wiring up a brick wall

Page 2 of 2  
RicodJour wrote:

Which is to say; Webtv mentality.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greetings,
All of my responses are attributed. I can see who I responded to in a tree on my news viewer. If you cannot tell who I am responding to on your viewer it is not because the information is not available. I have included the tree below for you.
1 snipped-for-privacy@wdeans.com Jun 20 2 Goedjn Jun 20 3 snipped-for-privacy@wdeans.com Jun 20 4 Edwin Pawlowski Jun 20 5 Pop Jun 20 6 snipped-for-privacy@wdeans.com Jun 20 7 Duane Bozarth Jun 20 8 Goedjn Jun 20 9 snipped-for-privacy@wdeans.com Jun 20 10 Edwin Pawlowski Jun 20 11 snipped-for-privacy@wdeans.com Jun 20 12 David Martel Jun 20 13 snipped-for-privacy@wdeans.com Jun 20 14 David Martel Jun 21 15 Goedjn Jun 21 16 snipped-for-privacy@wdeans.com Jun 21 17 snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com Jun 21 18 RicodJour Jun 21 19 G Henslee Jun 21 20 Duane Bozarth Jun 20 21 snipped-for-privacy@wdeans.com Jun 20 22 John Grabowski Jun 20 23 snipped-for-privacy@wdeans.com Jun 20 24 Duane Bozarth Jun 20 25 snipped-for-privacy@wdeans.com Jun 20 26 Duane Bozarth Jun 20 27 snipped-for-privacy@wdeans.com Jun 21 28 John Grabowski Jun 21 29 snipped-for-privacy@wdeans.com Jun 21 30 RicodJour Jun 21 31 snipped-for-privacy@wdeans.com Jun 21
In Reply To: RicodJour      Jun 21, 4:46 pm show options Newsgroups: alt.home.repair Date: 21 Jun 2005 13:46:32 -0700 Subject: Re: wiring up a brick wall
I find it very interesting that wdeans has stopped quoting people and just posts unattributed responses. It kind of fits in with the talking and not listening mentality, which is apparently how he wants to approach his building inspector. Anyone care to guess how your friendly neighborhood building inspector will react to such an approach?
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@wdeans.com wrote:

<snipped your bullshit>
Greetings,
Learn to quote you condescending prick.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@wdeans.com wrote: [top posting corrected]

If nothing else, you're consistent. A newsgroup is not all about you and your needs. It is about the free exchange of information. The fact that your posts fall in a tree doesn't mean they are attributed. Certain conventions make it easier for people to follow a thread, pick it up in the middle and read single posts with comprehension regarding the circumstances. Your, for lack of a better word, technique of posting unattributed responses, not quoting the posts you're replying to and the like, and assuming that someone has followed the thread from the beginning, and remembers all the details over a period of what may be days or weeks, is unrealistic and ignores the people that will be searching this newsgroup in years to come.
There's no need to reply, but if you feel compelled, don't top post. That's another one of those conventions.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
" snipped-for-privacy@wdeans.com" wrote:

If you would <read> the replies, it's not been stated unequivocally that you <can't>, merely that there are strong possibilities that no one on usenet can know of that your local code/building inspector may not approve. Nor can anyone here w/o seeing tell whether your assumptions regarding the effect on the wall are, in fact, true. Good proability, but not certain...
...

For the reasons outlined above, no one here can unequivocally answer that question as posed, either. And, only your local code is of significance in judging whether your proposed modification(s) meet code, anyway, so why not just ask?

In this case, there's just not enough info to really provide a definitive answer remotely and it would be much simpler and more effective to just ask locally...

Nobody even came close to saying that you can't. You can find out the "how" for your particular situation easily locally...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greetings,
A) Of course no one can know what my local inspector will be thinking. I am therefore asking about breaking other-than-local electrical, fire, and building codes. B) Yes. In fact someone here did say that I didn't understand it and that I needed to hire a pro: "If you're having to ask about it here, you don't know enough about what it's doing and what effect your modifications will have on the various roles that wall is expected to play ... If the first idea that's in your head is wedged so firmly that you can't get it out, then hire a professional to do the evaluation an subsequent work. " C) If you need additional information, even a photo of a wall (for whatever help it may be) just ask. I have attempted to supply all relevant info without supplying fluff but if I left something out just ask. D) If it helps pretend local code doesn't exist where I am because I am the chief of an indian reservation and I set local code. However, I want my building insured by a national insurance company and I want to ensure that they are happy with the work because it doesn't violate well known national codes. If this pretend situation causes additional problems for you then just ignore it.
Hope this helps, William
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I understand the situation. Flexible metallic conduit cannot be embedded in masonry, but you can certainly use EMT. I suggest that you use 4" square x 1 1/2" deep electrical boxes with a quarter inch raised tile ring. Cutting back the brick to make a nice clean groove will be time consuming. I'm not sure of an easy way to do this except maybe with a hand grinder equipped with a masonry blade.
I've never used PVC coated MC cable embedded in concrete. It's definitely a good way to go and article 330.10(10) permits it.
John Grabowski http://www.mrelectrician.tv

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
THANK YOU VERY MUCH JOHN.
I have some photos up. Please note that not all work will be exactly like in the photos but it should provide some basic idea. Also note that the PVC coated MC and staples will be completely covered by the mortar before the gypsum layer even though it is hard to tell because of lack of depth perception in the photos. Elsewhere in the house I WILL have to cut into the brick. I used a 3.5" deep concrete embeded device box for this outlet but I could easily switch to a more shallow box. I have about 40 of these things to do in total.
http://www.universityofsavanna.com/flat/alt.home.repair/050620%20%20Embedded%2020A%20GFCI%20Circuit /
or
http://tinyurl.com/9acd8
Thanks again John, William
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
" snipped-for-privacy@wdeans.com" wrote:

But how deep? I don't think you can just bury only thinly w/o protection to prevent the nail somebody tries to drive??? That's why the EMT was suggested, I think and why I'd ask a local...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greetings,
I think the 1 1/4" rule is specifically for framing or wood and does not apply in the case of masonry but I could be wrong? If there is another rule covering minimum depth for this application I am not aware. If the walls were plaster I think I could plaster plain MC directly into them. I could always turn the trench into a "small, thin, section of plastered wall". Logically I don't see why I would need to embed the PVC coated MC deeper if the trench was filled with mortar? That doesn't mean there isn't a rule but I am not aware of it.
William
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
" snipped-for-privacy@wdeans.com" wrote:

That's why you need to ask locally...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greetings,
Based on what I can determine there is no minimum depth for my application specified within the NEC. I am getting to work-- with the materials and methods specified. I will check back a couple of times just to make certain no one had any deal-breaking news.
Thank you all again, William
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
William, read article 300.4(E). I'm not sure it applies in your situation, but I would ask the electrical inspector if he would accept the MC cable without protection in a masonry covering.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greetings,
I went back and read 300.4(E) and it seems almost certain that it does not apply.
Uses permitted for MC cable Article 330.10 (11) include "In dry locations and embedded in plaster finish on brick or other masonry except in wet locations" which would be in direct conflict with 300.4(E) if it did apply to such situations. Mortar on brick is also not simular to the finishings listed in 300.4(E). The finishings listed in 300.4(E) require fasteners and thus the 1 1/4" rule.
Thanks again, William
PS: I will let you know what the inspector says (in the next 30 days). I fully expect it to pass.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@wdeans.com wrote:

This has been an interesting thread. I'm not sure why you don't want to talk to your building inspector. Usually that's because someone is either afraid of them or afraid that what they are doing won't pass muster.
If you come up with a "perfect" solution that isn't specifically spelled out in the code, and the inspector shoots the idea down, even though you know without any doubt in your mind that it's okay, what are you going to do? No one here can second guess your building inspector. He might be a push over or he might make your project a nightmare because you're not listening (there is some evidence that that happens).
Good luck with it.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greetings,
I think I have mentioned these things this in the past but I will say them again. Inspectors are emotional beings and, because they can make your life easy or hard, you need to keep their feelings in mind. Just like with other professions some are great people trying to help you accomplish a safe job efficiently -- but some, sadly, are plagued with inspectoritis.
One common symptom of inspectoritis is when inspectors want things done how they say instead of simply in a safe manner leaving the specifics to the contractor. I don't want to give my inspector a chance to specify how I "could" do this job because it might be beyond his ability not to turn that "could" in his mind into a "must".
Another common symptom of inspectoritis is filling in the blanks when the inspector is not 100% sure of the rules and sticking to it. I now know for instance that 300.4(E) does NOT apply in my situation. The inspector might say something about 300.4(E) and I could now explain exactly why it does not apply on the spot and the inspector might be willing to change his mind right then and there because he had not yet voiced a firm decision. If, on the other hand, I had called the inspector and he shot down the idea based upon 300.4(E) and then later I called him back up and told him why he was wrong what do you think my chances would be?
I think that this situation is handled by the code and because of input from John Grabowski and others I now have a much better understanding of exactly where and how it is addressed throughout the NEC. If the inspector shoots it down because of something I missed in the NEC and I am in the wrong then the worst that could happen is I must protect the cable with a plate. The inspector currently has no reason to make up a rule to fail it, in part because I have been careful not to allow such a situation to arise.
Hope this helps, William
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Here's where it could get interesting, based on 1999 NEC Article 225, Outside branch circuits and feeders.
225-20 states "mechanical protection of conductors on buildings, structures, or poles shall be as provided for services in Section 230-50
Going to section 230-50. "Protection of open conductors and cables against damage-above ground", Section 230-50(b) exception: Type MI and Type MC cable shall be permitted within 10 ft of grade level where not exposed to physical damage or where protected in accordance with section 300-5(d) .
Section 300-5(d) refers to the minimum cover requirements for direct buried cable...
Assuming this hasn't changed in the latest NEC, I leave the interpretation to the rest of you...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ooops-my mistake! I thought you were running outlets on the OUTSIDE. Staying up too late, I guess...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thank you for taking the time to post Rick. I am sorry that I was not more clear that the outlets were inside because you clearly put work into your response. I have some photos up at the URL below which will hopefully give a clear notion of what is going on.
http://tinyurl.com/9acd8
William
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    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.