Boat cable for branch wiring

[Ken Amelin]

Is it OK to use this Boat Cable for the electric dryer?

Similar Threads:

• Transformer & Low Volt Wiring in Main Panel
• From the old board, Abandon Wiring
• Electrical cable water heater
• Protection of wiring in the attic
• From the old board, Knob and Tube Wiring

[Billy Stephens]

Is it OK to use this Boat Cable for the electric dryer?

.
It's just Tinned Cooper to resist corrosion in an Abrasive Resistance Sheathing.
If the size wire will carry the amps it's good to go.
.

[Jim Port]

I would say no as the cable is not a listed Chapter 3 wiring method.

[Jerry Peck]

This is what Jim is referring to (I think) and that is not listed:
- 310.8 Locations.
- - (A) Dry Locations. Insulated conductors and cables used in dry locations shall be any of the types identified in this Code.
- - (B) Dry and Damp Locations. Insulated conductors and cables used in dry and damp locations shall be Types FEP, FEPB, MTW, PFA, RHH, RHW, RHW-2, SA, THHN, THW, THW-2, THHW, THWN, THWN-2, TW, XHH, XHHW, XHHW-2, Z, or ZW.
- - (C) Wet Locations. Insulated conductors and cables used in wet locations shall comply with one of the following:
- - - (1) Be moisture-impervious metal-sheathed
- - - (2) Be types MTW, RHW, RHW-2, TW, THW, THW-2, THHW, THWN, THWN-2, XHHW, XHHW-2, ZW
- - - (3) Be of a type listed for use in wet locations
- - (D) Locations Exposed to Direct Sunlight. Insulated conductors or cables used where exposed to direct rays of the sun shall comply with (D)(1) or (D)(2):
- - - (1) Conductors and cables shall be listed, or listed and marked, as being sunlight resistant
- - - (2) Conductors and cables shall be covered with insulating material, such as tape or sleeving, that is listed, or listed and marked, as being sunlight resistant

[Garry Blankenship]

I'm w/ Billy. It may or may not meet the exact verbiage of the code, but has 30 amp rated conductors and is 600 volt insulated. If it's outside, it should be so rated. Let it ride.

[Dennis Webber]

Is it OK to use this Boat Cable for the electric dryer?

Well, as it was pointed out, it is 'not' one of the identified types.

Another thing is it's color coding. Marine cable uses red for DC positive conductors, black or yellow for DC negative, and green or green with a yellow stripe for DC grounding.

I don't know if it's a big deal or not, but marine cable is usually stranded. The marine stranding does not agree with Table 10 in Chapter 9. (Would there need to be a different type of termination with conductors with such fine stranding? (Never worked with the stuff, don't know).

I don't think it's harmful in itself, but what bothers me is someone grabbed whatever he had available and I can't help but wonder what else he improvised in the electrical system. If they are going to screw around in one place, chances are that there are other little goodies waiting to be found.

[Jim Port]

You were somewhat close Jerry. I was saying that since there was not an article like there is for NM cable, MC cable, EMT, etc that the NEC does not recognize it as a wiring method. As we know wiring methods need to be a listed method.

Any connections used with finely stranded connections are to be labeled for use with the fine strands.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Abolutely not in any NEC type installation. There is no proper ampacity or any thing pertaining to this triplex boat cable use in a NEC type installation.

Category Code BDFX, 600V in the White Book, Table 3 of the UL Marking Guide for Wires & Cables, is in no way a NEC product in any use, shape or form, componant or otherwise. See UL Standards for Safety (and Scope) for UL 1426.

Use for boat/watercraft/etc. Ampacities as per US Coast guard regs:
US Coast Guard regulations Title 33, Chapter I, Parts 183.430 and 183.435 of the CFR.

Range & Dryer cords need to be listed to UL 62. Cords are not to be substituted for fixed wiring methods or branch circuit wiring.


This is triplex (multi-conductor, 3 in this case) boat cable, therefore could NOT be a UL 66 (fixture wires, single conductor), nor UL 83 (thermoplastic-insulted wires and cables - single conductor), so I can't think of why another poster put NEC languge mentiong single conductor wires & cable references or single conductor flexible or fixture cords & cables, from NEC, either.

The NEC doesn't apply to this cable, period. It may not be used not a chapter 1-4, beyond the scope of NEC (see scope) not listed as a NEC componant, equipment, or method. It is not identified, marked or listed as required for same (don't believe it could be as Type 3 stranded conductors in same, cable assemblies must be listed and used as same, not deconstructed to componants, and as Type 3 stranded conductors present & proprietary overall jacket & insulation unlisted to NEC, not covered by ampacity tables in the NEC as an assembly).

Your picture clips off the file number and continuation of the triplex boat cables marking. Without that information and/or the spool tag information to further research any possibility of some sort of proven certifications to other than UL 1426 by a NTL and listing to UL standards meeting NEC would continue with NO as to NEC, NFPA 70 or the IRC.

[Jim Port]

It is quite possible the NEC article was posted to show the acceptable cable and conductor types. As the marine cable is not one of those methods the marine cable is not a recognized wiring method. Really not all that hard to see.

[Speedy Petey]

Another thing is it's color coding. Marine cable uses red for DC positive conductors, black or yellow for DC negative, and green or green with a yellow stripe for DC grounding.

Well, there are plenty of boats with 120/240v wiring, and this is the cable they would use.


I'm with Jim and HG, NO WAY.

I must say I am very surprised that some of you would so it's ok regardless of the fact that it is NOT code legal. You'll call out two neutrals in one hole like it is some fire-breathing violation, but you'd let this cable go??

[Billy Stephens]

Well, there are plenty of boats with 120/240v wiring, and this is the cable they would use.


I'm with Jim and HG, NO WAY.

I must say I am very surprised that some of you would so it's ok regardless of the fact that it is NOT code legal. You'll call out two neutrals in one hole like it is some fire-breathing violation, but you'd let this cable go??

.
Looks Way better than the other crappy in service conductors.
.

[Jim Port]

.
Looks Way better than the other crappy in service conductors.
.

At least the old stuff looks like a recognized Chapter 2 wiring method. Looking better does not mean the marine cable is compliant.

[Billy Stephens]

At least the old stuff looks like a recognized Chapter 2 wiring method. Looking better does not mean the marine cable is compliant.

.
So your saying this Marine Cable that is used on Water Borne Craft to conduct the same load is Inferior because The Code Council in their Infinite Wisdom left it off a List?
.

[Jim Port]

Not on the list so it is no good in the eyes of the code.

[Billy Stephens]

.
So your saying this Marine Cable that is used on Water Borne Craft to conduct the same load is Inferior because The Code Council in their Infinite Wisdom left it off a List?
.

Not on the list so it is no good in the eyes of the code.

.
Jim ,
I agree It's Not On The List.
But why is It Not One The List?
Is It an Inferior Conductor?
Is it an Unsafe Conductor?
Was there a Long and deliberate debate that shunned this type of conductor?
Could The Code Council Not Envision someone going to the added expense?
Or is it's Just Not On the List?
.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Did you look up the references I provided?

US Coast Guard regulations Title 33, Chapter I, Parts 183.430 and 183.435 (refer to Table 5 for ampacity & adjustment factors) of the CFR.

Electronic Code of Federal Regulations:


The thread was entitled "boat cable for branch wiring".

If the wiring is on other than a "boat" the answer is NO.

If on a boat you could use the 10 AWG pictured boat cable for a 120V laundry center.

[Dennis Webber]

.
Jim ,
I agree It's Not On The List.
But why is It Not One The List?
Is It an Inferior Conductor?
Is it an Unsafe Conductor?
Was there a Long and deliberate debate that shunned this type of conductor?
Could The Code Council Not Envision someone going to the added expense?
Or is it's Just Not On the List?.

Article 90.2(B)(1) specifically exempts the NEC from ships and boats. Therefore, marine cable does not qualify for use in a residential structure.
When you think about it, is anyone inspecting a boat's 102/240 volt electrical system? It connects to the dock and draws power, it could cause (and many have done) a ground fault from boat to shore, shocking swimmers. Nope, no one is inspecting the boat's 240 volts systems.

Years ago I inspected for the Boating Industries Associations (changed to National Marine Manufactures Association) and we were only concerned with things like ventilation, lighting, flotation, rated horsepower, displacement, fuel systems, etc. Electrical was no big deal.

But back to your concerns. I feel that the cable is safe. Here are the Ancor specifications:

Triplex Flat Safety Cable
ANCOR Triplex Cables are made to surpass the highest UL Boat Cable standards with ultra flexible (Type 3/Class K) stranding to resist fatigue due to vibration and flexing.
Features:

• Outer jacket is made for easy removal and provides the best abrasion resistance available.
• Tinned copper stranding for maximum protection against corrosion and electrolysis.
• Proprietary premium vinyl insulation stays flexible even in extreme cold and resists salt water, battery
  acid, oil, gasoline and ultra-violet radiation.
• Exclusive insulation is rated at 600 volts, 105° C dry and 75° C wet, and is resistant to heat and abrasion.
• Inner conductors are correctly color-coded to ABYC standards.
• Features three Marine Grade primary conductors (white, black and green) in a white common jacket.
• Ancor's boat cable exceeds all UL 1426, USCG charter boat and ABYC standards.

So, all-in-all, it's good electrical cable. Not going to burn the building down. However, under no conditions would I find it's use to be proper. It simply isn't allowed in the NEC. It's black and white, either allowed or it's not. It's not.

But, and much more importantly, I would be alerted to the fact that someone was doing his own work on the electrical system; and NOT getting a building permit to do it. (At least I doubt a AHJ would knowingly accept an unrecognized wiring method.)

And that scares me. I feel the potential purchaser needs to be informed that the owner (or previous owner) may have installed electrical wiring without getting a building permit, and used improper materials to wire with.

A building permit is a *legal requirement* almost everywhere.
No excuses.

[Garry Blankenship]

Well, there are plenty of boats with 120/240v wiring, and this is the cable they would use.


I'm with Jim and HG, NO WAY.

I must say I am very surprised that some of you would so it's ok regardless of the fact that it is NOT code legal. You'll call out two neutrals in one hole like it is some fire-breathing violation, but you'd let this cable go??

OK; a little post refinement. I've always felt that it is unnecessary to say an inspector must note / call out any non-compliant materials, ( assuming you have that knowledge ). That said, if this cable was gifted to me, I would use it in my own home. Finer stranding requires termination attention, but beyond that the physical characteristics are equal or better. In larger conductors finer stranding equates to higher amperage ratings. The insulation is equal or superior to N/M, so I would not have any problem using it. Also have no cencern with braiding up the grounds to terminate and would only double neutrals, if space available made it necessary.

[Jim Port]

Billy, it may not be on the list because the manufacturer never paid for the testing and listing to be done. If I were to install it the inspector is not going to pass it so that means it is out for me. Another reason is that any thing used with finely stranded conductors needs to be listed for that use. You will not find switches and receptacles for finely stranded, so even if it were to be installed there are no listed parts to use it with.

Let me use another example, Type URD cable. This is used safely everyday to provide power in underground distribution. It is not listed for use in the house as there is no flame-retardant sheath. Could it be used inside the walls? From a safety aspect is it that much more dangerous in the wall than underground? I doubt it, but the code says no in-wall usage. Given the toxicity of smoke and gases produced in a fire from the furnishing I don't think the sheath or lack thereof is making a fire that much worse based on percentages.

[Billy Stephens]

.
So, all-in-all, it's good electrical cable. Not going to burn the building down. However, under no conditions would I find it's use to be proper. It simply isn't allowed in the NEC. It's black and white, either allowed or it's not. It's not.

.
Non Code Compliant conductor noted @ Dryer.

* client asks
Well is it unsafe? No.
Is the dryer working as is should? Yep.
Well is it likely gonna cause Me a problem down the road? Nope.
Then I don't understand?
For the love of Pete Man It's Not on The List !!!
.

[Scott Patterson]

I honestly do not think I would have even spotted that the cable was a marine cable. And if I did and depending on what else I found it might or might not make it in my report. Now that missing screw in the pantry door hinge is far more important!

IMVHO, it is just not the important in the grand scheme of things.

[Jim Port]

It is interesting to see the views posted about this. Many raise the issue about double taps when the breaker is not listed for use with two conductors, but here we have an unlisted wiring method and some are saying whats the big deal.

[Mark Fisher]

It is interesting to see the views posted about this. Many raise the issue about double taps when the breaker is not listed for use with two conductors, but here we have an unlisted wiring method and some are saying whats the big deal.

Differences in inspection style, perhaps? Home inspections are simply not code inspections and, at least in my case, most houses I see were built before codes were in use. If I based my reporting on calling out things solely because they aren't code compliant, the important things would be lost.

[Billy Stephens]

.
It is interesting to see the views posted about this. Many raise the issue about double taps when the breaker is not listed for use with two conductors, but here we have an unlisted wiring method and some are saying whats the big deal.

.
Jim,

HI's have No Enforcement Powers.

I wouldn't have a problem Reporting it. But I wouldn't go to the mat to see it was removed, ( from the looks of just this one photo) I would guess the additional problems with this property would more than fill a punch list.

Thank you for your responses.
.

[Jim Port]

Mark, aren't many of the inspection criteria based on what is accepted by the codes? If not, what would an HI base their reports on, feelings? If you do not have a baseline reference the report may be listing things that are perfectly acceptable.

I have seen many say that a trashcan or car cannot infringe on the access to a panel. The requirement for workspace and access is in the codes. Proper materials need to be used for gas piping. Clearances above stoves to cabinets need to be met. All of these are based on accepted codes. When you write your reports do you say that even tho the house was built before the codes were adopted that current codes would require safety features to be upgraded?

[John Kogel]

One thing that cable says to me is - amateur installation, done without a proper permit and therefore never inspected (until this day, the HI is performing a visual inspection).

A trained and licensed electrician would 1) pull a permit for the work, installing a 240 v circuit for the dryer. 2) To make sure the work passes an inspection by the AHJ, and all the other reasons, he will use the correct cable, which he has rolls of in his truck.

Amateur handiwork - there could be hidden problems, such as the fine stranded wire not well connected at the receptacle, not visible but could cause a fire.

If you want to let that go, fine, if not, get it inspected by an electrician.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Garry B,

for a 3-wire 208 or 240 dryer branch (not four-wire) using that boat cable triplex no rounding up by its listing & testing allowed, for over 50V, would require a 25A and not a 30A protection. You wouldn't be able to use it on a boat for the same dryer, so why try to use it off boat?

[Mark Fisher]

Mark, aren't many of the inspection criteria based on what is accepted by the codes? If not, what would an HI base their reports on, feelings? If you do not have a baseline reference the report may be listing things that are perfectly acceptable.

I have seen many say that a trashcan or car cannot infringe on the access to a panel. The requirement for workspace and access is in the codes. Proper materials need to be used for gas piping. Clearances above stoves to cabinets need to be met. All of these are based on accepted codes. When you write your reports do you say that even tho the house was built before the codes were adopted that current codes would require safety features to be upgraded?

Chicken and egg. Most codes were developed based on what did and did not work in the field. 'Best practices' were developed by individual trades and were reinforced through performance. Don't forget that while people have been building houses for millennia, the oldest codes are maybe 100 years old.

As mass production and standardization became the norm and buying components 'out of the box' became possible, codes and standards followed. As inherently dangerous things like electricity and natural gas started to be introduced into homes, and people died, new 'best practices' were developed. And, of course, Triangle Shirtwaist and Coconut Grove.

When I do an inspection, I don't look for or report on how the house fails to comply to current codes. I look for deficiencies, failures, or dangerous conditions that in many cases led to the development of those codes in the first place. So, yes, an inspector needs to know about codes, but, in my opinion, he needs to know more about what works and what doesn't, and why.

[Billy Stephens]

Garry B,

for a 3-wire 208 or 240 dryer branch (not four-wire) using that boat cable triplex no rounding up by its listing & testing allowed, for over 50V, would require a 25A and not a 30A protection. You wouldn't be able to use it on a boat for the same dryer, so why try to use it off boat?

.
So All 10 gauge 3 wire dryer Cords in use as All are 10 gauge were made defective and should be pulled from service?
Shop Utilitech 6' 10/3 SRDT, 3-Pole 3-Wire Dryer Cord at Lowes.com
.

[Scott Patterson]

One thing that cable says to me is - amateur installation, done without a proper permit and therefore never inspected (until this day, the HI is performing a visual inspection).

A trained and licensed electrician would 1) pull a permit for the work, installing a 240 v circuit for the dryer. 2) To make sure the work passes an inspection by the AHJ, and all the other reasons, he will use the correct cable, which he has rolls of in his truck.

Amateur handiwork - there could be hidden problems, such as the fine stranded wire not well connected at the receptacle, not visible but could cause a fire.

If you want to let that go, fine, if not, get it inspected by an electrician.

I agree it reeks of DYI, but then in my area a permit would not be required to pull a 240v circuit for a dryer. Permits are not required to change out a water heater or to put a new roof on either. Where it might be very common to have permit for those items in other areas of the country.

[Jerry Peck]

You guys are missing the point.

If you write things up because they do not meet code ... er ... excuse me ... because they are 'unsafe' ... and you know that because the code says it is not allowed and or does not say it is allowed ... then when the code does not say that boat cable is allowed, or even give it any rating, and you say that you would not write it up because you are not doing code ... well - that just does not make any sense.

You can't pick and choose what you want to call safe and unsafe because the code does not allow it or does not address it. You need to be consistent, either ignore everything you have learned about what you are inspecting (because they are supposed to be constructed to code, but you will be ignoring code) - or - address that boat cable as not being safe.

The code does not say it is safe.

I've been staying out of this, but you guys are flopping around like fish in a frying pan over a camp fire ... yeah, its getting hot in that frying pan, buy you guys just keep turning up the heat.

[Garry Blankenship]

Garry B,

for a 3-wire 208 or 240 dryer branch (not four-wire) using that boat cable triplex no rounding up by its listing & testing allowed, for over 50V, would require a 25A and not a 30A protection. You wouldn't be able to use it on a boat for the same dryer, so why try to use it off boat?

Copy that Duba-ya. I did indeed miss the fact the cable only has three conductors and does not work for a 240 volt dryer; marine or otherwise, ( unless 120 volt only ). You have an eye for detail. I do not understand your 25 amp reference. I did not see conductor size labeled, but assumed # 10cu. Need help w/ why only 25 amps. Would not use it for a dryer because the neutral, ( four conductors ), is necessary. HWT, electric heat, no matter; the comment was meant to express no concern for using the "marine" labeled cable in non-marine applications, not to endorse no ground wire for a dryer.

[Don Hester]

I think if you find something and you know it is not compliant you should mention it in your report. Depending on your knowledge of the observed risk you elevate your concern, especially if it a safety item.

There is no problem stating that the cable is non compliant and should have further review by a sparky.

You done your due diligence.

My issue with just letting things slide is we seem to always be kicking the can down the road.

My business model is to observe and report but also to educate. Heck I need that for myself on a constant basis.

Homeowners (and us) cannot make an educated decision if they do not have the information.

We have to use codes and manufacturer specs as a basis of observations. Where else do draw your observation from? It looked okay to me ; )

Even if it is code it may be a poor practice, i.e. back-stabbed receptacles.

If nothing else we all should take note that marine cable is not acceptable wiring method and there was an issue with a 3 wire connection to the dryer, that is an issue.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Copy that Duba-ya. I did indeed miss the fact the cable only has three conductors and does not work for a 240 volt dryer; marine or otherwise, ( unless 120 volt only ). You have an eye for detail. I do not understand your 25 amp reference. I did not see conductor size labeled, but assumed # 10cu. Need help w/ why only 25 amps. Would not use it for a dryer because the neutral, ( four conductors ), is necessary. HWT, electric heat, no matter; the comment was meant to express no concern for using the "marine" labeled cable in non-marine applications, not to endorse no ground wire for a dryer.

I cannot help you, if you will not help yourself. The cable sheath is clearly marked, and marked per the UL Wire and Cable Marking Guide, and in a manner which indictes the product was indeed listed with UL (brackets enclosing the "UL"). The photo resolution is such that the marking on the sheath pictured is clearly readable without any enhancement.

"ANCOR MARINE GRADE 3 COND 10 AWG (UL) BOAT CABLE 600V....."

Your assertions regarding 3-wire electric dryer branch & outlet (when correctly already installed under NEC 40 yrs+ of legal exceptions) "not working" are false, "working" is not the issue anyway, approved equipment for an installation is, objectional current and rules for different installations for different applications in different environments vary.

When you assert such (and similar) unjustifiable "inventions" in the midst of a discussion, and you repeatedly ignore what has already been provided regarding repeated questions, I question your sincerity and genuine-ness of your participation.

You have been referred repeatedly to the "why" as to where the listed restrictions are regarding ampacity when used as listed in listed applications (i.e. "boats"), even provided you a clicable link directly to the on-line CFRs, title, chapter & parts regarding ampacity @ voltage and listing, marking, and categorization for the UL Standard to which same may be listed. I have explained same and pointed you to the path to explore for yourself. I have provided you with the UL Standard Number this Boat Cable has been listed to, I have explained that part of the standard relative to ampacity and provided you with the citation(s) for the proper use of this cable in its intended and listed use location(s). I have provided you with the UL Product Category Code, and I have refered you to the appropriate resources relative to same.

"Marine" as in "MARINE GRADE" is a proprietary trademark designation, it is not a category cable type. "BOAT CABLE" is. "Marine" as in environmental conditions/proximity is not an exclusionary of the NEC.

[Garry Blankenship]

I cannot help you, if you will not help yourself. The cable sheath is clearly marked, and marked per the UL Wire and Cable Marking Guide, and in a manner which indictes the product was indeed listed with UL (brackets enclosing the "UL"). The photo resolution is such that the marking on the sheath pictured is clearly readable without any enhancement.

"ANCOR MARINE GRADE 3 COND 10 AWG (UL) BOAT CABLE 600V....."

Your assertions regarding 3-wire electric dryer branch & outlet (when correctly already installed under NEC 40 yrs+ of legal exceptions) "not working" are false, "working" is not the issue anyway, approved equipment for an installation is, objectional current and rules for different installations for different applications in different environments vary.

When you assert such (and similar) unjustifiable "inventions" in the midst of a discussion, and you repeatedly ignore what has already been provided regarding repeated questions, I question your sincerity and genuine-ness of your participation.

You have been referred repeatedly to the "why" as to where the listed restrictions are regarding ampacity when used as listed in listed applications (i.e. "boats"), even provided you a clicable link directly to the on-line CFRs, title, chapter & parts regarding ampacity @ voltage and listing, marking, and categorization for the UL Standard to which same may be listed. I have explained same and pointed you to the path to explore for yourself. I have provided you with the UL Standard Number this Boat Cable has been listed to, I have explained that part of the standard relative to ampacity and provided you with the citation(s) for the proper use of this cable in its intended and listed use location(s). I have provided you with the UL Product Category Code, and I have refered you to the appropriate resources relative to same.

"Marine" as in "MARINE GRADE" is a proprietary trademark designation, it is not a category cable type. "BOAT CABLE" is. "Marine" as in environmental conditions/proximity is not an exclusionary of the NEC.

I struggle with what name to use for you when there four available, but I'm rolling with a modification of the third name, ( first letter ), in that it reminds me of a politician I associate you with. I looked at the link and amperage chart you provided which indicated an allowable amperage for that cable of 38.5 amps after applying the note 2 factor. That is why I asked where you came up with a 25 amp rating. I did not infer you are insincere, incorrect, irresponsible, etc. etc. etc. So either help me and others understand how you came up with a 25 amp rating as politely requested or feel free to apologize to The Forum for diseminating invalid data. I respect your opinion about my inventivness, but I consider it a strength. I believe you are justifyably envious, being a cut and paste data head, ( and you are good at it ), incapable of inventivness or creativity.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

I struggle with what name to use for you when there four available, but I'm rolling with a modification of the third name, ( first letter ), in that it reminds me of a politician I associate you with. I looked at the link and amperage chart you provided which indicated an allowable amperage for that cable of 38.5 amps after applying the note 2 factor. That is why I asked where you came up with a 25 amp rating. I did not infer you are insincere, incorrect, irresponsible, etc. etc. etc. So either help me and others understand how you came up with a 25 amp rating as politely requested or feel free to apologize to The Forum for diseminating invalid data. I respect your opinion about my inventivness, but I consider it a strength. I believe you are justifyably envious, being a cut and paste data head, ( and you are good at it ), incapable of inventivness or creativity.

You have made an error. Be it branch circuit or terminal wiring for a residential electric dryer you may NOT use 90C or 105C values. With branch conductors you are limited to the lowest temperature terminations/limitations of your overall installation. This includes the load side terminals of the CB or fuse/fuse holder. "Boat Cable" is not NMB nor SEC, it is likewise NOT a NEC equipment. This particular "Boat Cable" which is ANCOR "MARINE GRADE", is proprietary in its sheath & insulation, and has been evaluated to the values and application limitations expressed in the CFR regulations I referenced.

60C and 75C temperature limiting values are 40A for 10 AWG conductors in the Regulations for conductors in 50V or greater environment; you may not use the 60A (hotter) temperature limits of 105C when your branch conductor terminations and that load-side terminal block must be limited to 60C or 75C.

40 x .7 = 28A.

Unbalanced load on board transformer, invertor or tap for timer & motor circuits electronic or 120V taps on 3rd conductor - objectional current unbalanced or otherwise, (without an isolated 4th and with terminal block bonded N & G) that 3rd conductor is intended to carry current in the 120/240V environment you previously referred. Size of same finely stranded 3-current carrying conductors in common sheath cable with 60C or 75C terminations would be limited to 28A @ >50V but re-marking G and re-identifying W not allowed even on a "boat".

Table 5 50V or greater environment in split AC environment 3-wire configuration N & G bonded at terminal block all three conductors are considered current carrying, tap, transformer or inverter load side in the residential electric dryer requiring greater than 120V supply.

Explore further requirements for current limiting and protection elsewhere in the chapter.

Your assertions regarding NEC compliant existing 3-wire branch & outlet electric dryer installations remain false.

Have yourself a wonderful weekend.

[Jerry Peck]

I struggle with what name to use for you when there four available, but I'm rolling with a modification of the third name, ( first letter ), in that it reminds me of a politician I associate you with.

I respect your opinion about my inventivness, but I consider it a strength. I believe you are justifyably envious, being a cut and paste data head, ( and you are good at it ), incapable of inventivness or creativity.

Garry,

Watson, bless his heart, is just trying to help.

[bob smit]

I have that cable (my boat) and if it is good enough for outdoor marine environment which is strung out unsupported and wrapped around any available protrusion, and no strain relief.....
then It would be more than good enough for home use regardless if listed in chap #3.
That is, if it were only rated with the flame resistance that we need!

[Rick Cantrell]

Garry,

Watson, bless his heart, is just trying to help.

Dang it Jerry, I was wanting to use first. Maybe on you.

[Garry Blankenship]

You have made an error. Be it branch circuit or terminal wiring for a residential electric dryer you may NOT use 90C or 105C values. With branch conductors you are limited to the lowest temperature terminations/limitations of your overall installation. This includes the load side terminals of the CB or fuse/fuse holder. "Boat Cable" is not NMB nor SEC, it is likewise NOT a NEC equipment. This particular "Boat Cable" which is ANCOR "MARINE GRADE", is proprietary in its sheath & insulation, and has been evaluated to the values and application limitations expressed in the CFR regulations I referenced.

60C and 75C temperature limiting values are 40A for 10 AWG conductors in the Regulations for conductors in 50V or greater environment; you may not use the 60A (hotter) temperature limits of 105C when your branch conductor terminations and that load-side terminal block must be limited to 60C or 75C.

40 x .7 = 28A.

Unbalanced load on board transformer, invertor or tap for timer & motor circuits electronic or 120V taps on 3rd conductor - objectional current unbalanced or otherwise, (without an isolated 4th and with terminal block bonded N & G) that 3rd conductor is intended to carry current in the 120/240V environment you previously referred. Size of same finely stranded 3-current carrying conductors in common sheath cable with 60C or 75C terminations would be limited to 28A @ >50V but re-marking G and re-identifying W not allowed even on a "boat".

Table 5 50V or greater environment in split AC environment 3-wire configuration N & G bonded at terminal block all three conductors are considered current carrying, tap, transformer or inverter load side in the residential electric dryer requiring greater than 120V supply.

Explore further requirements for current limiting and protection elsewhere in the chapter.

Your assertions regarding NEC compliant existing 3-wire branch & outlet electric dryer installations remain false.

Have yourself a wonderful weekend.

You have made an error Duba-ya. First, assuming the termination rating to be 60o or 75o is a reach. Very probably 90o which is the column I used. Second, thhat code reference does allow rounding up, ( 183.455 (c), (2), so even if we use your 60o or 75o assumption the overcurent protection device would be 30 amps, not 25. Any apology forthcoming ? Regardless, I enjoy your posts - - - sometimes.

Oh yea. A dryer circuit must be wired today with four wires. It may be OK to use a three wire jumper to the dryer, but the rough-in must be four wire.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

You have made an error Duba-ya. First, assuming the termination rating to be 60o or 75o is a reach. Very probably 90o which is the column I used. Second, thhat code reference does allow rounding up, ( 183.455 (c), (2), so even if we use your 60o or 75o assumption the overcurent protection device would be 30 amps, not 25. Any apology forthcoming ? Regardless, I enjoy your posts - - - sometimes.

Oh yea. A dryer circuit must be wired today with four wires. It may be OK to use a three wire jumper to the dryer, but the rough-in must be four wire.

First of all, the "cut and paste" of NEC code and product data was from Jerry Peck and Dennis Weber and not me. (your prior post).

I reminded you that this is not NEC cable, and this is not NMB nor is it SEC and you do not use NEC methods when using "boat cable" in its listed use and application - and it is not appropriate to use "boat cable" in a NEC installtion (PERIOD).

Next, in your endeavor to justify and argue the use of this cable in an NEC installation of a residential clothes dryer branch circuit, and your "arguments"...I have not made a "reach". I believe you are mistaken regarding the temperature limitations for Listed residential household branch circuit breakers SP (120V) or 2-P (120/240V)providing protection at 15-30 amps, ever having greater than 75C load-side terminations allowed. Please direct me to a listed product that allows same load side in a listed single phase 200 A or less residential (1-4 family dwelling unit) panel, and both the NEC reference that allows for same (15-30A circuit breakers which are not limited to 60C, 60C/75C or 75C terminations load side) for household residental use for the protection of branch circuits.

I would like you to direct me to a lighting and appliance panel suitable for use as service equipment in a single family residential environment, that allows circuits equal to or less than 30 A that allows greater than 75C terminals load side circuit breaker. Also please direct me to a listed residential/household electric clothes dryer that allows greater (hotter) than 75C terminations on its terminal block.

You must limit the maximum temperature of the conductors in the cable sheath in use and under the load conditions required to be met: to at or below the temperture limitations of the "weakest link "(lowest temperture) of the circuit - that includes the terminations load side of the branch circuit breaker and the terminal block of the appliance if you are "hard wiring" the appliance.

An existing properly wired under prior NEC exceptions 3-wire branch circuit for a clothes dryer is allowed to remain.

I have no idea what you mean saying that it is or may be allowed under present NEC to "jumper" a 4-wire branch circuit to use a 3-wire jumper to a dryer!! One uses a 4-wire connection cord or cord & cap appliance set. One then removes the bond N & G at terminal block as per the manufacturer's instructions and uses a 4-wire connection to same.

The subject Title of this discussion was "Boat cable for BRANCH wiring". Cap & Cord appliance sets are not branch wiring, the branch outlet is the receptacle.

The discussion has gone far afield. Boat Cable is NOT appropriate and NOT APPROVED wiring method for anywhere under the NEC.

[Garry Blankenship]

The thread may have gone far afield, as they often seem to, but I learned something of value via Watson. 99% of my field and office experience was in commercial work. No better or worse than residential, but probably more exposure to 90o rated wires and lugs. I remember actually changing out lugs in equipment so the higher 90o cable amp rating could be used and it was field approved. After searching a bit it appears that still was probably not legal even with the 90o rated lugs. Happy to be corrected, but it appears there is no/none/0 600 volt and under manufactured equipment with termination ratings over 75o C. Pretty important I believe in that the higher amp ratings of 90o and 105o conductors is voided / rendered mute because 75o is the maximum attainable equipment termination. On another thread component I am on record saying an inspector would be obligated to call out the boat cable use in a residence as non-compliant. The O.P. left a wide open door in asking if it was "OK", not legal. Given the choice of OK, I say it is. Legal it is not.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

The thread may have gone far afield, as they often seem to, but I learned something of value via Watson. 99% of my field and office experience was in commercial work. No better or worse than residential, but probably more exposure to 90o rated wires and lugs. I remember actually changing out lugs in equipment so the higher 90o cable amp rating could be used and it was field approved. After searching a bit it appears that still was probably not legal even with the 90o rated lugs. Happy to be corrected, but it appears there is no/none/0 600 volt and under manufactured equipment with termination ratings over 75o C. Pretty important I believe in that the higher amp ratings of 90o and 105o conductors is voided / rendered mute because 75o is the maximum attainable equipment termination. On another thread component I am on record saying an inspector would be obligated to call out the boat cable use in a residence as non-compliant. The O.P. left a wide open door in asking if it was "OK", not legal. Given the choice of OK, I say it is. Legal it is not.

"Bless your heart".

It is not "okay" to EVER use THIS BOAT CABLE for branch (circuit) wiring and most especially NOT for the purpose the OP described (to a "laundry area" !!).

I will remind you once again, that there are just 3 conductors within this 10 AWG non-NEC Boat Cable and that they are Finely Stranded.

What is it that the engineer "Scotty" character from the original "Star Trek" series used to say?...."But Cap'in she'll buRRRRn-up like a cindeRRRR !" There would be no indeminity from an insurer, in any case.
If you see same, report critical safety defect, D & H.

[Mike Kleisch]

Just throwing my two cents in.

I was told awhile back from another inspector about making questionable calls... if you can defend it in court go with it.

If this wire were to cause a fire how would you defend yourself? As many pointed out, it is not a listed use in the NEC.

To me, you can argue the safety of the wire all you want, I get it, but an attorney just needs to tell the jury it is not allowed per the NEC.

[Speedy Petey]

To me, you can argue the safety of the wire all you want, I get it, but an attorney just needs to tell the jury it is not allowed per the NEC.

Then just ignore it and play dumb.

Can the litigation folks come after you for something you did not see?
Doesn't change the fact that it is blatantly wrong, but what if you simply (and justifiably) thought is was older 10/3NM?

I am amazed at how EVERYTHING you guys do is with the lingering fear of getting sued. I could NOT live like that.

[Mike Kleisch]

Then just ignore it and play dumb.
Really, you would do that knowing you saw something wrong and did nothing to correct it?

Can the litigation folks come after you for something you did not see?
You bet, it's called negligence.

Doesn't change the fact that it is blatantly wrong, but what if you simply (and justifiably) thought is was older 10/3NM? Hard to argue when the photo clearly shows Marine Grade wire, but if you can honestly say you missed it, maybe you could argue it.

I am amazed at how EVERYTHING you guys do is with the lingering fear of getting sued. I could NOT live like that.

Have you been to court, questioned by attorneys, or asked why you passed this? It's not fear of being sued as much as being able to defend your decisions.

[Jerry Peck]

Then just ignore it and play dumb.

Can the litigation folks come after you for something you did not see?
.
.
I am amazed at how EVERYTHING you guys do is with the lingering fear of getting sued. I could NOT live like that.

It's called 'Let's play: "The inspector MISSED it." and we don't want to pay 100 bucks out of our own pocket to replace that wire, so we sue the inspector.'

Sad, but true.

Would they sue the electrician who put it in (let's just say an electrician did)? Nope. They would sue the home inspector.

Why? Because they don't know who, or when, it was put in; but they do know who, and when, it was inspected.

[Speedy Petey]

Hard to argue when the photo clearly shows Marine Grade wire, but if you can honestly say you missed it, maybe you could argue it.

I'm not saying I would do that, but it seems like a viable argument. I have seen some GLARING misses my home inspectors while of course the trivial "double taps" always make the list. I also know of some guys that just avoid things because of physical limitations or even laziness.

Have you been to court, questioned by attorneys, or asked why you passed this? It's not fear of being sued as much as being able to defend your decisions.

I didn't know your inspections were pass/fail. I thought they were just observational reports.
I am really curious as to who of you has been sued and how many times. It is a VERY common thing brought up by you guys.

[Jerry Peck]

I didn't know your inspections were pass/fail. I thought they were just observational reports.

While home inspectors reports are not "pass"/"fail", the presumption of something being written up a needing correction is "fail", while the presumption of something *not* being written up is "pass".

As such, anything not written up for correction is presumed to have "passed".

I am really curious as to who of you has been sued and how many times. It is a VERY common thing brought up by you guys.

While I have never been sued, I personally know many (probably 10 or more) home inspectors who have been sued. And some of those have been sued more than once.

[Billy Stephens]

I loved the You Inspected my house xxx months ago and now my ( fill in the blank ) needs worked on "You Would of caught That Right " and They want Me to Pay Out of My Pocket.

Yes I remember " Did You read The Report?" This is usually followed by stunned silence, with " I'll get back to you."
.

[John Kogel]

"We never would have bought this place if you had told us it was wired like a submarine".

[Billy Stephens]

.
"We never would have bought this place if you had told us it was wired like a submarine".

.
Or couldn't ,wouldn't pay the mortgage,taxes,cut the lawn or do any maintenance.
* it's gotta be "Somebody's Fault!" "They Need to Pay or give Me Something!"
.

[Rich Goeken]

.
Jim ,
I agree It's Not On The List.
But why is It Not One The List?
Is It an Inferior Conductor?
Is it an Unsafe Conductor?
Was there a Long and deliberate debate that shunned this type of conductor?
Could The Code Council Not Envision someone going to the added expense?
Or is it's Just Not On the List?
.

Billy, who cares why it isn't on the list. It's just not listed for this use. Yes there are plenty of things that are not recognized for specific uses, but recognized for others. This is an easy one--you can't use marine cable in a home. Just call it out.

[Billy Stephens]

Billy, who cares why it isn't on the list. It's just not listed for this use. Yes there are plenty of things that are not recognized for specific uses, but recognized for others. This is an easy one--you can't use marine cable in a home. Just call it out.

.
I care why I do things and want to know why.

Don't have a problem " Calling it out " do have a problem of mindlessly doing it.
.

[Rich Goeken]

.
I care why I do things and want to know why.

Don't have a problem " Calling it out " do have a problem of mindlessly doing it.
.

Were you an engineer in another life?

[Billy Stephens]

.
Were you an engineer in another life?

.
Yep.
.

[Jerry Peck]

Billy, who cares why it isn't on the list. It's just not listed for this use. Yes there are plenty of things that are not recognized for specific uses, but recognized for others. This is an easy one--you can't use marine cable in a home. Just call it out.

.
I care why I do things and want to know why.

Don't have a problem " Calling it out " do have a problem of mindlessly doing it.
.

Billy,

You wouldn't use lamp cord for that would you? How about 3-conductor pendant cord - it even has a ground wire in it?

Do you write up when people use white plumbing PVC for electrical raceways? If so, using your logic, why, it is still PVC?

[Billy Stephens]

.
I care why I do things and want to know why.

Don't have a problem " Calling it out " do have a problem of mindlessly doing it.
.

Billy,

You wouldn't use lamp cord for that would you? How about 3-conductor pendant cord - it even has a ground wire in it?

Do you write up when people use white plumbing PVC for electrical raceways? If so, using your logic, why, it is still PVC?

.
I guess If I worked for The Government I could Mindlessly just Do this or that.
.

[Jerry Peck]

.
I guess If I worked for The Government I could Mindlessly just Do this or that.
.

Seems as though you already ARE mindlessly doing this or that ... without any supportable reason ...

[Billy Stephens]

.
Seems as though you already ARE mindlessly doing this or that ... without any supportable reason ...

.
Well don't waste time on me you still got Red Tags to fill today's Quota.
.