# SO cord drop question



## BuzzKill (Oct 27, 2008)

so I'm dropping some SO cord down to a light switch in the middle of a warehouse...does it need a neutral?


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

BuzzKill said:


> so I'm dropping some SO cord down to a light switch in the middle of a warehouse...does it need a neutral?


It sounds like you are already installing a violation so why worry about a neutral. :jester:

I can't picture a code compliant light switch on cord drop.


----------



## BuzzKill (Oct 27, 2008)

BBQ said:


> I can't picture a code compliant light switch on cord drop.


uhh, why not? So to handy box, with strain relief, top and bottom?


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

BuzzKill said:


> uhh, why not? So to handy box, with strain relief, top and bottom?


Using cord in place of permenant wiring methods. 

By the way even if you can use cord the handy box is a violation initself as a pendent box must use a threaded hub.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

BBQ said:


> Using cord in place of permenant wiring methods....


 But isn't that specifically allowed for pendants?

-John


----------



## BuzzKill (Oct 27, 2008)

> Using cord in place of permenant wiring methods.


I see SO drops everywhere in commercial applications for twist lock receps, etc.



> By the way even if you can use cord the handy box is a violation initself as a pendent box must use a threaded hub.


I'd use a threaded hub for it and use a 1900, if need be.


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

400.7 says you can use flexible cord as a pendant, as long as it is energized from a receptalce outlet or cord connector body.

IMO as long as the switch is an optional portion of the circuit, and not a "substitute for fixed wiring" (400.8 1), you can install a code compliant pendant fixture (extra hard usage, strain relief, and attachment plug connected, and suitable switch box and assembly)


----------



## BuzzKill (Oct 27, 2008)

> cord connector body.



what is that?


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

the language is in 400.7B

I'm gussing cord connector body is a male/female attachment assembly like pendant twist locks, maybe similar to 

http://www.cooperindustries.com/con...rseries150aplugsreceptaclesandconnectors.html

?


----------



## TOOL_5150 (Aug 27, 2007)

BuzzKill said:


> I'd use a threaded hub for it and use a 1900, if need be.


Whut? 1900 boxes dont have hubs. You need an FS box. Even a bell box does not have hubs that are intended to be used to support the box as well.


----------



## BuzzKill (Oct 27, 2008)

TOOL_5150 said:


> Whut? 1900 boxes dont have hubs. You need an FS box. Even a bell box does not have hubs that are intended to be used to support the box as well.


GD, sorry...brain fart. I'm thinking threaded connector for the SO...okay, soan FS box is kinda cool then right?


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

Just use a rope operated switch and hang a rope. Problem solved.


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

MDShunk said:


> Just use a rope operated switch and hang a rope. Problem solved.


The McGill Levolier switches work best for this.


----------



## BuzzKill (Oct 27, 2008)

nobody ever answered my question tho: does it need a N at the switch? lol


----------



## erics37 (May 7, 2009)

BuzzKill said:


> nobody ever answered my question tho: does it need a N at the switch? lol


Yes. But at this point I wouldn't worry about it too much.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

BuzzKill said:


> nobody ever answered my question tho: does it need a N at the switch? lol


I would say no since you have access to make changes without altering the structure..

Exception: The grounded circuit conductor shall be permitted
to be omitted from the switch enclosure where either
of the following conditions in (1) or (2) apply:



(C) Switches Controlling Lighting Loads. Where switches
control lighting loads supplied by a grounded general purpose
branch circuit, the grounded circuit conductor for the controlled
lighting circuit shall be provided at the switch location.
Exception: The grounded circuit conductor shall be permitted
to be omitted from the switch enclosure where either
of the following conditions in (1) or (2) apply:
(1) Conductors for switches controlling lighting loads enter
the box through a raceway. The raceway shall have
suffıcient cross-sectional area to accommodate the extension
of the grounded circuit conductor of the lighting
circuit to the switch location whether or not the
conductors in the raceway are required to be increased
in size to comply with 310.15(B)(3)(a).
*(2) Cable assemblies for switches controlling lighting
loads enter the box through a framing cavity that is
open at the top or bottom on the same ﬂoor level, or
through a wall, ﬂoor, or ceiling that is unﬁnished on
one side.*


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

wildleg said:


> IMO as long as the switch is an optional portion of the circuit, and not a "substitute for fixed wiring" (400.8 1),


What the heck you talken 'bout Willis?

Almost every circuit in a non-dwelling unit is 'optional'.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

Help me out here:

While I've never seen it done, I'm really not seeing the distinction that says that a cord-drop switch is prohibited. 

I understand not using cord as building wiring, but it seems like if we take that literally it prohibits even receptacle pendants.

How do you draw that line?

-John


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

BBQ said:


> What the heck you talken 'bout Willis?
> 
> Almost every circuit in a non-dwelling unit is 'optional'.


which part are you not understanding ? you said it was a violation of that section, and I am disagreeing with you. The overhead receptacle could be configured as a switch with a little relay magic so that it would either bypass, or be used as a 3way to an existing hardwired switch elsewhere, making it an "optional" portion of the ckt, and therefore not a violation of "substitute for fixed wiring"


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

wildleg said:


> which part are you not understanding ?


Where you pulled 'optional' out of your butt. :laughing:




> you said it was a violation of that section, and I am disagreeing with you.


I understand that part and that's fine.




> The overhead receptacle could be configured as a switch with a little relay magic so that it would either bypass, or be used as a 3way to an existing hardwired switch elsewhere, making it an "optional" portion of the ckt, and therefore not a violation of "substitute for fixed wiring"


That is some real BS, any part of the circuit is optional. The entire light is in fact optional.

Disagree with me all day long but do better than that as that is meaningless.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

I am actually trying to get work done, maybe later today or over the weekend I will have time to really dive into this.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

wildleg said:


> ...Or be used as a 3way to an existing hardwired switch elsewhere, making it an "optional" portion of the ckt, and therefore not a violation of "substitute for fixed wiring"


 I'm not sure I agree with that interpretation. I see the "fixed wiring" part of it as saying that if the installation could be completed with an article 300 wiring method, but you chose to do it in cord, you're making an illegal substitution.

Right now, I'm of the tentative opinion that this could be legal because I see no other way to install a snap switch at that location with any other wiring method.

-John


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Big John said:


> Right now, I'm of the tentative opinion that this could be legal because I see no other way to install a snap switch at that location with any other wiring method.


That is pretty much where I am at.

If there is a reason that only cord would be correct, and if the cord and switch are not attached to building surfaces and if he use a correct box with hubs it is possible that it could be compliant.

To me the chances of all of the above are slim, and very likely a switch could be installed with a Chapter 3 method but that would cost more and be more work.


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

ok, I don't know what his scenario is, and I can't speak for that, but I can imagine a scenario like this that complies:


a work area in a factory where once in a while, equipment is brought in to perform a specific task, and because of the nature of the work it is desirable to have a separate switch connected at the site of the work to switch lighting on and off, via a plug and cord pendant switch.


----------



## BuzzKill (Oct 27, 2008)

erics37 said:


> Yes. But at this point I wouldn't worry about it too much.


yeah no sh*t!


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

almost every old mill here has an overhead gantry w/hanging switch controls>
(not really a good pix, too new)









so......

what's the dif in recreating it ?

~CS~


----------



## jmsmith (Sep 10, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> almost every old mill here has an overhead gantry w/hanging switch controls>
> (not really a good pix, too new)
> 
> so......
> ...


It's been awhile since I have worked on one of those, CS, but the ones I worked on used extra-hard usage cords that were equipped with an internal messenger which were attached both inside the control box and the pendant. If it ever came to having to replace a cord, we were responsible for replacing with an exact replacement from the manufacturer. Regular SO was a NO NO.


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

jmsmith said:


> It's been awhile since I have worked on one of those, CS, but the ones I worked on used extra-hard usage cords that were equipped with an internal messenger which were attached both inside the control box and the pendant. If it ever came to having to replace a cord, we were responsible for replacing with an exact replacement from the manufacturer. Regular SO was a NO NO.


true, but I think the point is that the flexible cord suits the purpose, and is not a violation.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> almost every old mill here has an overhead gantry w/hanging switch controls>
> (not really a good pix, too new)
> 
> 
> ...


What is the difference between mobile equipment on a trolley and a permenantly mounted light fixture?

Gee I do not know. :laughing:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

jmsmith said:


> It's been awhile since I have worked on one of those, CS, but the ones I worked on used extra-hard usage cords that were equipped with an internal messenger which were attached both inside the control box and the pendant. If it ever came to having to replace a cord, we were responsible for replacing with an exact replacement from the manufacturer. Regular SO was a NO NO.


As far as I know there is no NEC requirement to use the type of cable you describe of course it is a good idea if the people are likely to try to drag a hoist along a trolley if it is not self powered.


----------



## varmit (Apr 19, 2009)

If no part of the switch or cable was attached to the building, other than a "Kellum" type grip at the overhead structure, and the switch enclosure was correct for the application, and a strain relief connector was used at the box, this would be code compliant. The cable, at a minimum, would need to be SO (not SJO) to comply with the "extra hard usage" clause.

No, a neutral would not be required.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

varmit said:


> If no part of the switch or cable was attached to the building, *other than a "Kellum" type grip at the overhead structure,* and the switch enclosure was correct for the application, and a strain relief connector was used at the box, this would be code compliant. The cable, at a minimum, would need to be SO (not SJO) to comply with the "extra hard usage" clause.
> 
> No, a neutral would not be required.



Unless the cord leaves a busway it cannot be attached to the structure, the 'kellem grip' would have to be attached to only the box at either end.


----------



## varmit (Apr 19, 2009)

BBQ said:


> Unless the cord leaves a busway it cannot be attached to the structure, the 'kellem grip' would have to be attached to only the box at either end.


I disagree, but your AHJ could have a different opinion. You cannot lash the SO cable to a bar joist, for example, and run some distance from a box then install a kellum grip to support the drop.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

varmit said:


> I disagree, but your AHJ could have a different opinion. You cannot lash the SO cable to a bar joist, for example, and run some distance from a box then install a kellum grip to support the drop.


No, the NEC does not allow any rubber cord to be attached to the building surfaces unless it originates at a busway.

If you would like I can post some past code change proposals that will back my opinion up.


----------



## varmit (Apr 19, 2009)

Yes, I agree that flexible cord can't be attached to building surfaces, But the AHJs in this area, allow hanging from one "Kellum" grip per drop as this provides a better support than possibly supporting a drop from a 4" square box. I realize that "code" interpretations are different in other locations.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Here are a couple, I bet I can find more.

Notice the panel did not say 'not needed because it is already allowed' which is what they normally say when that is the case. They say no technical information to show it is needed and / or safe.



> *6- 183 - (400-8(4), Exception):* Reject
> 
> *SUBMITTER:* Frederic P. Hartwell, Hartwell Electrical Services,
> Inc./Rep. Massachusetts Electrical Code Advisory Committee
> ...





> *6- 184 - (400-8(4) Exception No. 1 (New) ):* Reject
> 
> *SUBMITTER:* Will Dockham, Gilmanton Iron Works, NH
> 
> ...


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

varmit said:


> Yes, I agree that flexible cord can't be attached to building surfaces, But the AHJs in this area, allow hanging from one "Kellum" grip per drop as this provides a better support than possibly supporting a drop from a 4" square box. I realize that "code" interpretations are different in other locations.


They are allowing it, but it is not an NEC interpretation, they are just ignoring the rule.


----------



## donaldelectrician (Sep 30, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> almost every old mill here has an overhead gantry w/hanging switch controls>
> (not really a good pix, too new)
> 
> 
> ...


 I want one !

Don


----------

