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.

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.

It appears from the close up picture that there is a violation of 406.4(D).
Don

Does that say "NOT US APPROVED" on the blue tape?
Alan

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.

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

A "traveler with a dead notebook" was using the top of the receptacle.

Seems practical, but is it going to meet 110.2?

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.

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.

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

Edit to add:
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).]

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

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.

resqcapt19!!!
You can not perceive the future.
Thats like saying I want 50amp breakers in a residential kitchen because you think they might have an appliance over 20 amps.

Approved: Acceptable to AHJ

Identified: Recognizable as suitable for SPECIFIC purpose, function, or use etc...

[This message has been edited by BElder (edited 06-02-2005).]