"...there is a bunch of NM cable that runs over some ceiling beams. It isn't secured and kind of weaves in and out of each other. ..."
I've not been participating in the thread but that was my reaction when I read that in the initial posting was the original wiring was just laying through the floor trusses overhead in the basement. Pretty common practice, ime...
Certainly while it isn't unequivocal, would seem to make more sense than that there could be a bunch of wire on top of solid joists in a basement where one would presume there's flooring on the top side of them.
I'm guessing (but admittedly it is a guess) that the "beams" is a misnomer for lack of knowledge/experience to automatically call them "trusses"...
Surely it's a possibility, but so could it be that the "kind of weaves in and out of each other" be referring to thecables themselves with, perhaps, only one stapled in place. Who knows? Howard does! Howard! Come back here please
No, you don't. The requirement is twelve inches maximum.
The interval between points at which the cable is required to be secured has nothing whatsoever to do with the type of boxes used.
You're misreading that rather badly, I'm afraid.
314.17(C) does *not* require securing the cable at any particular distance from a non-metallic box; rather, it states that *if* the cable is secured within eight inches of a nonmetallic box, then it is not required to secure the cable to the *box*.
And it says nothing whatever about any supposed 48-inch interval.
Right, that's for inaccessible attics. Certainly irrelevant to someone who's wiring a shop in his basement.
I *did* search. It says 4.5 feet. And I cited the section of the Code that specifies 4.5 feet (Article 334.30, in case you've forgotten).
Fine -- then cite the section of the Code where you think you read a requirement to secure NM cable every 48 inches.
To the contrary, it is you who are taking pieces out of context, and you who are failing to understand it -- witness, for example, your misinterpretation of 314.17 as supposedly requiring NM to be secured within 8" of a box. That's not what it says.
No, he could not. If he has truss-style joists, he could run the wiring
*through* them, but not *on*top* of them "as if it was an attic space". He's in a basement, remember? What's *on*top* of his joists?
I'd presume they probably do inter-twine and probably aren't stapled at all but just laying on the bottom chord and maybe going through a brace member now and then. Looks like h, but is very common in tract houses and doesn't violate code -- code doesn't address neatness itself much...
I'm not going to fight with you on the NEC issues anymore. Obviously you can't look up the what I stated. The stapling within 8" pertains to non-metallic boxes that have no means of securing them to the box, like metallic boxes having romex connectors. So the exception says that they have to be secured within 8" of the box. I do not have to search the code anymore if you don't believe me and think I'm wrong so be it. But you haven't completely proven that I don't know what I'm talking about.
That was what I was referring to. Not the top of the joist themselves. That would be totally dumb because the subfloor would crush the wire. I'm not that stupid, but it seems you think I am cause you jumped me right off the bat, on my first ever post.
How about you look it up and prove me wrong. Seems you have taking to liking and jumping me, on my first post to the list. Maybe I'm not explaining myself correctly. So I'll tell you what prove me wrong, you obviously think I am.
Ok what I also don't get is why you are jumping me. Most inspectors don't have a problem if you do better than the code. So if I say 8" and 48" then that is better than code, because you say I'm wrong and code says MAXIMUM 12" and 54" well if that is the case then I'm still doing it correctly anyway. Because last I checked 8" and
That's pretty funny, really, because I clearly cited the Code provisions that back up my statements -- and *you* are unwilling to look up what *I* provided. It's very clear that I *did* look up what you stated, because I already said once exactly why you're mistaken about what it says.
Actually, most non-metallic boxes *do* have a means of securing the cable to the box.
It does not. It says that *if* the cable is secured within 8" of the box, it is not required to be secured to the box.
You don't. And apparently you'd prefer to be proven wrong than to admit that you made a mistake.
So here's the proof.
The Code article which *you* cited, 314.17(C), says:
"Non-metallic Boxes and Conduit Bodies. [...] In all instances, all permitted wiring methods shall be secured to the boxes. Exception: Where non-metallic sheathed cable or multiconductor type UF cable is used with single gang boxes not larger than a nominal size 57 mm x 100 mm (2 1/4 in x 4 in) mounted in walls or ceilings, and where the cable is fastened within 200 mm (8 in) of the box measured along the sheath and where the sheath extends through a cable knockout not less than 6 mm (1/4 in), securing the cable to the box shall not be required."
This is an exception from the requirement to secure the cable to the *box*, not a requirement to secure the cable to the framing at any particular point.
Nothing there about your mythical 48" requirement, either.
Sorry, my crystal ball is down this week. The only way I have of figuring out what you meant is by reading what you wrote. If you didn't write what you meant, it's hardly reasonable to blame the *reader* for not understanding.
You gave incorrect answers to an electrical question. I corrected your errors. Not my fault if you're unable to handle it.
I've already done that. Haven't you been paying attention to the Code cites I've posted? Go back and look them up.
There isn't any way to correctly explain incorrect statements.
I already did prove you wrong, by citing the relevant articles of the Code. If you think the Code says something different, then you find it and post it.
I'm not "jumping" you, Dale. I'm pointing out the errors in your statements about the requirements of the NEC. It's clear that you have not thoroughly read and understood it, and yet you attempt to answer questions based on your incomplete and incorrect understanding -- and wind up giving incorrect answers as a result. Then you argue with me when I cite (and quote) the provisions of the Code that show what it *really* says.
Incorrect answers to electrical questions can be deadly. If you're going to attempt to answer such questions, you must first know what you're talking about.
So far, you haven't shown persuasive evidence that you do.
Quite true. Securing at 8" from the box, and every 48" thereafter, certainly is Code-compliant. To state that the Code *requires* that, simply is not true.
And it leaves me wondering how many other provisions of the Code you've misunderstood.
LOL ... don't worry too much about it, Dale. Just consider that you've learned early why he's known as the #1 d*****ad on the wRec. Save yourself some time and go ahead and plonk his argumentative ass and be done with it ... you'll be glad you did.
Actually, I think that might be you -- you absolutely can't stand it when anybody disagrees with you, and reply with abuse to any suggestion that you're mistaken. It seems to particularly gall you when you're wrong and I'm right; it's not clear to me exactly why, but I suspect that it might be insecurity over your inability to express yourself clearly.
And you clearly haven't bothered to read this thread before making this insulting and ignorant comment; if you had, you would have seen that Dale's statements about the relevant provisions of the electrical code are factually incorrect, and his defense of them even more so.
My take on the whole matter is that EVERY time the NEC is discussed, there's debate.
Is anyone on this list a licensed master electrician?
If so, let him speak up and resolve this issue, please. If no licensed master electrician, then perhaps a journeyman with experience in the type of wiring contemplated. Otherwise, code citations notwithstanding, this is too serious an area for guesswork of ANY sort. The best possible advice to the OP is to seek assistance locally from someone trained to give it. The second best advice is to buy a book on the topic area and follow it precisely.
Nobody here knows everything about everything. Not even me.
Oh ... and Dale ... now you are learning why this is called 'the wreck'.
I haven't read all the other responses in detail, so this may already have been addressed:
Make sure the lights in your shop are on a dedicated circuit. You don't want any of your power equipment or anything (or anybody!) in the finished part of the basement tripping the circuit that controls the lights while you're in the shop.
Is the furnace for the house or just the shop? If it for the house, have you figured out how to protect it from workshop dust and fumes? If it's a forced air system you could end up spreading dust and fumes from the shop throughout the house.
I see 2 sump holes. Do you need to be concerned with huge swings in humidity when there's water in the sumps vs. dry times? (I don't have sumps, so I don't even know it that's a concern.)
HomeOwnersHub website 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.