Of course, the wire used is THHN or better. These days THWN-2 is the norm.

It's required by the standards of the MC -- which is pitched as being able to handle generally wet conditions -- but not submerged conditions. (There's PVC coated MC for that.)
Posted By: electure Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/06/15 05:25 AM

They said the "Use of Antishort bushings is required on AC/MC" too.

AC yes, MC no.
Posted By: gfretwell Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/06/15 05:53 AM
There are still guys who want to see the bushing on MC but I agree it is usually not necessary.
OTOH if this connector actually says you need bushings in the instructions it is a 110.3(B).

I am still trying to think of where I would use this fitting.

Posted By: Tesla Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/06/15 09:13 AM
Scott,

In Sacramento County, the AHJ DOES insist on red hats for MC.

BTW, the various listed fittings ALWAYS have a port so that - said red hat can be viewed.

&&&&

The reality that red hats are not needed everywhere has caused the trade to ship MC coils with either no anti-short bushings at all -- or just a teaser baggie -- with just enough red hats to be suggestive.

Inserting the red hats is such an insignificant labor burden that I pay the issue no heed.

Hereabouts, no-one ever uses AC -- except where mandated. (Hospitals, for the most part.)

&&&&&&&&&&&

For those wondering why AC instead of MC -- AC has a MUCH heavier 'tape' wrapped around it... and always did.

THAT'S the original, primary, reason why it was spec'd.

Then, as time went by, and low voltage electric devices became universal in hospitals, the redundancy of a belt and suspenders approach was deemed THE way to go.

Lest anyone forget, half of these gadgets are hooked indirectly into the blood stream! This makes the patient part of the equipotential ground plane.

So, hospital grade AC became endowed with additional grounding conductors.

Even with additional grounding conductors, MC tape is simply not deemed enough protection against physical abuse -- which you should read to mean: earthquakes and nuclear blasts.

Posted By: electure Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/06/15 03:58 PM
Originally Posted by Tesla
Scott,

In Sacramento County, the AHJ DOES insist on red hats for MC.


http://www.southwire.com/commercial/nema-bulletin-90.htm

All of California is on basically the 2011 NEC, with CA Energy Code Amendments (2013 CEC)
They are only allowed to add their own local amendments to Building Codes under certain very limited conditions (seismic, climatic, etc)

I'd be willing to bet that the requirement isn't written down anywhere.

I personally use them even though they aren't required
Posted By: HotLine1 Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/08/15 12:08 AM
I see about 60-70% of MC installs with red heads. I guess IF the MC comes with the red heads, why not use them.

Back to Reno's fitting.......
Posted By: renosteinke Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/08/15 05:09 PM
"Red heads" are, strictly speaking, outside the range of this thread. After all, there's no rule AGAINST using them.

By contrast, let's look at this clip made by Caddy:
http://www.erico.com/category.asp?category=R1106

This fitting is one of many that are designed specifically to attach conduit and boxes to suspended ceiling grids. I've seen installations that used these clips, so it's possible that they were allowed at some time.

Today, though, I can see no situation where the NEC allows anything to be supported by any suspended ceiling.

I don't buy the "for positioning only" disclaimer.

What about the lack of a UL listing? As best I can tell, supports are not required to be listed. Caddy lists its' "minerallac" style hanger, but not the one-hole straps. As best I can see, code allows you to hang pipe using rubber bands, shoe laces, and bubble-gum ... as long as you're not hanging it from the ceiling grid!

IS there any 'legal' use for these t-bar fittings?
Posted By: HotLine1 Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/08/15 05:42 PM
Reno:
Text in the link also states...see 300.11

300.11 (A) states near the end of the text "Cables and raceways shall not be supported by ceiling grids."

IMHO, that Caddy item is useless as far as code compliance.

Posted By: Tesla Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/08/15 06:34 PM
The PATA conduit reference points to such usage in South America.

Everything about them points to retrofit work.

ERICO used to have an entire suite of cheesy clips oriented towards running EMT immediately above a T grid -- junction boxes included.

They never made economic sense during a TI.

But I can certainly see them being used by service electricians for this or that....

As for myself, if I had to pull circuits during a service call -- above a soft lid -- I'd go with MC virtually every time.

I can't say as I've ever run across one -- installed or otherwise!
Posted By: KJay Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/18/15 04:31 PM
The Bridgeport brochure seems to indicate that the MC change-over fitting is UL listed, so if wire marking is the actual problem, then wouldn't that mean that technically you couldn't strip and terminate things like MC, NM or SE cables in a device box, ceiling box, panel board, service equipment, appliance or light fixture, etc., since the individual unbroken conductors are not marked with their UL/ETL listing, voltage rating or insulation type. I'm just wondering if there is some type of maximum NEC length limitation for listed cable assemblies that have the outer jacket removed for splicing and termination.
Posted By: gfretwell Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/18/15 06:51 PM
This is pretty much an unenforceable rule. Certainly you could say the 6-8" of wire exposed in the box is statistically likely to contain the once every 2' writing but it is not a certainty. I also have not seen anything embossed on the jacket on most of the MC I see. Maybe it is just my old tired eyes, I have a hard time reading glass fuses too.

I think we all ignore those device to device jumpers that are made up from scraps of wire from cables.

Certainly it is a rule and if I see something that looks like "automotive" wire I would get a bit more curious but if it looks like THHN and it is the right size, I would give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it is THHN. I guess you could chew on the insulation a little and see if it tastes like THHN. wink
Posted By: Tesla Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/18/15 10:15 PM
IIRC Jay, such standards are NEMA standards....

And since the industry is using the same - or nearly the same --wire drawing machines it's not an issue of economics to have the product information rolled onto the outer cover.

This is also how the NEMA crowd brands their wire.

As you might imagine, not one of the NEMA players wants knock-off THHN entering the American market.

At some point, legal jargon has to stop and common sense an common practice have to 'step up.'

Posted By: renosteinke Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/19/15 02:37 AM
The point has been made at this forum several time that you may only use listed / Chapter3 wires in a raceway. Does anyone recall the code reference that was cited?

A box is a box, and not a 'raceway,' thus the issue does not arise for pigtails in boxes.

There's also a 'listing and labelling' issue. UL requires conductors (wires) to be marked every so often with certain information, including the NEC abbreviation for the type of insulation.

MC is listed as a 'cable,' and is evaluated as a whole. While UL allows a variety of standard insulation types to be used within the MC, the only marking required is that on the outer jacket of the MC. There's no requirement to mark the individual conductors.

While, as far as I know, all MC is made using ordinary building wire (such as THHN), it's not required that the insulation be identical in form and thickness to building wire. One can speculate that unlike 'ordinary' wire, thinner, or alternative, insulation being present. After all, the individual wires will never be exposed to sunlight or pulled through pipes.

Without the marking we don't KNOW the wire meets Chapter 3 requirements ... so we're technically not allowed to run it through a raceway.

The same issue applies to NM.

That's why I question how the fittings can be used in a code-compliant manner.
Posted By: renosteinke Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/19/15 02:42 AM
Make sense or not, I've encountered entire office buildings that were wired using t-grid clips, mounting pipe and boxes directly to the grid. It's actually a pretty decent way to power the lights. That's why I was surprised to see the NEC outlaw them.

Posted By: Tesla Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/19/15 06:10 AM
Californian earthquakes convinced most that the grid fails pretty catastrophically.

It's at that point that the grid-supported schemes revealed themselves to be sources of ignition.

To top it all off, the manufacturers of the grid, itself, wanted no part of the liability that would come from sanctioning such a scheme. (Johns Manville, IIRC.)

So when the question was put to them they rejected the whole idea.

Imagine what the politics must have been. JM (and others) all denying that their product was ever engineered to tolerate such a burden. ("...And thanks for finally asking us about it.")

Posted By: gfretwell Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/19/15 06:28 AM
Quote
The point has been made at this forum several time that you may only use listed / Chapter3 wires in a raceway. Does anyone recall the code reference that was cited?


310.11

If you left the marker tape in the MC with the bundle of wires
it could be said they were identified but it still would not satisfy 310.11(B)(1)
Posted By: KJay Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/19/15 01:08 PM
One problem I see with applying 310.120 "Marking" as a standalone article is that it states "All Conductors and Cables". Cable assemblies are made up of conductors, so the way it reads you would also have to include equipment conductors, since there is no exception or reference back to other articles that allow for equipment grounding conductors to be bare, covered or insulated. AFAIK, only insulated conductors are marked, so technically bare and covered equipment grounding conductors wouldn't be allowed to be used anywhere, not even in raceways or cable assemblies, but I've never heard of any inspector applying the article that way.
Posted By: gfretwell Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/19/15 05:31 PM
Perhaps they should add "insulated" to the description of the conductors that need to be marked wink

It is implied that if the cable has marking on the jacket or a marker tape in the bundle, that is what describes the conductors. They did add the "D" section that allows individual conductor marking in lieu of cable jacket marking in 2011 when this moved from 310.11 to 310.120

Maybe this is how Reno's fitting became legal./
Posted By: HotLine1 Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/20/15 03:00 AM
Gentlemen:
Has anyone had a violation for using a 'from-to' on any type of cable to a raceway?

I know quite a few 'nit pickers', and to the best of my knowledge, they have not touched this issue. The 'field created from-to' was a red tag item for a while, but that issue subsided with the listed items being available.

(That subject was beaten unmercifully on this and other trade forums, and was a 'topic' at CEU seminars)

Tesla referenced 'rolling on' for the conductor ID. Fact is that a mfg plant here uses a form of laser printing, and has for quite a few years. That facility runs 16Ga to 750KCMil building wire (no cable) with 90%+ being THHN/THWN, THHN/THWN-2. It is an interesting plant to take a .05cent tour.

Yesterday, I pulled the conductors from HCF MC, and it sure looks and feels like THHN/THWN.

I also had a sample piece of MC with the #10AL bond wire that was a 'fad' item; the neutral conductor was marked with..... (fill in Fri AM)

I, for one would not have any issue with the trade practice of using a 'from-to' cable to raceway.

Posted By: KJay Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/20/15 03:04 AM
I'm still having a hard time finding anything that specifically states conductors installed raceways must be marked.
IMO, if the issue really is just that the conductors are not marked after the outer cable jacket is removed, then I think we would have to apply the requirement of 310.120 unilaterally instead of possibly cherry picking where we want it to apply. I see that 300.14 gives the minimum length for cables and conductors at outlets, junctions and switch points for splicing and terminating, but still doesn't seem to alleviate the supposed issue of conductor marking once the outer jacket is removed. If this is the case, then how could we splice or terminate MC or NM cables after the outer jacket is removed, whether it's just 6-inches or 6-feet.
300.10 states what types of conductor insulation can be used, but doesn't actually have any requirement to mark these conductors with their insulation type.
NEC 300.15 [F] actually seems to allow the type of MC fitting above to be used.
Arlington also has a similar #8600 fitting that has been in use for several years around here for transitioning NM cables to 1/2" EMT for and is allowed without issue as long as the fitting is accessible after installation.

At least manufacturers are willing to disclose what type of conductor insulation is used for MC, SE and UF cables, but with NM we are still only left to assume that it complies with 310.10.
Posted By: gfretwell Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/20/15 04:12 AM
I think that even sillier for an inspector is that marking tape in the bundle for MC cable. Isn't that one of the first things you snip off when you are dressing the end to go in the box? I get there the next day and there is nothing to see. I just have to believe my eyes for wire gauge and that AFC or whomever is following the standards in that cable. That was really an issue when *some* MC cable was listed "wet" and some wasn't, even with the bare aluminum armor.
I remember the first time I questioned it and the guy brought me the box. Either that was the cable he was using or he just carried around the box wink
Posted By: HotLine1 Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/21/15 01:48 AM
Perhaps we should leave the conductor id in cable to something that has long been missing within the "Code".......

Good old 'Common Sense'!!!

I think we all would be concerned when the 'imported' cable starts to be available here.
Posted By: gfretwell Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/21/15 02:25 AM
The bottom line is this might be more of a NEMA thing than NEC or U/L. I didn't look to see who"s idea it was in the ROP but they put a line in 310.120 that allows the printing to be on the conductor in a cable. That may mean they have a new wire machine that prints the info on the conductors cheaper than any other way.
Posted By: renosteinke Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/21/15 08:08 PM
I'm a bit disappointed that others have not come forward with additional fittings to discuss. I'm sure there are others out there!

The illuminated closet rod would be a good choice- except that I personally made the proposal that got it into the NEC.

"Classified" circuit breakers are also another classic instance of a direct conflict with "listing and labeling." UL's contradictory statements regarding just which markings, exactly, constitute the part of the labeling to which the NEC applies are rather amusing. I can only say that my internal UL sources assure me that UL is really, really sorry they tried to be nice at one time and tried to throw Square D a bone.
Posted By: gfretwell Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/22/15 07:15 AM
U/L was throwing Cuttler Hammer a bone when they "classified" Challenger breakers for Square D panels.
We used to have a CH rep and a U/L rep in our IAEI chapter and they was good friends with Jim Pauley from SqD who used to do seminars all the time. We were guaranteed to hear the whole classified breaker story every time Jim was in town.

Personally I never saw it as being a big deal. If U/L evaluated the breaker in that panel, I believe them, no matter what SqD says.

I always saw the U/L label as being about like Conagra telling me Hebrew National hot dogs should be served on Peppridge Farm bread with Guldens mustard.
Posted By: renosteinke Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/22/15 03:55 PM
Sorry, Greg, but your source is misinformed.

The first party to submit breakers for testing in someone else's panel was a Taiwan firm. The first UL knew of the submission was when a crate arrived, packed with breakers and the panels in which to test them. The submission surprised UL, who had never imagined someone would do such a thing. Someone saw the Square D panels and asked Square D what was going on.

When Square D heard of the submission, the lobbying began. UL decided to 'throw a bone' by inventing the 'classified' term, just to sooth Square D's anger at the thought of use of the term 'listed'.

Little did UL realize the extent to which the wormtongues at Square D would assert all manner of mystical distinctions between 'listed' and 'classified' products. Such distinctions are patently dishonest. Given the chance to do it all over, I'm sure UL would have simply "listed" the breakers.

When you box them in on this point, Square D's fallback is the sticker that says 'use only Square D parts.' This, they insist, is part of the listing and labeling. To support this, there's no shortage of (erroneous) UL statements saying that everything that comes on or with a product is part of the listing and labeling.

That is simply not true. UL may require certain statements on the product, or supplied with the product, but UL does not control EVERY such statement. For example, in "owners' manuals," about the only statement relevant to UL is the one that says "use in accordance with the NEC."

I don't want to get this thread too far off track; I just want to be clear as to why I don't include replacement breakers in the 'forbidden parts' category.

Posted By: gfretwell Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/22/15 06:10 PM
I think we are saying the same thing. I agree saying "classified" was a cop out but article 110.3(A)(7) opens the door.

Quote
Classification by type, size, voltage, current capacity, and specific use
Posted By: sparky Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/26/15 01:15 PM
Somewhat related to being forbidden might be 314.28A2 EX>
Quote

Exception: Where (l raceway or cable entry is in the wall
of a box or conduit body opposite a removable cover; the
distance from that wall to the cover shall be permitted to
comply with the distance required for one wire per terminal
in Table 312.6(A).


Which is dictating a distance to not only gutters, but LB's as well....

~S~
Posted By: gfretwell Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/27/15 09:00 PM
I talked to Brian Holland (BPHGravity here) and he told me Encor is the first company to offer MC cable with each conductor identified so there is a legal use for that fitting. I suppose the others may follow suit.
Posted By: renosteinke Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/29/15 05:20 PM
I suppose there's a whole "sub-category" of appliances to add to this list. That is, UL-listed appliances for which there is no code-compliant way to install them.

I saw this recently with an attic fan. Wires came direct from the motor housing; there was no way to attach any fitting or raceway to the fan. No, you had to make a 'flying splice' to wires that you ran.

In a like manner, I have posted here a number of "luminaires" that simply cannot be mounted to a box.

Or, my personal favorite, the lights where the fixture will mount, but the wires need to be run in free air and enter the box... how? With the box in the wall, and the fixture mounted tight to the box, there's no place for the wires to enter.

I have to wonder just HOW UL tested these appliances.
Posted By: sparky Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/29/15 05:52 PM
This week i have to figure out how to mount 3 'built in' appliances in a kitchen upright cab. There will be (bottom) bread warmer (middle) oven (top) micro.

My 1st thought was captive heat (my 2nd wondering why one needs a bread warmer) , and further that i was combining UL products into an assembly.

I'm under the impression a field rep must validate a combination of products , which is probably a misapplication of UL508

whadda i know.....?

~S~



Posted By: HotLine1 Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/29/15 10:20 PM
Reno:
Was the 'attic fan' possibly from a 'big box' and was a return that was cannibalized for parts and put back for sale?

Was it a familiar brand name, or ???

Posted By: HotLine1 Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/29/15 10:23 PM
~s~:

IMHO, your responsibility ends at the receptacles, or the 'j-box'.

All of the items you mentioned are 'common'; & I am not aware of any situations.
Posted By: sparky Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/29/15 11:00 PM
Originally Posted by HotLine1
~s~:

IMHO, your responsibility ends at the receptacles, or the 'j-box'.

All of the items you mentioned are 'common'; & I am not aware of any situations.


Thx HotOne

I guess i'm just too OC about some things
~S~
Posted By: renosteinke Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/30/15 12:44 AM
The attic fan I referred to was purchased from a commercial HVAC vendor. It was in its' original packaging. There were no parts missing; it had not been cannibalized.

The wires came out of the motor through a permanent bushing. There was no place to mount a box, or fitting of any sort. The arrangement was similar to this, but without the flex:

http://forums.finehomebuilding.com/...ttach_images/211272/img_0126_600x800.jpg
Posted By: gfretwell Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/30/15 06:03 AM
Was this a cord or discrete conductors?
It really sounds like something missing, perhaps an accessory box that you had to purchase separately.
I would be in touch with the manufacturer if their web site was no help.
Posted By: HotLine1 Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/30/15 02:16 PM
I like the notch in the right corner, & the insulation.

As Greg mentioned....sounds like something is MIA!
Posted By: gfretwell Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 03/30/15 04:26 PM
I had a fan like that and it had a pigtail of SJ cord sticking out long enough to attach a plug to and plug into a receptacle next to the fan. It did not last very long and I did not replace it when it failed.
Posted By: renosteinke Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 04/02/15 12:43 AM
Here's another of my favorite "forbidden" listed product: The Edison-base circuit breaker:

http://www.cooperindustries.com/con...al/edison_base_rejectionplugfuse/mb.html

This breaker is perfectly legal to use in place of a fuse. That's where the sanity ends.

You see, folks get all wrapped up around some code language relating to FUSES, and quibble that these breakers do not have "type S" bases. They also overlook the code stipulation "where there is EVIDENCE of over-FUSING. No, the assertion is made that the old fuse box must either be filled with type S fuses 'just because,' or be completely replaced.

Even the Bussman rep seemed surprised that his company sold these things, and wasn't sure if they were legal to use in a residential fuse box. Hell, that's exactly the use for which Mechanical Products (the actual manufacturer) intended!
Posted By: HotLine1 Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 04/02/15 02:26 PM
Reno:

First, it's nice that there are only 15 and 20 amp models available, which IMHO is a great safety move.

Going back many years, entering a resi job and looking into the fuse box and seeing all 30 amp fuses, with a quantity of blown 20s on the floor was common.

Warm and 'hot' conductors were common, chasing 'opens' was common, and so were fires.

'S' fuses were installed as replacements, but a lot of people found ways to stuff a 20 in a 15 socket, or rip the adaptor out! The 'fuse/breakers' were around and installed. I remember many that were 'blown' more times then whatever there 'life cycle' was rated for.

Better than Edison base fuses?? YES. Better than 'S-Fuses'? YES. Forbidden?? No way.

BTW, up here resi fuse boxes are becoming real rare.
Posted By: gfretwell Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 04/02/15 04:53 PM
They made 30s at some time because the disconnect for my water heater had them in it when I bought this house but they were flaky. I ended up chucking the whole mess and buying a regular SqD breaker style disco when I moved the water heater.

Over 30 ago I sent Harold E some of those plug fuse breakers because he couldn't find any in New Jersey.

My experience here with S adapters was fairly negative. They had installed the size that would take a 20 or a 30 and the whole box was stuffed with 30s. Needless to say most of the conductors were 14 gauge. They were blowing the 30s. I finally talked the lady into simply getting rid of that fuse box and putting in a new panel. (a neighbor)
They ran a few extra circuits for the window shakers and the overloads stopped.
Posted By: HotLine1 Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 04/02/15 07:07 PM
Another interesting 'forbidden' item from back in the day..

Surface mount, 2 prong receptacles, made to be wired with 'zip cord'.

Made by Eagle and Leviton, and others. Instructions said something like mount the backplate to the baseboars, staple the 'zip cord' to the surface, mount the device with the piercing teeth to the backplate, and connect to a power source.

I think I have an old Leviton catalog laying around somewhere....

What say you gentlemen??
Posted By: gfretwell Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 04/02/15 07:40 PM
If it has a plug cap on the end it is going to be listed as an extension cord. I can see how they can be sold but you are certainly squeezing the word temporary when you screw it to the wall.
OTOH most plug strips have keyhole slots in the back to mount them semi-permanently. The whole thing is tip toeing around the code but this happens long after the inspectors are gone in a residence. Where you do get in trouble is in a commercial setting where you have a fire/life safety inspector walking around. We had a new guy here in Lee County who started enforcing the temporary wiring rules with a very sharp pencil. He had office workers all over town trying to find compliant solutions to all of the plug strips and orange cords they had strung around. In our office they negotiated using "surge strips" with a breaker in them in a lot of places but we also provided a lot of work for an electrician. In the end I had to admit, we made it a safer working space. At the time I was a licensed inspector but I was still working for IBM and actually had very little to do with their decision process. After the "raid" they did ask my opinion, interpreting the inspection report, hence the electrician. There was equipment that was too far from a receptacle and I told them there was no legal way to plug it in. We were starting to harden up our place for lightning strikes anyway so we were going to end up with surge strips, no matter what. I just was not using them to mitigate a lack of outlets where they were needed.
Posted By: wa2ise Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 04/03/15 01:24 AM
[Linked Image]
Someone didn't bother with the key slots on the back. Though those flat head screws are grounded...
Posted By: renosteinke Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 04/03/15 09:01 PM
Nice pic of the plug strip!

That pic might be a good starting point for another topic: Misguided over-thinking of something in the name of 'safety.'

There's a reason these strips are so difficult to mount securely. After all, how hard can it be to provide mounting tabs?

Well, they don't have handy tabs, simply because they're forbidden to have them. UL made the decision that if you could readily mount the strips, they would become permanent 'premises wiring." As such, you were in danger of placing a forbidden number of receptacles on a circuit, using that 90 watts per receptacle calculation. So, UL won't list one with convenient lugs.

(At the time this issue was debated, UL's own offices were flush with non-listed plug strips, and the maintenance departments were kept busy making others using 4-square boxes).

So ... the pic is what you get.

It's with that particular concern about code violations that led me to create this thread. It's just so out of character for UL to list something that is so difficult to use 'legally.'

UL has been caught short by the changing world many more times. This is not to be critical of UL- rather, it's a warning of the perils of trying to regulate everything.

Another example involves fluorescent light ballasts. These components were listed before UL had such a thing as "recognized components," and decades before there was any requirement that luminaires be listed. With hindsight, ballasts are but components- not a complete product suitable for listing.

And, of course, I've already mentioned the great "classified breaker" circus.

At least UL expects ballasts to power lights and breakers to detect over-currents. I can only wonder at their wisdom in testing AFCI's without there being any requirement, or testing for, the ability of the thing to detect arcs of any kind.

I'm beginning to think of a ship like the Titanic, where the helmsman gets his instructions from a Magic 8-Ball.
Posted By: gfretwell Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 04/03/15 09:32 PM
It is not hard to mount the strips permanently. It just takes 3 screws. You shoot in two that match the keyhole slots, pulled up so you get a snug fit with the case and shoot a 3d one in at the top, right above the strip, close enough so it won't slide up and come out of the keyhole slots.
We had a guy in my office who was a master at it and they were everywhere until the fire marshal started tagging them.
He even had a template to measure the pilot holes for the screws. The "hero" of the secretarial pool. ;-)

For the most part it was just radios, fans, wall warts and the occasional desk lamp plugged in. The problem came when they plugged in a space heater.
Posted By: gfretwell Re: "Forbidden" Fittings? - 04/03/15 09:34 PM
BTW if U/L was really serious about the NEC they would simply ban Christmas lights. I have always said December was the month when the NEC goes on vacation.
© ECN Electrical Forums