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 firstname.lastname@example.org Jun 20
2 Goedjn Jun 20
3 email@example.com Jun 20
4 Edwin Pawlowski Jun 20
5 Pop Jun 20
6 firstname.lastname@example.org Jun 20
7 Duane Bozarth Jun 20
8 Goedjn Jun 20
9 email@example.com Jun 20
10 Edwin Pawlowski Jun 20
11 firstname.lastname@example.org Jun 20
12 David Martel Jun 20
13 email@example.com Jun 20
14 David Martel Jun 21
15 Goedjn Jun 21
16 firstname.lastname@example.org Jun 21
17 email@example.com Jun 21
18 RicodJour Jun 21
19 G Henslee Jun 21
20 Duane Bozarth Jun 20
21 firstname.lastname@example.org Jun 20
22 John Grabowski Jun 20
23 email@example.com Jun 20
24 Duane Bozarth Jun 20
25 firstname.lastname@example.org Jun 20
26 Duane Bozarth Jun 20
27 email@example.com Jun 21
28 John Grabowski Jun 21
29 firstname.lastname@example.org Jun 21
30 RicodJour Jun 21
31 email@example.com Jun 21
In Reply To:
RicodJour Jun 21, 4:46 pm show options
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
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.
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...
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
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,
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.
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.
Thanks again John,
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.
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,
I went back and read 300.4(E) and it seems almost certain that it does
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.
PS: I will let you know what the inspector says (in the next 30 days).
I fully expect it to pass.
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
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
Good luck with it.
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
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,
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
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
Assuming this hasn't changed in the latest NEC, I leave the
interpretation to the rest of you...
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.
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.