Just install something that is NEC compliant. Sure, what you have
will work, but at what future cost? A temp install is that. Many
of us have seen temp installs that are many years old. Not all of
those encounters have good endings.
Personally, I would install an eight foot flourescent fixture with
proper wiring methods. Your temp install would be something to get
you by while performing that task (two four foot fixtures separated
by approved methods might give better lighting results).
I would guestimate the entire project would cost less than fifty bucks,
if you do it. Now, the question is, should you be the one doing it?
If not, then the under fifty guestimate goes out the door unless
you know a friend that is qualified to six-pack if for you. :-)
Hadn't seen the photo link -- that's a spot even I wouldn't neglect the
mechanical protection rule: both that and the missing cable clamps will
definitely be picked up on by any inspector for a sale and will require
fixing then so may as well do it right to begin with. It'll look better
in the end, besides.
You really mean 25 W bulbs or...oh, CFL's; can't get used to not being
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
As a convenience factor, while it's a little more effort, it would be
_a_good_thing_ (tm) to have at least one set of these on a second
circuit so wouldn't be in dark if a single breaker tripped while in the
garage while there's not external light available (that is, after dark).
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
Does that fly?
If so, what about the ground wire. Assuming plastic boxes, would there
be an alternative #14 wire without the wasted ground wire?
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.
Romex to a few lights in a garage costs that much?
No... it's just the idea... wasting that conductor.
Probably easier to physically manipulate with only 2 conductors too.
If there were two legal products on the same shelf side-by-side, I'd
pick the one without the unused ground.
But I agree with the spirit of your observation.
On Thursday, January 16, 2014 11:48:48 AM UTC-5, bud-- wrote:
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.
On Thursday, January 16, 2014 12:40:13 PM UTC-5, email@example.com wrote:
I've never seen someone so hung up on a "wasted" ground wire
that is part of romex. I just went to HD website to see the cost
difference between 14-2 Romex with grnd and 16 gauge lamp cord. They sell both
by the foot. Romex is 44 cents and lamp cord is 41 cents. If you buy
25 ft to run some garage lights, why all the fuss?
And aside from the price and code compliance, proper
code compliant clamps are made for securing romex to the boxes,
romex can be stapled with standard, available staples, etc. I just
don't see the need to wander in the wilderness.
I heard a standup comedian observe that the really scary part about
warnings like that is that somebody probably did whatever was being
warned against... or there would not have been just that warning.
What, specifically, is it that "that" refers to? Wiring and device
cords are two completely different animals by Code; one has nothing
whatever to do with the other as far as compliance rules.
You don't say how you did the installation; if you did run romex between
outlets and tacked it to the ceiling joists, then think "conduit"
between to make it legal or the surface-mount square tube or you could
get by with a "canal" made of furring strips on either side.
But, yes, it is simply mechanical protection, not electrical/functional
in the requirement. I've got places here on the farm where I haven't
follow the rule because in reality the location is so high and there is
no likelihood of equipment or other stuff actually ever getting in
contact with it and it's never going to be an issue of needing
inspection or a requiring correction for future sale or any such thing;
I simply bring it up as in a residential garage while the same may be
true for the height/accessibility part so it really may not be an issue
from a practical standpoint, the likelihood is pretty good that at some
point the inspection/sale may require rework that may as well just avoid
from the git-go. Plus, overall, it's just "the thing to do" even if can
get away with less.
Again by Code, the ground is to be there. I've not kept up on changes
in Code for existing two-wire circuits as far as whether they're still
grandfathered or not and of course it's any local jurisdiction that has
actual control/say-so even if NEC does still allow it. You could,
physically, run two single wires (say conduit) but in short chunks
probably as costly if not more so than the Romex anyway.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.