Jim Port
11-30-2009, 08:34 AM
I would like to start a discussion of the definition of permanent. Yes, I will start to sound Clintonesque in this but I am doing this for a reason. Article 210.5(D)(2) allows for cord and plug connected or permanently connected utilization equipment other than luminaires to be connected to circuits with voltages between 277 and 600 volts or less. Using an extremist definition of permanent that has been espoused regarding whether taping an ungrounded conductor is permanent, I could deny a hard-wired piece of equipment. After all it could be removed, therefore it is not permanent. The Code does not say hard-wired, it clearly says permanent. Is this definition of permanent different than Article 200.7s definition? Would this be reasonable? According to a dictionary; adj, existing perpetually; everlasting. Certainly machines wear out so they are not everlasting. So are they prohibited unless cord and plug connected?
Is paint a permanent means of marking? The nylon coating over the insulation is a slick and fairly non-porous material. This limits the ability for the paint to properly adhere. It is also easy to remove by flexing the conductor or under light pressure or scraping. So this really is not permanent is it? Wait you say, that would be the intentional removal of the re-identification. OK, so would the unwrapping of tape from a conductor.
Would you say that proper identification of an ungrounded conductor was less important than a grounded conductor? Taping has been allowed for years by 210.5. Surely we would not want a phase to phase fault or are they less dangerous than a hot to ground fault?
Perhaps the difference is that CMP 2 wrote Article 210 and CMP 5 wrote Article 200. Different groups with the same intention but different words. Maybe the esteemed members just realized that standard industry practice was all they were really after, safe identification of a conductor’s purpose.
Is paint a permanent means of marking? The nylon coating over the insulation is a slick and fairly non-porous material. This limits the ability for the paint to properly adhere. It is also easy to remove by flexing the conductor or under light pressure or scraping. So this really is not permanent is it? Wait you say, that would be the intentional removal of the re-identification. OK, so would the unwrapping of tape from a conductor.
Would you say that proper identification of an ungrounded conductor was less important than a grounded conductor? Taping has been allowed for years by 210.5. Surely we would not want a phase to phase fault or are they less dangerous than a hot to ground fault?
Perhaps the difference is that CMP 2 wrote Article 210 and CMP 5 wrote Article 200. Different groups with the same intention but different words. Maybe the esteemed members just realized that standard industry practice was all they were really after, safe identification of a conductor’s purpose.