Can A 12V Power Supply Wire Be Run Through A Wall?

[DerbyDad03]

Is there any code-compliant way to plug a 12V power supply pod into an attic receptacle and
have the 12v wire run to a wall mounted device in the room below? The receptacle is close
enough to the device's location that the cord will easily reach. The device is up near the ceiling,
and we're trying to avoid running the power cord (or a track) up the wall, in plain sight.

Would this be considered a flexible cord under NEC 400 and therefore not allowed, even
though it's only 12V?

If we can't, we'll run Romex from the attic receptacle and install a receptacle for the pod. It
would just be neater (and easier) to use the attic receptacle.

Constructive ideas are always welcome.

[Terry Coombs]

They run doorbell wiring like that all the time ... drill the top plate
and run the wire inside the wall , let it come out behind the drvice .
--
Snag



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[trader_4]

What you have is a class 2, power limited circuit. In general, you
could run CL2 rated cable to connect the transformer to the load.
But I think that's assuming the equipment is listed to be used
that way. For example, if it was an alarm system, you would just
run CL2 cable from the transformer that plugs into a receptacle
to the alarm panel. You could run it through walls, between floors,
etc. But that transformer has terminals for connecting the wire,
the alarm panel has terminals, etc, ie, it's intended to be used
that way and listed for use that way. If you take something like
a router and cut the cable, put the power source in one location
connect it to the load, it's essentially the same, but IDK if it's
kosher because it's not listed to be used that way.

[DerbyDad03]

Doorbell wires, and thermostat wires for that matter, are not typically plugged into
a receptacle at the other end - at least not in my experience. This is a plug and cord
device, with the plug being a 12VDC transformer.

That's why I'm wondering if it falls under the ”flexible cord" category or is that just for 110/220
VAC

[burfordTjustice]

On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 11:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
DerbyDad03 <teama...@eznet.net> wrote:

> Is there any code-compliant way

well if that is your concern, government approval, go
read the code yourself and get on with it.

[Terry Coombs]

Yeah , but the wire you're running is only carrying 12V and that doorbell
wire and furnace control wire are hooked to a 24v transformer at the other
end , sounds like apples and apples to me ...

[gfre...@aol.com]

To be safe, use "riser" cable (CLxR) "R" being the relevant factor.

[Thomas]

Put the trans in a firesafe box and let it rip.

[Safety Steve]

Ask the inspector when you apply for your electrical permit.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

A doorbell transformer CAN be a plug-in device.
48volt nominal power on a POE device runs on Cat5 cable anywhere you
want it - and the power injector is a plug-in device like your "wall
wart" The "flexible cord" designation only applies to direct line
connected/120 volt devices. Your Class 1 or class 2 power supplies
are not covered by that code.
Class 1 power-limited circuits are supplied by a power supply with an
output that does not exceed 30 volts and 1,000 volt-amps.
In general, a Class 2 circuit (operating at 24V with a power supply
durably marked "Class 2" and not exceeding 100VA) is the type most
commonly used. The NEC defines a Class 2 circuit as that portion of
the wiring system between the load side of a Class 2 power source and
the connected equipment.
They are considered "intrinsically safe"

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

No, to be safe use Plenum cable. Plenum cable meets a higherr
flamability standard than Riser and does not produce toxic fumes if
and when it is overheated or burned.

[DerbyDad03]

That's a fine suggestion, except that I'm talking about a basic 12VDC power
adapter with a molded case and wire:

http://www.phidgets.com/images/3024_0_Web.jpg

I'm assuming that this can't just be plugged into the attic receptacle
and have the wire come through a hole in the wall.

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 4/7/2017 6:42 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:

> That's a fine suggestion, except that I'm talking about a basic 12VDC power
> adapter with a molded case and wire:
>
> http://www.phidgets.com/images/3024_0_Web.jpg
>
> I'm assuming that this can't just be plugged into the attic receptacle
> and have the wire come through a hole in the wall.
>

Code aside, I've seen it done a few times. I'd do it myself if the need
arose. If I had concerns about damage I'd put a plastic tube in the wall.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 15:42:01 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03

it can

[gfre...@aol.com]

Certainly plenum rated cable is safer but not necessary unless this is
going through an air handling space,
Since he is penetrating a top plate to another floor it is a "riser".

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

In any case, he won't be using either if he just drops the end of the
cord from the wall wart down through the ceiling.

[gregz]

Thomas <cano...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Put the trans in a firesafe box and let it rip.

Good idea. Attic heat not so good for supply though.

Greg

[DerbyDad03]

Not the plan as that would show. The plan would be to come out of the wall behind
the device so that no wires are showing.

Besides, whether it was plenum or riser wire, that would mean splicing the wire to
the wart's wire. There are no screw terminals on the wart, although that could certainly
be replaced with a screw terminal wart. However, that means that the proper plug at the
device end would be required - added to the new cable, either spliced from the old or
a new plug. Now things are getting ugly even if not showing.

[gfre...@aol.com]

On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 05:21:23 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03

Since most wall warts have a pretty short cable you usually will be
splicing in another piece of wire anyway. It might as well be riser
rated.
On the grand scheme of things I doubt a few feet of non riser wire is
going to change the fire that much but it is the rule when you are
going from floor to floor.

[hrho...@att.net]

Insurance companies like to see that all wiring is/was up to code if they are to pay a claim for any future damages.

[DerbyDad03]

On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 11:51:13 PM UTC-4, hrho...@att.net wrote:
> Insurance companies like to see that all wiring is/was up to code if they are to pay a claim for any future damages.

I've heard that from lots of people, yet I have never heard of a case where they haven't paid.

Do you know of anyone that has had a claim denied because of out of code wiring? Do you
know of anyone who actually knows someone that had had a claim denied because of out
of code wiring?

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 20:51:10 -0700 (PDT), hrho...@att.net wrote:

>Insurance companies like to see that all wiring is/was up to code if they are to pay a claim for any future damages.

No code for class 1 or class 2 12 volt wiring.

[gfre...@aol.com]

On Sun, 09 Apr 2017 01:20:14 -0400, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

>>Insurance companies like to see that all wiring is/was up to code if they are to pay a claim for any future damages.
> No code for class 1 or class 2 12 volt wiring.

Perhaps you should take a peek at article 725.
BTW "class 1" can also include 120v wiring (up to 600v) and from a
life safety standpoint, there is no significant difference. That is
why Class 1 circuits use chapter 3 wiring methods.
Don't confuse Class 1 with Class 2 or Class 3 but all are covered by
the code.

[trader_4]

+1

Clarabelle should just stay away from electricity.

[DerbyDad03]

On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 11:30:44 AM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

Isn't *everything* electrical covered by code? Heck, even Pipe Organs
have their own article. ;-)

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

.

OK - I was wrong.
Notice I specified "12 volt" wiring
However I may have misunderstood the original situation. People are
talking about attic and wires in the wall. The way "I" understood the
question the OP had a device that mounted on the wall very close to
the ceiling on either the main floor of a 2 storie, or the basement of
either a single or multi story building, with an electrical outlet at
the normal low-level postion directly above the location of the
device, where the wall-wart could be connected. The question as I
understood it was whether he could pass the power cable from the wall
wart down through the upper floor and the ceiling below..

Now - ASSUMING this is a single family residence and the
ceiling/floor is not required to be a total fire stop, there is no
building code violation involved in drilling a hole in the ceiling or
the floor. Also, I'm assuming, as usually is the case, the cavity
between the upper floor and lower ceiling is not stuffed with
insulation, which means any wiring in that cavity does not need to be
oversized or de-rated for elevated temperatures.

Also I'm ASSUMING the power supply is a pluf connected UL or CSA
approved pwer supply that is current limited and listed as an
ultra-low voltage class 1 or class 2 current limited device. with
integrated wiring..

If all these assumptions are true, I don't believe there is any code
that SPECIFICALLY prevents the OP from drilling a hole in the floor
above and in the ceiling below and dropping the cord down to the wall
mounted device. This does not "hide" the wires, but it greatly reduces
the amount of exposed cable and removes the "wall wart" from view in
the primary living space..

This is how I interpreted the original question.
Running a piece of flexible tubing between the floors to guide the
wire and prevent accidental damage might possibly be adviseable, but
not required..

In my understanding the power supply MUST be accessible and can not
be "permanently installed"

Low voltage "lighting" is addressed in the code and is a different
story UNLESS it is a "light tape" or "rope" type lighting device,
which at least in Canadian Electrica Code, is exempt.

Installing in an unfinished attic space might cross the line due to
"accessibility" and insulation issues.

[gfre...@aol.com]

725.154
(B) Riser. Cables installed in risers shall be as described in any of
(B)(1), (B)(2), or (B)(3):
(1) Cables installed in vertical runs and penetrating more than
one floor, or cables installed in vertical runs in a shaft, shall be
Type CL2R or CL3R. Floor penetrations requiring Type CL2R or CL3R
shall contain only cables suitable for riser or plenum use. Listed
riser signaling raceways and listed plenum signaling raceways shall be
permitted to be installed in vertical riser runs in a shaft from floor
to floor. Only Type CL2R, CL3R, CL2P, or CL3P cables shall be
permitted to be installed in these raceways.
(2) Other cables as covered in Table 725.154(G) and other listed
wiring methods as covered in Chapter 3 shall be installed in metal
raceways, or located in a fireproof shaft having firestops at each
floor.
(3) Type CL2, CL3, CL2X, and CL3X cables shall be permitted in
one- and two-family dwellings. Listed general-purpose signaling
raceways shall be permitted for use with Type CL2, CL3, CL2X, and CL3X
cables.
FPN: See 300.21 for firestop requirements for floor penetrations.

[Joe Schmoe]

The insurance company will pay the claim but likely refuse to renew the
policy.

With so much at stake, why not just do the job the right/safe way?


https://www.wellsfargo.com/financial-education/insurance-protection/homeowners-approval/

https://www.daveramsey.com/blog/can-your-home-insurance-be-denied

[DerbyDad03]

On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 5:17:17 AM UTC-4, Joe Schmoe wrote:
> On 04/09/2017 12:00 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 11:51:13 PM UTC-4, hrho...@att.net wrote:
> >> Insurance companies like to see that all wiring is/was up to code if they are to pay a claim for any future damages.
> > I've heard that from lots of people, yet I have never heard of a case where they haven't paid.
> >
> > Do you know of anyone that has had a claim denied because of out of code wiring? Do you
> > know of anyone who actually knows someone that had had a claim denied because of out
> > of code wiring?
> >
>
> The insurance company will pay the claim but likely refuse to renew the
> policy.
>
> With so much at stake, why not just do the job the right/safe way?
>

Did you read my original post?

[trader_4]

I guess the remaining question there is what exactly they mean by
"penetrating more than one floor". I would take it to mean that if
the cable goes down from attic to a room, it's penetrating only one
floor and therefore riser rated cable is not required. But it still
has to be at least CL2 and the other code rules apply.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

Also note:

and other listed
>wiring methods as covered in Chapter 3 shall be installed in metal
>raceways, or located in a fireproof shaft having firestops at each
>floor.
>(3) Type CL2, CL3, CL2X, and CL3X cables shall be permitted in
>one- and two-family dwellings. Listed general-purpose signaling
>raceways shall be permitted for use with Type CL2, CL3, CL2X, and CL3X
>cables.
>FPN: See 300.21 for firestop requirements for floor penetrations.

OK

(1) Cables installed in vertical runs and penetrating more than
one floor, or cables installed in vertical runs in a shaft, shall be
Type CL2R or CL3R

Does not apply - only going through one floor, therefore:

Floor penetrations requiring Type CL2R or CL3R
>shall contain only cables suitable for riser or plenum use. Listed
>riser signaling raceways and listed plenum signaling raceways shall be
>permitted to be installed in vertical riser runs in a shaft from floor
>to floor. Only Type CL2R, CL3R, CL2P, or CL3P cables shall be
>permitted to be installed in these raceways.

Also does not apply.


The installation requirements for the low-voltage wiring of
information technology equipment (electronic data processing and
computer equipment) located within the confines of a room that is
constructed according to the requirements of NFPA 75, Standard for the
Protection of Information Technology Equipment, are not covered by
Article 725. Low-voltage wiring within these specially constructed
rooms is covered in Article 645.

Also, if listed computer equipment is interconnected and all the
interconnected equipment is in close proximity, the wiring is
considered an integral part of the equipment and therefore not subject
to the requirements of Article 725. If the wiring leaves the group of
equipment to connect to other devices in the same room or elsewhere in
the building, the wiring is considered 荘wiring within buildings鋳 and
is subject to the requirements of Article 725.


Note the first sentance of the second paragraph.If the wiring is "an
integral part of the equipment" it is " therefore not subject to the
requirements of Article 725"

I still maintain the NEC does not address the situation as described
above.

[trader_4]

A couple posts ago you told us there was no code for Class 1 or 2
12V wiring. Now you found the code. That's an improvement!

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

I'd say what he is proposing - as I understood it - IS a safe way.

Beyond the fact that the wiring is part of a "listed device" (unless
it is some cheap chinese knock-off that has not met any listing
requirements), what is the difference between what he is proposing and
a doorbell circuit, or a CATV security camera wiring, or wiring for an
alarm system with active sensors, or telephone wiring?
Phone companies install wiring through floors and walls all the time,
as do alarm companies. And phone lines excede the "ultra low voltage"
limit at nominally 50 volts. Off hook current on a phone system used
to be around 80ma.(a lot less on new electronic phones)

Regardless,I doubt any inspector would "flag" it, and it is no more
dangerous than tunninh the cable along the floor or up the wall -
likely less dangerous as it is less likely to be caught and damaged.

[trader_4]

On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 12:27:31 PM UTC-4, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 05:17:12 -0400, Joe Schmoe <j...@schmoe.web> wrote:
>
> >On 04/09/2017 12:00 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> >> On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 11:51:13 PM UTC-4, hrho...@att.net wrote:
> >>> Insurance companies like to see that all wiring is/was up to code if they are to pay a claim for any future damages.
> >> I've heard that from lots of people, yet I have never heard of a case where they haven't paid.
> >>
> >> Do you know of anyone that has had a claim denied because of out of code wiring? Do you
> >> know of anyone who actually knows someone that had had a claim denied because of out
> >> of code wiring?
> >>
> >
> >The insurance company will pay the claim but likely refuse to renew the
> >policy.
> >
> >With so much at stake, why not just do the job the right/safe way?
> >
> >
> >https://www.wellsfargo.com/financial-education/insurance-protection/homeowners-approval/
> >
> >https://www.daveramsey.com/blog/can-your-home-insurance-be-denied
> I'd say what he is proposing - as I understood it - IS a safe way.
>

But there is a difference between being "safe" and being code compliant.
The latter was the specific question asked.

> Beyond the fact that the wiring is part of a "listed device" (unless
> it is some cheap chinese knock-off that has not met any listing
> requirements), what is the difference between what he is proposing and
> a doorbell circuit, or a CATV security camera wiring, or wiring for an
> alarm system with active sensors, or telephone wiring?

That those require at least CL2 listed cabling and possibly more,
depending on where they are run? And his wall wart cable almost
certainly is not CL2 listed.

> Phone companies install wiring through floors and walls all the time,
> as do alarm companies. And phone lines excede the "ultra low voltage"
> limit at nominally 50 volts. Off hook current on a phone system used
> to be around 80ma.(a lot less on new electronic phones)
>
> Regardless,I doubt any inspector would "flag" it, and it is no more
> dangerous than tunninh the cable along the floor or up the wall -
> likely less dangerous as it is less likely to be caught and damaged.

IDK what an electrical inspector would do, but I would not be surprised
if the typical home inspector flagged it. I agree it's *probably* not
dangerous. I wouldn't be concerned about the safety aspects of running
the cord through a ceiling hole, but I would be a bit concerned about
putting one of those cheap Chinese wall warts in a hot attic that could
reach 125F+.

[gfre...@aol.com]

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:10:49 -0400, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:


>
>OK
>(1) Cables installed in vertical runs and penetrating more than
>one floor, or cables installed in vertical runs in a shaft, shall be
>Type CL2R or CL3R
>
>Does not apply - only going through one floor, therefore:
>
>Floor penetrations requiring Type CL2R or CL3R
>>shall contain only cables suitable for riser or plenum use. Listed
>>riser signaling raceways and listed plenum signaling raceways shall be
>>permitted to be installed in vertical riser runs in a shaft from floor
>>to floor. Only Type CL2R, CL3R, CL2P, or CL3P cables shall be
>>permitted to be installed in these raceways.
>
>Also does not apply.
>

Yes, I agree.

>The installation requirements for the low-voltage wiring of
>information technology equipment (electronic data processing and
>computer equipment) located within the confines of a room that is
>constructed according to the requirements of NFPA 75, Standard for the
>Protection of Information Technology Equipment, are not covered by
>Article 725. Low-voltage wiring within these specially constructed
>rooms is covered in Article 645.

The requirements of 645 are stricter than 725 under a raised floor
since this is usually an air handling space. "DP" cable is plenum
rated. Once inspectors discovered computer rooms, lots of things
changed. IBM had to replace thousands of miles of riser rated
interface cables.
Of course, I doubt there are that many computer rooms these days.

>
>Also, if listed computer equipment is interconnected and all the
>interconnected equipment is in close proximity, the wiring is
>considered an integral part of the equipment and therefore not subject
>to the requirements of Article 725. If the wiring leaves the group of
>equipment to connect to other devices in the same room or elsewhere in

>the building, the wiring is considered ‘‘wiring within buildings’’ and

>is subject to the requirements of Article 725.



>
>
>Note the first sentance of the second paragraph.If the wiring is "an
>integral part of the equipment" it is " therefore not subject to the
>requirements of Article 725"
>
>I still maintain the NEC does not address the situation as described
>above.

How can that be true? By your own definition

"If the wiring leaves the group of
equipment to connect to other devices in the same room or elsewhere in

the building, the wiring is considered ‘‘wiring within buildings’’ and

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

>>the building, the wiring is considered 荘wiring within buildings鋳 and

>>is subject to the requirements of Article 725.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Note the first sentance of the second paragraph.If the wiring is "an
>>integral part of the equipment" it is " therefore not subject to the
>>requirements of Article 725"
>>
>>I still maintain the NEC does not address the situation as described
>>above.
>
>How can that be true? By your own definition
>"If the wiring leaves the group of
>equipment to connect to other devices in the same room or elsewhere in

>the building, the wiring is considered 荘wiring within buildings鋳 and

>is subject to the requirements of Article 725"

EXCEPT when the cabling is part of a "listed device" - which the cord
on the wall-wart is - when it is not addressed.

[gfre...@aol.com]

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:33:04 -0400, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

>>"If the wiring leaves the group of
>>equipment to connect to other devices in the same room or elsewhere in

>>the building, the wiring is considered ‘‘wiring within buildings’’ and

>>is subject to the requirements of Article 725"
> EXCEPT when the cabling is part of a "listed device" - which the cord
>on the wall-wart is - when it is not addressed.

In typical usenet fashion we have taken a simple question to absurd
lengths but I doubt the listing includes the ability to penetrate
walls, ceilings or floors.
1&2 family is pretty much immune from inspections as long as there is
no open permit but I guarantee you, in a commercial building or a
multi family, this would get tagged.
I already said, in the grand scheme of things this is not a baby
killer but it is still questionable as a code issue.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

On Fri, 07 Apr 2017 19:05:54 +0100, DerbyDad03 <teama...@eznet.net> wrote:

> Is there any code-compliant way to plug a 12V power supply pod into an attic receptacle and
> have the 12v wire run to a wall mounted device in the room below? The receptacle is close
> enough to the device's location that the cord will easily reach. The device is up near the ceiling,
> and we're trying to avoid running the power cord (or a track) up the wall, in plain sight.
>
> Would this be considered a flexible cord under NEC 400 and therefore not allowed, even
> though it's only 12V?
>
> If we can't, we'll run Romex from the attic receptacle and install a receptacle for the pod. It
> would just be neater (and easier) to use the attic receptacle.
>
> Constructive ideas are always welcome.

I'm in the UK and there's no rule about using flex instead of "twin and earth" (if that means anything over there). Why would there be? What's important is the current and voltage rating of the cable. I always use flex, it's far easier to get round corners etc.

And since USA mains plugs are extremely dangerous compared to UK ones, I find it hard to believe your wiring code is stricter than ours.

--
If swimming is so good for your figure, how do you explain whales?

[James Wilkinson Sword]

On Fri, 07 Apr 2017 22:03:21 +0100, Safety Steve <st...@safety.guv> wrote:

> On 4/7/2017 2:05 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>> Is there any code-compliant way to plug a 12V power supply pod into an attic receptacle and
>> have the 12v wire run to a wall mounted device in the room below? The receptacle is close
>> enough to the device's location that the cord will easily reach. The device is up near the ceiling,
>> and we're trying to avoid running the power cord (or a track) up the wall, in plain sight.
>>
>> Would this be considered a flexible cord under NEC 400 and therefore not allowed, even
>> though it's only 12V?
>>
>> If we can't, we'll run Romex from the attic receptacle and install a receptacle for the pod. It
>> would just be neater (and easier) to use the attic receptacle.
>>
>> Constructive ideas are always welcome.
>
>

> Ask the inspector when you apply for your electrical permit.

ROFL!

--
The gene pool could use a little chlorine.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 18:16:04 +0100, trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:

> On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 12:27:31 PM UTC-4, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 05:17:12 -0400, Joe Schmoe <j...@schmoe.web> wrote:
>>
>> >On 04/09/2017 12:00 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>> >> On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 11:51:13 PM UTC-4, hrho...@att.net wrote:
>> >>> Insurance companies like to see that all wiring is/was up to code if they are to pay a claim for any future damages.
>> >> I've heard that from lots of people, yet I have never heard of a case where they haven't paid.
>> >>
>> >> Do you know of anyone that has had a claim denied because of out of code wiring? Do you
>> >> know of anyone who actually knows someone that had had a claim denied because of out
>> >> of code wiring?
>> >>
>> >
>> >The insurance company will pay the claim but likely refuse to renew the
>> >policy.
>> >
>> >With so much at stake, why not just do the job the right/safe way?
>> >
>> >
>> >https://www.wellsfargo.com/financial-education/insurance-protection/homeowners-approval/
>> >
>> >https://www.daveramsey.com/blog/can-your-home-insurance-be-denied
>> I'd say what he is proposing - as I understood it - IS a safe way.
>
> But there is a difference between being "safe" and being code compliant.
> The latter was the specific question asked.

If safe and code compliant are different, then the code needs to be changed. The code is there for safety.

>> Beyond the fact that the wiring is part of a "listed device" (unless
>> it is some cheap chinese knock-off that has not met any listing
>> requirements), what is the difference between what he is proposing and
>> a doorbell circuit, or a CATV security camera wiring, or wiring for an
>> alarm system with active sensors, or telephone wiring?
>
> That those require at least CL2 listed cabling and possibly more,
> depending on where they are run? And his wall wart cable almost
> certainly is not CL2 listed.

If he plugs in the wall wart as normal, it's fine, yet running it through the ceiling isn't?!

>> Phone companies install wiring through floors and walls all the time,
>> as do alarm companies. And phone lines excede the "ultra low voltage"
>> limit at nominally 50 volts. Off hook current on a phone system used
>> to be around 80ma.(a lot less on new electronic phones)
>>
>> Regardless,I doubt any inspector would "flag" it, and it is no more
>> dangerous than tunninh the cable along the floor or up the wall -
>> likely less dangerous as it is less likely to be caught and damaged.
>
> IDK what an electrical inspector would do, but I would not be surprised
> if the typical home inspector flagged it. I agree it's *probably* not
> dangerous. I wouldn't be concerned about the safety aspects of running
> the cord through a ceiling hole, but I would be a bit concerned about
> putting one of those cheap Chinese wall warts in a hot attic that could
> reach 125F+.

Does the USA have regular inspections or something? In the UK that only happens if you rent out your house or sell it.

--
You can lead a man to Congress . . .
. . . but you can't make him think.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 16:05:56 -0400, gfre...@aol.com wrote:

>On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:33:04 -0400, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>
>>>"If the wiring leaves the group of
>>>equipment to connect to other devices in the same room or elsewhere in

>>>the building, the wiring is considered 荘wiring within buildings鋳 and

>>>is subject to the requirements of Article 725"
>> EXCEPT when the cabling is part of a "listed device" - which the cord
>>on the wall-wart is - when it is not addressed.
>
>In typical usenet fashion we have taken a simple question to absurd
>lengths but I doubt the listing includes the ability to penetrate
>walls, ceilings or floors.
>1&2 family is pretty much immune from inspections as long as there is
>no open permit but I guarantee you, in a commercial building or a
>multi family, this would get tagged.
>I already said, in the grand scheme of things this is not a baby
>killer but it is still questionable as a code issue.

I wouldn't necessarily try it in a multi-family either - but we WERE
talking single family dwelling, I believe.

[DerbyDad03]

On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 4:06:26 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:33:04 -0400, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>
> >>"If the wiring leaves the group of
> >>equipment to connect to other devices in the same room or elsewhere in
> >>the building, the wiring is considered ‘‘wiring within buildings’’ and
> >>is subject to the requirements of Article 725"
> > EXCEPT when the cabling is part of a "listed device" - which the cord
> >on the wall-wart is - when it is not addressed.
>
> In typical usenet fashion we have taken a simple question to absurd
> lengths

Yep...that's why I've been sitting back watching you guys hash this out.

> but I doubt the listing includes the ability to penetrate
> walls, ceilings or floors.
> 1&2 family is pretty much immune from inspections as long as there is
> no open permit but I guarantee you, in a commercial building or a
> multi family, this would get tagged.
> I already said, in the grand scheme of things this is not a baby
> killer but it is still questionable as a code issue.

My thoughts exactly.

In any case, the issue was resolved in another manner since I asked
the question.

The device is the controller box for a 4 camera WiFi security system.
The location where it was going to be placed was the only place where
it could consistently communicate with all 4 cameras.

A deeper reading of the manual revealed that you can program the cameras
to talk to/through each other, as opposed to each one talking directly to
the controller.

e.g. Place the controller in Location A and all 4 cameras can communicate
with it, but the power wiring is an issue.

Place it in Location B and only Cameras 1, 2, and 4 can reach it, but the
power wiring is not a problem.

Now, program Camera 3 to send its signal to Camera 4 and let Camera 4
forward the video to the Controller. Problem solved and no need to run
wires through a wall or ceiling.

OK, now for the next question:

- Camera mounted on exterior wall.
- Hole drilled through exterior siding and interior drywall.
- 12V wire from wall wart passed though hole to camera. Straight
shot, maybe 6", no sleeve, no box.
- Mounting plate on camera covers the hole in exterior wall.
- RG6 style bushing used in interior drywall hole.

Thumbs up or thumbs down?

[gfre...@aol.com]

OK

[DerbyDad03]

Thank you sir! (as always)

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 16:18:38 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
<teama...@eznet.net> wrote:

>On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 4:06:26 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:33:04 -0400, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>>
>> >>"If the wiring leaves the group of
>> >>equipment to connect to other devices in the same room or elsewhere in

>> >>the building, the wiring is considered 荘wiring within buildings鋳 and

The wall wart wire through the wall will give some of the guys "code
fits" - but as I've posted before, there is no code issue unless you
have aluminum or steel siding in which case you really want either a
sleave or a grommet.

[trader_4]

ROFL

Just a few posts ago you told us there was no code covering Class 1,
Class 2, period.