New shop, electrical question

Page 2 of 3  
snipped-for-privacy@somewhere.com writes:

They you really have no basis upon which to stand with respect to your initial "blue wire" posting, or any criticism of posters such as Doug who have, over the years, evidenced a clear understanding and familiarity with the NEC as applied in the United States.
scott
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
...thinks he has good knowledge of the code and how it is applied in **his** area.
If you aren't another of the many nicknames Doug uses here then stop trolling.
-------------------- "Scott Lurndal" wrote in message
They you really have no basis upon which to stand with respect to your initial "blue wire" posting, or any criticism of posters such as Doug who have, over the years, evidenced a clear understanding and familiarity with the NEC as applied in the United States.
scott
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Unless you can _prove_ that assertation, You are in violation of your own "advice".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/18/2011 10:14 AM, Robert Bonomi wrote:

Please don't feed the trolls, Robert.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You are correct and caught me. I am Doug Miller using another nickname too.
------------------ "Robert Bonomi" wrote in message wrote: If you aren't another of the many nicknames Doug uses here then stop trolling.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The fact remains, you *lied* in your original description of what the bozo was 'doing wrong'.
Those who took your *INACCURATE* description at face value, and made the mistake of believing _what_you_said_ -- they *were* correct in pointing out the error of your "as reported" violation.
What the 'bozo' was tually= doing -may- have been 'wrong' and/or a 'code violation'.
What you SAID HE WAS DOING WRONG, was _not_, as described, a violation.
"Union card" or not, you're not "protected" from disciplinary action when you make overt errors such as that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
George Watson by any other name is still Doug Miller
http://www.uffnet.com/kookkamp/phlatdale.htm
----------------- "Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
<trolling snipped>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@somewhere.com writes:

Good thing you didn't report him, you'd have looked the fool. So long as the current carrying conductors are not white or green, they're perfectly acceptable to the NEC in any residential setting.
scott
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 13 Sep 2011 17:35:44 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

I only used the blue color as an example, he was using multi colored wires in a totally haphazard fashion, connecting blues to greens to oranges... whatever was convenient, and changing color mid-run is a code violation as far as I know. I don't think he connected any white wires in what I saw.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/13/2011 8:31 PM, snipped-for-privacy@somewhere.com wrote:

No, it's not. The Code doesn't specify *anything at all* about colors in residential wiring except: neutral = gray or white, ground = bare or green or green with a yellow tracer, and those colors can't be used for anything else.
There is no prohibition whatsoever against mixing colors, or using any colors you please.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Only Dougy's code says these things.
"Not a workmanlike manner"
FAILED!
"Doug Miller" wrote in message No, it's not. The Code doesn't specify *anything at all* about colors in residential wiring except: neutral = gray or white, ground = bare or green or green with a yellow tracer, and those colors can't be used for anything else.
There is no prohibition whatsoever against mixing colors, or using any colors you please.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 5:19:37 PM UTC-7, m II wrote:

Just to clarify: the common wiring to a wall switch has the same black/white/bare wires as to a socket, but BOTH THE BLACK AND WHITE ARE LIVE. The white wire, therefore, IS 'used' for something else, and for that reason it must be marked (usually with a wrap of colored tape) as 'nonneutral'. When you add that extra tape to tag the wire, it effectively becomes no longer a 'white' color wire.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
First I didn't post any of that confusion. Learn to read attribution lines and stop the bottom posting confusion with poorly designed readers.
Second the switch wiring is common practice and there is nothing in the Can code about using the white for hot. It does not need to be marked with tape. Our code only states the neutral shall be marked.
----------
"whit3rd" wrote in message
Just to clarify: the common wiring to a wall switch has the same black/white/bare wires as to a socket, but BOTH THE BLACK AND WHITE ARE LIVE. The white wire, therefore, IS 'used' for something else, and for that reason it must be marked (usually with a wrap of colored tape) as 'nonneutral'. When you add that extra tape to tag the wire, it effectively becomes no longer a 'white' color wire.
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 5:19:37 PM UTC-7, m II wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

BW
Armor is armor. Nothing else. The ground must be defined and in this case it is the bare or green wire with in the armor cable.
Conduit is nice and probably required since you indicate that the wiring will not be exposed. Exposed romex or the like will not cut it now.
The additional wires indicate that there is no ground wire and it will have to be added.
A subpanel with the required breakers should have been added. Also a ground rod should be provided for additional protection. Especially if the barn is constructed of combustible material.
Armor cable, conduit and boxes have no listed electrical characteristics and therefore should not be part of any required ground protection.
Bob AZ
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/7/2011 9:10 PM, Bob AZ wrote:

That is incorrect. The armor of type AC armored cable is explicitly recognized by the NEC as an acceptable equipment grounding conductor.

??? Why would conduit be required if the wiring will be concealed? [...]

Totally incorrect. In addition to cable armor, the NEC also recognizes rigid and flexible metallic conduit or tubing as acceptable grounding conductors.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In Canada armored cable is not considered a ground conductor. A continuous ground conductor must be run.
E.M.T. does not suffice a s a ground conductor and a separate grounding conductor must be run. The little screws that hold EMT together can have physical strain on them, separate and are not good grounding systems and not to Canadian safety code. EMT is not physical protection for wiring and only a method running wires. It takes conduit (rigid) to offer physical protection.
I find this hard to believe the NEC would differ that much on armored cable. Who would use a grounding conductor that is made out of who knows what crap metal and has an inductive coil made out of it? Sounds like somebody has their wires crossed.
------------- "Doug Miller" wrote in message Totally incorrect. In addition to cable armor, the NEC also recognizes rigid and flexible metallic conduit or tubing as acceptable grounding conductors.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Wonder why they put grounding conductors in armored cables. I doubt people would pay for the extra conductor if they could use the armor for a ground in either country.
Doug misinforms again.
In Canada -------------- http://www.homedepot.ca/product/14-2-ac-90-amour-cable-30m/908343
http://www.homedepot.ca/product/14-3-ac-90-armour-cable-20m/908348
In USA --------- http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&storeId051&catalogId053&productId0143824&R0143824
http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?langId=-1&storeId051&catalogId053&productId0142069&R0142069
----------------- "Josepi" wrote in message Totally incorrect. In addition to cable armor, the NEC also recognizes rigid and flexible metallic conduit or tubing as acceptable grounding conductors.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

again, see my earlier post - ever hear of 12-2? (there is a 12-3 used for 220 lines)
shelly
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Actually EMT IS adequate protection under Canadian code for exposed wiring in a lot of areas. (like basement walls and residential garages)

ground in Canada too - and the current "MC" cable, with aluminum shield and a separate bonding ribbon also passes.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yeah, I remember running into all kinds of old crap back in "the old days". The code violations were brutal and I wonder how some of us survived...LOL
BX cable should have had a grounding strip /ribbon run inside the steel armour. Steel (in a helical coil) is not considered a good grounding conductor and if the ribbon existed it had to be used.
From the Ontario Hydro Electrical Safety Code - 19th Edition - 1983
Rule 10-510 Fixed Equipment (2) The armour of those constructions of armoured cables incorporating a grounding conductor shall not be considered as fulfilling the requirements of a grounding conductor for the purposes of this Rule, and the grounding conductor provided in these cables shall shall comply with Subrule (1)(b). **(states the conductor shall be bare or green)
(3) The armour of flexible conduit and liquid-tight flexible metal conduit shall not be considered as fulfilling the requirements of a grounding conductor for the purposes of this rule, and a separate grounding conductor shall be run within the conduit.
EMT was never considered mechanical protection but could always be used in places where romex was Ok just strapped to a wall to keep it neat.
1983 rule. Sorry I was too lazy to find it in the new code book
Rule 12-1502 Use (EMT) Electrical metallic tubing may be be used for exposed and concealed work except that it shall not be used: (a) Where it is subject to mechanical injury either during installation or afterwards; (b) in any hazardous location; etc... corrosive, wet, concrete, earth contact, corrosive vapors...
-------------------- wrote in message Totally incorrect. In addition to cable armor, the NEC also recognizes rigid and flexible metallic conduit or tubing as acceptable grounding conductors.
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.