On Thursday, January 16, 2014 11:48:48 AM UTC-5, bud-- wrote:
On 1/16/2014 10:31 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Per dpb:

In addition to other comments note that while it's electrically ok,

by Code exposed wiring in an accessible space is required to be

protected if it isn't in the attic space above the garage but run on

surface between fixtures.



I'm figuring there's a functional reason for Code rules.... and maybe

that's it for this one.



I take "Protected" to mean more immune to foreign objects breaking

through the insulation and exposing wire... and that would make sense.

The exposure with small appliance cords is there... but we live with

that because of the convenience/usability tradeoffs. OTOH, on long

fixed runs, there's no convenience/usability consideration so we want

protection.



Does that fly?



A large part of the UL investigation for flexible cord is flexibility.

That is not an issue for romex, and it is investigated for rather

different properties. I wouldn't use flexible cord (even with the right

wire size) as a replacement for romex except for temporary use.





If so, what about the ground wire. Assuming plastic boxes, would there

be an alternative #14 wire without the wasted ground wire?



Romex to a few lights in a garage costs that much?

That's probably the best answer so far..... Only issue there is
IDK if HD, etc sell Romex by the foot like they do lamp wire, etc.
Might have to buy 25ft roll, but maybe they do sell it by the foot.
If it's by the foot, I agree, not enough cost diff to worry about
and it's not code to use lamp wire. Plus depending on if the wire
is visible, if the house is sold, it's something any inspector
should find and flag.