Thread: Direct Wired Range

Hi all! I ran into a new one yesterday. The electric kitchen range in this house appeared to be wired directly through the wall behind it, without utilizing a standard outlet and plug for the connection. Without pulling the range completely out, nothing was visible beyond what is shown in this photo. This has got to be wrong for a couple of reasons, but I'm just looking for confirmation here. Thanks a lot for your help, and happy holidays to everyone!

Similar Threads:

• range hood
• Direct Marketing
• return over range in kitchen
• Double wired breaker
• smoke alarms wired together

You are correct
It is wrong

It may not be wrong. It depends on the manufacturer and specified installation requirements.

Whirlpool, for example, lists direct wire as an approved option. (See page 4)

Originally Posted by Dom D'Agostino

It may not be wrong. It depends on the manufacturer and specified installation requirements.

Whirlpool, for example, lists direct wire as an approved option. (See page 4)

Good info Dom, but it appears that even in the Whirlpool installation instructions where they describe the direct wiring they do allow, it still must be to either a circuit breaker box or fused disconnect, and neither are visible in this installation. The power cable just disappears through the wall to an unknown destination, and I believe that the means of shutting off power to the range must be present in the same room. Thanks again though, that is good info to know.

The power is coming from a circuit breaker box, or a fuse box if the service is older. The panel does not need to be in the same room.

Originally Posted by Dom D'Agostino

It may not be wrong. It depends on the manufacturer and specified installation requirements.

Whirlpool, for example, lists direct wire as an approved option. (See page 4)

My problem is that there is not a box,clamp, or connector securing the cord where the cord goes into the wall.

This is from page 5

■ The range can be connected directly to the circuit breaker
box (or fused disconnect) through flexible or nonmetallic
sheathed, copper or aluminum cable. See the “Electrical
Connection” section.
■ Allow 2 to 3 ft (61.0 cm to 91.4 cm) of slack in the line so that
the range can be moved if servicing is ever necessary.
■ A UL listed conduit connector must be provided at each end
of the power supply cable (at the range and at the junction
box).

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

My problem is that there is not a box,clamp, or connector securing the cord where the cord goes into the wall.

This is from page 5

■ The range can be connected directly to the circuit breaker
box (or fused disconnect) through flexible or nonmetallic
sheathed, copper or aluminum cable. See the “Electrical
Connection” section.
■ Allow 2 to 3 ft (61.0 cm to 91.4 cm) of slack in the line so that
the range can be moved if servicing is ever necessary.
■ A UL listed conduit connector must be provided at each end
of the power supply cable (at the range and at the junction
box).

A cable exiting the wall does not require a connector or cable clamp. A clamp would be needed where the cable enters the wiring compartment on the stove.

Direct wiring is allowed by the NEC. The disconnecting means does not need to be in the same room.
The cable is allowed to just go into the wall as pictured.
You can't see the NM Connector as it is on the bottom of the electrical connection compartment, not the side.

There are certain requirements that should be met as per the NEC when direct wiring the range.

2011 NEC
Article 422.31(B)
Appliances Rated Over 300 Volt-Amperes.
For permanently connected appliances rated over 300 volt-amperes the branch - circuit switch or circuit breaker shall be permitted to serve as the disconnecting where the switch or circuit breaker is within sight from the appliance or is capable of being locked in the open position. The provision for locking or adding a lock to the disconnec ting means shall be installed on or at the switch or circuit breaker used as the disconnecting means and shall remain in place with or without the lock installed

Use of NM or SEC is not appropriate for this type connection, neither is non "flexible" cable.

Assuming this is a resistance type only electric range, with a terminal block, and it is not otherwise prohibited including that the mfg doesn't require the use of a specified cord cap and receptacle supply in conjunction with its listed, instructions, it is permissible to direct wire when other provisions are followed.

For example:

A listed duty-rated flexible cord (not necessarily employing a cord cap or receptacle) for example type ST with oil and moisture/water resistance due to proximity and exposures reasonbly anticipated in the cooking processes; or listed flexible cable may be used (NEC Article 400 & 422).

Strain relief is required as is an accessible (not readily accessible) box or similar for the branch circuit wiring method where transitioned to flexible cord or flexible cable, required to "flex" so as to provide access to the connection to the appliance so as to remove it, replace it, service it, etc. The access need not be readily accessible, but the access when gained must be of sufficient clearance and safely made and acquiring same must not subject the wiring method(s), the appliance or the equipment to damage. Protection from damage to the conductors within as well as the overall flexible cord or flexible cable assured.

Flexible cord and/or flexible cable is not allowed to go through walls or floors unless it meets an exception from 400.7 (400.8), although from the limited viewpoint of the photograph we can't really be sure what we cannot clearly see, the emergance of this apparently non-flexible cable via the floor (an integral structural componant and specifically prohibited emergence via this assembly) would appear to violate more than one restriction.

I suspect removal of the drawer unit would have further provided visibility underside and through the open back of the appliance frame.

I further note the absence of evidence of anti-tip provisions/hardware in the photograph, yet another safety issue for the HI to note.

The provisions in 422.16 for the use of a cord set with cap (plug) and receptacle as a means to disconnect/connect are permissive not manditory, and do not prohibit direct wiring to the terminal block where provisions to disconnect exist for non-afixed large appliances.

The service disconnect is allowed to serve as the OTHER means of disconnect. The primary disconnect must be indicating, and may be present within sight of the appliance, or be one which is lockable elsewhere, such as the CB for the individual range circuit. IOW there must be two means to disconnect between the source (utility or transformer)and the appliance which are dedicated to the occupancy - the other means to disconnect may also disconnect other circuits, lights, appliances (i.e. the main power feeder, entire service, etc.).The location of the "other" disconnect is further restrictive should the structure be a two-family, or a multi-family home, building, or multi-occupancy structure.

Presuming the "house" mentioned is not a manufactured home, and the kitchen area has not been deemed other than residential (i.e. commercial), and is existing branch circuit - it may be supplied with a three-wire flexible cord or cable "flexible" being key, as long as the listing and manufacturer's (listed) instructions do not prohibit same, and there are no local ammendments or restrictions otherwise.

400.10 Pull at Joints and Terminals, 400.14 Protection from Damage, and 400.8 Uses Not Permitted, item 2, which in pertinant part reads thusly:

400.8 Uses Not Permitted. Unless specifically permitted in 400.7, flexible cords and cables shall not be used for the following:

• (2) Where run through holes in walls, structural ceilings, suspended ceilings, dropped ceilings, or floors.
• (4) Where attached to building surfaces
  • Exception to (4): Flexible cord and cable shall be permitted to be attached to building surfaces in accordance with the provisions of 368.56(B)
• (5) Where concelaed by walls, floors, or ceilings or located above suspended or dropped ceilings....

422.10(A)....(final paragraph) "...Branch circuits and branch-circuit conductors for household ranges and cooking appliances shall be permitted to be in accordance with Table 220.55 and shall be sized in accordance with 210.19(A)(3).

Part III Disconnecting Means
433.30 General. A means shall be provided to simultaneously diconnect each appliance from all ungrounded conductors in accordance with the following sections of Part III. If an appliance is supplied by more than one branch-circuit or feeder, these disconnecting means shall be grouped and identified at the appliance disconnect.

422.31 Disconnection of Permanently Connected Appliances.
(B) Appliances Rated over 300 Volt-Amperes. For permanently connected appliances rated over 300 volt-amperes, the branch-circuit switch or circuit braker shall be permitted to serve as the disconnecting means where the switch or circuit breaker is within sight from the appliance or is capable of being locked in the open position. The provision for locking or adding a lock to the disconnecting means shall be installed on or at the switch or circuit breaker used as the disconnecting means and shall remain in place with or without the lock installed.

314.23(I) Flexible Cord. A box shall be supported from a multiconductor cord or cable in an approved manner that protects the conductors against strain, such as a strain-relief connector threaded into a box wth a hub.

400.5...(last paraghraph) "...Where a single condctor is used for both equipment grounding and to carry unbalanced current from other conductors, as provided for in 250.140 for electric ranges and electric clothes dryers, it shall not be considered as a current-carrying conductor.


and

"...where used as permitted in 400.7(A)(3), (A)(6), and (A)(8) each flexible cord shall be equipped with an attachment plug and shall be energized from a receptacle outlet or cord connector body.

Exception: As permitted in 368.56

.The above is not an all inclusive list but a starting point in consideration of 422.16 and the rest of Ch. 1, 2, 3 & 4.

Originally Posted by Michael Chambers

Good info Dom, but it appears that even in the Whirlpool installation instructions where they describe the direct wiring they do allow, it still must be to either a circuit breaker box or fused disconnect, and neither are visible in this installation. The power cable just disappears through the wall to an unknown destination, and I believe that the means of shutting off power to the range must be present in the same room. Thanks again though, that is good info to know.

It doesn't have to be in the same room, or within sight. The rules for disconnection allow for some options.

However, in "blowing up" the picture, the cable or cord is comming up unprotected directly through a hole in the grouted floor area, and has no plate, nipple, protection, or strain relief, and this is contrary to the NEC and, if applicable, to the manufactured home standards; clearly not allowed.

The range does not require two means of disconnect.

I also think the cable is exiting the wall at the floor level, not coming through the floor.

Originally Posted by Jim Port

The range does not require two means of disconnect.

Correct.

I also think the cable is exiting the wall at the floor level, not coming through the floor.

If that is to be wired directly to the range, then that needs to change from NM cable in a junction box to a listed and rated flexible cord, as Watson said (jeez, I am agreeing with Watson on this aspect ).

The instructions allow for NM as a wiring method. I don't see this as any different than a hard wired DW that is wired with NM.

Originally Posted by Jim Port

The instructions allow for NM as a wiring method. I don't see this as any different than a hard wired DW that is wired with NM.

I think I would have to agree with Jim on that point

Looks like SJ cord to me! I don't think you'll find anything in the NEC that allows SJ cord to be run through or in a wall! I would call this out and advise that it be looked at by an electrician. I bet you anything they remodeled the kitchen and the stove got moved and the cabinet guy said I can fix that and ran to Home Depot and got some SJ cord to run from the old outlet location to the new stove location!

Just to make a few comments. Number one thing I see and previously mentioned is no tip over device installed.

As for the cable it does not look like flexible cable to me but NM cable. Back in the days of 3 wire connections what is pictured was quite common in my area .. only the majority of these were aluminum SEU cable for 40 amp branch circuits. If it is NM it will need to be 3 insulated conductors. It was rare to see any junction box where any transition was made from nm or seu to a flexible cord or cable.. The cable was brought to the range junction box directly ... where you installed a strain relief clamp. The stove/range would have box connectors for cable terminations at its terminal block.

NEC 250.140 outlines the requirements for the supply cable and branch circuit for 3 wire connections.

Anyway I'm with Jim Port the wiring installation is compliant as shown, though better pictures may have changed my mind.

Originally Posted by Michael Chambers

Good info Dom, but it appears that even in the Whirlpool installation instructions where they describe the direct wiring they do allow, it still must be to either a circuit breaker box or fused disconnect, and neither are visible in this installation. The power cable just disappears through the wall to an unknown destination, and I believe that the means of shutting off power to the range must be present in the same room. Thanks again though, that is good info to know.

Mike

The circuit breaker box is the house panel and is not usually visible .... It does not have to be in the same room and rarely is in the same room .... it can however be in the same room ....

The means of disconnect is allowed to be the circuit breaker, in the distribution panel, protecting the supply cable to the range and that is most often the case.

Be careful misinterpreting manufacturer electrical connection instructions .. they can be very vague and usually are referencing a NEC requirement. Which is why they say that a qualified electrician should connect the range.

I have blown up the picture and I still can't tell if it is NM or a cord. If it is NM cable it may be acceptable in your area but it has never been acceptable here. I have seen many hard wired stoves but always in flexible metal or aluminum conduit terminating in a junction box behind the stove.

It used to be common to wire directly to the dishwasher with NM cable but now if you do that you have to install a lock-off on the breaker. Same goes for a stove, disposal and compactor! If you don't use a cord and plug you have no means of disconnect.

Here Canadian Electrical Code & BC amendments have required that electric ranges be cord connected since the 1970s. One exception then and now is where the range is not freestanding but is built-in, then you typically have #8 loomex-type cable hardwired from a 40A breaker to a junction box joining to two hardwired #10 cables, one for the oven and the other for the cooktop. Also the drop-in type of range can be hardwired, but the supply cable must be protected with 3/4" flex conduit if subject to damage.

AS H.G. has shown, NM cable has limitations on use.
Generally speaking, it is listed as a 'building cable' and not as an appliance 'service' cable used for servicing. Even if it was used to allow servicing, it would require mechanical protection in the form of a flexible conduit with abrasion protection and securing at one end and the proper connector at the range.
Assuming of course direct wiring of the appliance does not violate Manf. Spec.

How do you see that being damaged Bob? It sits under the range where it is shielded and I doubt that it gets moved out even twice a year. It looks dressed so that the legs will not damage it and the draw most likely slides above it.

You hit on an important point Jim. 'Subject to physical damage' is an AHJ call. I should have made mention of such.
IMO and every other Inspector that I know considers NM/building cable to be installed and used as the manf intended, and accordingly as installed per the code in effect in that jurisdiction at time of installation.
NM cable is not intended for 'flexability' for servicing as cord stock is.
Just because NM cable is flexable in nature, does not automatically lend itself for use where flexibility for servicing is required.

Relative to being subject to physical damage, I believe the cable is 'subject' because; one cannot be certain of its orientation as the very last few inches of push back (if you will), who will in fact be pulling the appliance out, protection of the cable while servicing, who the heck will be pushing it all back in,... the list can go on.

At the very least, a dish washer's connection is available at the front under the toe-kick shield and, the cable terminates under the appliance as opposed to the back side as the range provides.

Again, this is one of those areas where the AHJ (yours truly) makes the interpretation.

For those who think that NM is okay as shown to the range, please:
- explain how one does this:
- - 334.15 Exposed Work.
- - - In exposed work, except as provided in 300.11(A), cable shall be installed as specified in 334.15(A) through (C).
- - - - (A) To Follow Surface. Cable shall closely follow the surface of the building finish or of running boards.
- - - - (B) Protection from Physical Damage. Cable shall be protected from physical damage where necessary by rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, electrical metallic tubing, Schedule 80 PVC conduit, or other approved means. Where passing through a floor, the cable shall be enclosed in rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, electrical metallic tubing, Schedule 80 PVC conduit, or other approved means extending at least 150 mm (6 in.) above the floor.
- - - - Type NMC cable installed in shallow chases or grooves in masonry, concrete, or adobe, shall be protected in accordance with the requirements in 300.4(F) and covered with plaster, adobe, or similar finish.
- explain how one controls the NM cable to this:
- - 334.24 Bending Radius.
- - - Bends in Types NM, NMC, and NMS cable shall be so made that the cable will not be damaged. The radius of the curve of the inner edge of any bend during or after installation shall not be less than five times the diameter of the cable.
- explain how one secures the NM cable to this:
- - 334.30 Securing and Supporting.
- - - Nonmetallic-sheathed cable shall be supported and secured by staples, cable ties, straps, hangers, or similar fittings designed and installed so as not to damage the cable, at intervals not exceeding 1.4 m (4½ ft) and within 300 mm (12 in.) of every outlet box, junction box, cabinet, or fitting. Flat cables shall not be stapled on edge.
- - - Sections of cable protected from physical damage by raceway shall not be required to be secured within the raceway.

Ya, what he said (J.P.)
Tis why I said: installed and used as the manf intended, and accordingly as installed per the code in effect in that jurisdiction at time of installation.

I'd walk a mile out of my way to keep from hard wiring an electric range.

I'm simply stating that the method shown was acceptable in many jurisdictions. Whether or not it is code compliant to the letter of the law is subject to the ruling of the inspector at the time .. And many inspectors allow it or allowed it. It is common to see SEU 3 wire connected in the manner shown in this thread. I don't see nm done as shown very often. As you know SEU in the interior of the home for branch circuits is subject to the same installation requirements as nm. These are installations that are dated ...pre 1996 .. but none the less I fail to understand why it isn't understood that this method was acceptable. I have never seen flexible cord used from a junction box to the range terminal box....never .. in those original installations.

Todays free standing ranges are not equipped for hard wire at the terminal blocks, they are equipped for ring terminals like those on range cords. You must install an appliance lug kit in order to hard wire. It is a PITA..

Now it is difficult to defend the code compliancy for the pre described method. But it is also ridiculous to deny it was not an approved method as there are thousands of these out there. Point being... maybe it doesn't fly today but it sure as heck did at one time.

I can't begin to tell you how many of these I have dealt with when installing new ranges on existing 3 wire branch circuits. I always convert to cord and plug in those encounters.

So the better question is.. why was it allowed ?.. ...when code seems to be clear that it never was acceptable.

Originally Posted by Roger Frazee

I have never seen flexible cord used from a junction box to the range terminal box....never .. in those original installations.

I haven't seen flexible cord used as such either, but ... that does not mean that NM (or SEU) is suitable for that use.

That's like driving 80 mph down I-95 when the posted limit is 70 mph because ... well, because 'everyone else is doing it too".

Now it is difficult to defend the code compliancy for the pre described method. But it is also ridiculous to deny it was not an approved method as there are thousands of these out there. Point being... maybe it doesn't fly today but it sure as heck did at one time.

I disagree with "But it is also ridiculous to deny it was not an approved method as there are thousands of these out there." because it *may not have been "approved"*, it simply may have been installed that way and was not seen by the inspector.

There are many, many, installation which were done totally incorrectly, which were not seen by the inspector, and which I would not want to state that they were "approved" without actually knowing for sure that some inspector saw it and said "I approve that" ... just because an inspection was signed off does not mean that everything was seen, only that the overall installation, and more specifically, what the inspector saw, 'was okay'.

I'd find it hard to believe that it wouldn't be apparent a long pigtail was being left to connect a range instead of a box being mounted for a receptacle, or that the implications of how the connection is going to be accomplished isn't obvious.

Originally Posted by Bill Kriegh

I'd find it hard to believe that it wouldn't be apparent a long pigtail was being left to connect a range instead of a box being mounted for a receptacle, or that the implications of how the connection is going to be accomplished isn't obvious.

I've seen long pigtails before, and I've asked the electrician if they were going to install a box or range receptacle at the wall and cut off the excess - the electricians have not always said 'yes' ... until I explain that the cable cannot be left out there like that, that it requires a box or range receptacle mounted to the wall ... there was always a box or range receptacle installed on my next trip out.

Sometimes, though, I had to "remind" the electricians that the range receptacle needed to be secured to the wall, that it could not be left flapping in the breeze - it would be secured to the wall the next time I looked at it (which could have been at final).

In older homes,often the stove and dryer are hard wired,when new people move in they often have newer appliances,until the bring in an electrician,they will not be able to use these appliances.
I always point it out,even if it works,that this will need to be upgraded.

Originally Posted by Bill Kriegh

I'd find it hard to believe that it wouldn't be apparent a long pigtail was being left to connect a range instead of a box being mounted for a receptacle, or that the implications of how the connection is going to be accomplished isn't obvious.

That's my point ...

And as said it would be hard to imagine that the inspectors did not know that these connections were being made direct to the range from those pigtails.

So if the electrical contractor had his electricians leave these long pigtails coming from the floor or wall then it would be apparent to me that he knew it was acceptable by the ahj to direct wire it to the free standing range. Other wise you would be mounting a jb or range receptacle.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

I haven't seen flexible cord used as such either, but ... that does not mean that NM (or SEU) is suitable for that use.

That's like driving 80 mph down I-95 when the posted limit is 70 mph because ... well, because 'everyone else is doing it too".



I disagree with "But it is also ridiculous to deny it was not an approved method as there are thousands of these out there." because it *may not have been "approved"*, it simply may have been installed that way and was not seen by the inspector.

There are many, many, installation which were done totally incorrectly, which were not seen by the inspector, and which I would not want to state that they were "approved" without actually knowing for sure that some inspector saw it and said "I approve that" ... just because an inspection was signed off does not mean that everything was seen, only that the overall installation, and more specifically, what the inspector saw, 'was okay'.

Jerry

Excuse me for my poor choice of words. I do not have proof that it was 'approved' but the school I went to 2 + 2 = 4 ...

I don't think that it could be approved if the code was followed to the letter.. I also would not think it would be allowed as compliant today.The code even to this hard head of mine looks clear that it would not be code compliant. None the less the inspectors allowed it at one time as a direct wire method. 'Allowed' meaning they used their authority to provide for the installation deaming it safe to use behind a free standing range. It certainly can't be subject to damage behind the range and if it was just how am I suppose to connect the range ? Assuming the options available to me if that were the case.

I would entertain the thought that it was done behind the inspectors back but do you really think that these connections were a mystery ? There are just to many of them in existence.

IMO I fail to understand why anybody electrician, appliance installer or homeowner would want to hardwire a free standing range and therefore it is a mystery to me why this type connection was installed period. My only thought is that it saved money and had the blessing of the local authority.



.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

I've seen long pigtails before, and I've asked the electrician if they were going to install a box or range receptacle at the wall and cut off the excess - the electricians have not always said 'yes' ... until I explain that the cable cannot be left out there like that, that it requires a box or range receptacle mounted to the wall ... there was always a box or range receptacle installed on my next trip out.

Sometimes, though, I had to "remind" the electricians that the range receptacle needed to be secured to the wall, that it could not be left flapping in the breeze - it would be secured to the wall the next time I looked at it (which could have been at final).

Stuff like this is a mystery to me. Everywhere I've ever worked an electrical rough inspection required all wire to be secured, boxes installed, and grounds made up. A length of cable "flapping in the wind", unless for an obvious legit reason, would have gained you a tag and a "call me when you're finished".

Part of the problem with mounting a receptacle or jb is location, especially if you don't know the location requirements of the appliance ....cause it ain't at the job site yet. In my short time in residential we did one of two things .. cord and plug was the #1 choice ...#2 was direct wire to the supply cable using the included strain relief clamp. These two options allowed choices down the road when the appliance was replaced ...which generally wasn't very long when the lady of the house got fed up with builders grade appliances. I'd have walked another mile to keep from having a junction box and wire nuts to fat wires..

Another thought to consider is these existing installations were more times than not in my area seu aluminum # 6 awg cable. So you had the aluminum terminations issue to copper.

The range however would have a lug kit (box style) you installed on the terminals to accept the aluminum cable for direct wire. Which would be the better ? JB with wire nuts or direct wire to a listed lug. Seems the only two choices would be cord and plug or direct wire to any reasonable thinking person.

I'm failing to see the issue with a supply cable exposed behind the range vs a flexible cord or wires in FMC as the need for flexibility is limited to maintenance and replacement. It's not like your bending them when you pull the range out and damaging the supply cable when pushing the range back in is stretching it a bit IMO ... that is subject to the care of the person working on or replacing the range.

It sure looks like the foot is inline with the cable penetration in the floor. Slide it all the way back and it may damage it.

Originally Posted by Mike Schulz

It sure looks like the foot is inline with the cable penetration in the floor. Slide it all the way back and it may damage it.

I noticed that also and that certainly would be a problem however it looks to be an existing installation and dated so a better angle on the picture would be beneficial. I agree though ... if the range is contacting the cable when pushed back to the wall then that most certainly needs to be corrected. I would cord and plug the range regardless.

Originally Posted by Roger Frazee

Excuse me for my poor choice of words. I do not have proof that it was 'approved' but the school I went to 2 + 2 = 4 ...

True, except that we only 'know' a '2' and we 'think' 'x=2', but we do not 'know' that 'x=2', so 2 + x = 4 'may not be true'.

My point is, just because a house is "signed off" does not mean that *everything* was looked and an "specifically approved", we really only know: a) that what the inspector looked at was okay; or, b) that what the inspector looked at was 'not too bad', but still may not have been "correct".

Some points of clarification for everyone. This was a fairly new range in a recently remodeled kitchen in a 32 year old house. Also, the power cable shown in the photo acted like a multi-stranded flexible cable that would be used to hookup a large appliance, and it was routed through a small drilled hole in the wall. I saw no evidence that there may or may not have been a junction box inside the wall. The basement had also been just recently finished, so there was no seeing or accessing any connection or junction box that might be there under the sub-floor. This was not the cable that was on the range circuit in the main service panel however, so there had to be a splice somewhere.

Oh and yes, the first thing I noted was the total lack of an anti-tipping device! Sorry about the lack of better photos.

Originally Posted by Michael Chambers

Also, the power cable shown in the photo acted like a multi-stranded flexible cable that would be used to hookup a large appliance, and it was routed through a small drilled hole in the wall.

Then it could have had a proper cord and plug installed on the range ... only the cord and plug was run through the wall to places unknown, or the plug cut off and the cord run through the wall to places unknown.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Then it could have had a proper cord and plug installed on the range ... only the cord and plug was run through the wall to places unknown, or the plug cut off and the cord run through the wall to places unknown.

2 + x = 4 'may not be true'.

Subtracting 2 from both sides ... x = 4 - 2 ......

Remember a few threads back where I told Michael " a better picture might change my mind "

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Then it could have had a proper cord and plug installed on the range ... only the cord and plug was run through the wall to places unknown, or the plug cut off and the cord run through the wall to places unknown.

Exactly! Also, the hole was barely larger than the cord, so the plug had apparently been removed.

Originally Posted by Roger Frazee

Subtracting 2 from both sides ... x = 4 - 2 ......

Roger,

Remember that I said:

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

so 2 + x = 4 'may not be true'.

Which means that 2 + x = 4 may not be true, thus one cannot state x = 4 - 2 with any degree of certainty ... ... x may well = 6 - 2

Originally Posted by Michael Chambers

Exactly! Also, the hole was barely larger than the cord, so the plug had apparently been removed.

You left out valuable critical need to know information in your first post ...... Kinda like Bert Gummer said to the others in the movie " Tremors"