Forget about obtaining an interpretation unless you are a paid member. Seems
silly, but that's the way they operate.
Richard Woods
----------
From: Kazimier Gawrzyjal [SMTP:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 11:57 AM
To: '[email protected]'; Kelly Tsudama
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Correction factor for power supply cords.
Kelly,
For another, possibly different point of view, you might consider
contacting the good folks at the NFPA, who write the NEC for their
interpretation.
Regards,
Kaz Gawrzyjal
[email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [
mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ]
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 8:12 AM
To: Kelly Tsudama
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Correction factor for power supply cords.
Kelly:
The NEC is written to keep structures safe. Flexible cords used in
structures
are normally used in free air.
If you are using a flexible cord in equipment, you need to rate its
ampacity in
accordance with whatever standard you are using. The NEC relies on
the NRTL
label and testing for the safety of equipment.
If you are using a flexible cord in a high ambient I would contact
the mfg for
the appropriate derating.
Kelly Tsudama <[email protected]> on 03/09/2000 09:33:14 PM
Please respond to Kelly Tsudama <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
cc: (bcc: Ed Rauch/MAIN/MC1)
Subject: Correction factor for power supply cords.
Hi Group
I am hoping that I can get your opinions with an issue regarding the
correction
factor of power supply cords. For instance, in the NEC table
310-17, for single
conductors in free air, there is a chart at the bottom of the table
that allows
you to determine how to factor in the ambient temperature. However,
for a
flexible power cord, the table 400-5 does not have any correction
factor table.
At first I thought that this is because cords always have a
temperature rating
marked on them, but then I recall that most (if not all) single
conductors have
this marking too.... Is there a need to "de-rate" a power cord's
current rating
based on the expected ambient temperature? If so, where in the NEC
did I miss
this fact? If not, why not?
Thanks for your help,
Kelly
****************************************************************
Kelly Tsudama
Cisco Systems
[email protected]
408-527-0216
408-525-9150 fax
408-322-9024 pager
-------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
[email protected]
with the single line:
unsubscribe emc-pstc
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Jim Bacher: [email protected]
Michael Garretson: [email protected]
For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute: [email protected]
-------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
[email protected]
with the single line:
unsubscribe emc-pstc
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Jim Bacher: [email protected]
Michael Garretson: [email protected]
For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute: [email protected]
-------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
[email protected]
with the single line:
unsubscribe emc-pstc
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Jim Bacher: [email protected]
Michael Garretson: [email protected]
For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute: [email protected]
