(206) 949-5683, Top Rated Plumber, Seattle
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 69

Thread: Best option for spa wiring

  1. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianJohn View Post
    Nope not one of us is certified, licensed maybe. I am licensed but can not speak for the others, well Speedy and 480 I believe are....(I sort of know them in a round about web way). They are sharper on NEC issues than I am as I am no code expert. I pick up the book and review as necessary.
    OK then. Perhaps a better term is "Certifiable"?

    I try to do the same as you do with the code book. I've found in my area (SE Wisconsin) that different municipalities use different flavors of the book, and some inspectors seem to get "creative" with the code as well. I'm just trying to determine the most practical - and compliant - method to wire my spa.

    Example - in my town, I can pull any permits I like and do any of the work I choose to do. Obviously, they encourage hiring pros to do the work, but they also realize that a lot of us are very competent and in my case, very conscientious about doing the work properly and to code. It is my house, and I certainly don't want to do anything to hurt my family, damage the house physically, or diminish the resale value.

    The inspector I worked with when I pulled permits to install a subpanel and an overhead furnace in my garage were great. They offered practical examples of what will work and what doesn't, and what they look for when they come in to do the rough and the finish inspection. At the end of the day, I'll stop in and chat with them to get their advice - especially when I need to satisfy them in order to pass inspection.

    I do appreciate the feedback, regardless of what it is. There is nothing better than having many years of experience to borrow from.

    Regards,
    Rick

  2. #32
    Licensed Electrical Contractor Speedy Petey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    NY State, USA
    Posts
    975

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by restorick View Post
    OK then. Perhaps a better term is "Certifiable"?
    NOW you're beginning to get it.

  3. #33
    Electrician Chris75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Litchfield, CT
    Posts
    608

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by restorick View Post
    You know, it's very interesting to hear all of the interpretations of the code, or at least the personal liberties taken with the code.

    I'm not looking to violate anything, and I certainly do not want an unsafe condition where I'm worried every time my wife or I hop in the tub. But the commentary here makes me laugh a little, especially when I hear certified electricians (I'm hoping you are, at least) argue about the meaning of what seems to be a very straightforward code. Gotta say, it doesn't instill a great deal of confidence in me to hire a pro, especially if you have more than one way to interpret the code.

    Here's my situation - I need a 50A feeder. My main panel is about 60' away from where the cable will exit the house. The spa will sit in my backyard, which is 9' lower than my front yard. So I have an option to exit the house through the deck ledger board 9' above the spa and run cable along the deck rim joist and down the post, or I can exit the house low and deal with modifying the siding.

    In either case, I have about a 18' run from the house to the disconnect.

    I have a disconnect and will use it. I am trying to avoid having to use NM in the house, make a connection into a JB and switch over to conduit into the disconnect, and then use liquidtight flex to the spa.

    What are my options?

    Thanks again,
    Rick

    Alectrician's comments are not interpretations, they are straight forward code violations... ignore his comments...

  4. #34
    DIY Senior Member BrianJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    151

    Default

    Certifiable"? NUTS yes.

  5. #35
    In the Trades Bob NH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,307

    Default

    Unless you have already bought the NM, you might consider running PVC conduit all the way with #8 copper to provide the 50 Amps. I described the details on wire size in my earlier post.

    I recently installed 1" PVC through joists on 16" centers, and have done 3/4" that you would need on several occasions. It's important to take care with layout of the drilling and plan the joints. I was able to pull 2 #6, 1 #8, and a #10 through four 90 degree els in about 80 ft of run without any help.

  6. #36

    Default

    How can you say that this is a 100% safe installation?

    All you need is half a brain to figure that one out. Explain how sleeving romex can kill someone and I will consider your opinion. Hell people LEGALLY run the crap exposed all over the country and that is somehow better? Explain that.




    Simply due to sheer luck that no one has been hurt by it? Has your installation method been tested by UL, ETL, or any other testing lab in regards to it's 'safety'?
    Again, tell us how it is a safety issue. You CAN'T. It's not rocket science and I don't need a lab to tell me it's safe.



    Maybe your first installation like this has burned the house down, or the ground wire has failed, killing the whole family, and you just don't know about it because you did it so long ago
    Dude that is stupid. Maybe your legal installation has killed a whole family. Does that put you in the clear? You clowns really know how to stretch.

    NOBODY will step up and say why THEY think it is unsafe. You are only able to point to a book and say "Look here. It started to be unsafe in 2005 when all ouside conduit was reclassified as a wet location". Weak.

  7. #37
    In the Trades Bob NH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,307

    Default

    This is getting as exciting as when I described having cut a live 120 Volt conductor with 15" Fiskars pruning loppers that have fiberglass and nylon handles.

  8. #38

    Default

    What bothers the rest of us here is that you CONSTANTLY give advice to non-trades folks that IS wrong or not code legal.
    You might want to get used to it. I'll have to admit that I get a bit of pleasure out of bothering some people.



    BTW, 356.10 (5) says Type LFNC-B longer than 6' if strapped.

  9. #39
    DIY Senior Member BrianJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    151

    Default

    Speaking strictly for me, this is not a safety issue and if the conductors were marked would be the exact SAME. As I stated earlier I do not do this type of work but have been told that some Romex and UF and MC is marked.

    Prior to these post I may have done sleeving of Romex if the case arose. But I pride myself on doing code compliant work and would not do this type of install knowing this is a violation.

    In my opinion not knowing better and violating the code is not right but understandable (not everyone knows everything in the NEC*), knowing it is a violation and continuing to do installations that are non code compliant installations is wrong.


    * I do feel it prudent to have a complete knowledge regarding the type of work one does, when I installed my pool I read and re-read the NEC regarding pools to verify my installation was compliant (I threw the pool contractors electricians off the job). If you do a gas station read....You get the picture a GOOD electrician strives to do good work this means his work needs to meet the code rules.

  10. #40
    Licensed Electrical Contractor Speedy Petey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    NY State, USA
    Posts
    975

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alectrician View Post
    BTW, 356.10 (5) says Type LFNC-B longer than 6' if strapped.
    No kidding. 680.42(A)(1) overrides that.

    What the code giveth in one place it taketh away in another.
    Sorry, you don't get to choose which one you want.

    Another big issue with this whole stripping NM in conduit is the insulated ground factor for a spa or pool. Once the circuit leaves the structure the ground MUST be insulated.
    If the disconnect is mounted ON the house I also bring the NM cable right into the back. Now we are outside the structure. From this point ALL conduit and INSULATED conductors, even the ground.
    If the disconnect is several to many feet off the house I change over to conduit and wire just inside the house. That or I go all the way to the panel with conduit if it is not that far.

  11. #41

    Default

    No kidding. 680.42(A)(1) overrides that.

    What the code giveth in one place it taketh away in another.
    Sorry, you don't get to choose which one you want.

    With conflicting code, how do you determine which is superior? I always wonder about that.


    Another big issue with this whole stripping NM in conduit is the insulated ground factor for a spa or pool. Once the circuit leaves the structure the ground MUST be insulated.

    a) Is the deck a part of the structure?

    b) I never strip the sheathing. I dont like to remove ANY protection. I KNOW....it's still not an insulated ground, that's not my point. I was just pointing out that when I sleeve NM, I leave the sheathing intact.

  12. #42

    Default

    This whole thread is about following the "code" to the letter vs. not following it to the letter.

    What's missing in this argument is why it is safer or better to do it one way vs. the other. If a few feet of NM cable is sleeved outside, how is this going to cause the house to burn down, as one poster put it?

    I, for one, think that blindly and unquestioningly following the rules is very dangerous. It's much better to use the code book as a guide, and to question everything. You just may be smarter than the folks who came up with the codes.

  13. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Verdeboy View Post
    This whole thread is about following the "code" to the letter vs. not following it to the letter.

    What's missing in this argument is why it is safer or better to do it one way vs. the other. If a few feet of NM cable is sleeved outside, how is this going to cause the house to burn down, as one poster put it?

    I, for one, think that blindly and unquestioningly following the rules is very dangerous. It's much better to use the code book as a guide, and to question everything. You just may be smarter than the folks who came up with the codes.
    Actually, this whole thread is not about following the code to the letter. It was to solicit feedback on how to solve my problem.

    Personally, I don't care about why I can use NM sleeved outside - I just ain't gonna do it. And, if licensed electricians are advocating doing something that isn't compliant, then I personally don't think a whole lot for their approach.

    Professionals don't cut corners - they do things right. And they charge a fair price for being a pro. I'm not a pro electrician, just a damned good amateur.

    Bottom line - I guess it all depends on your comfort level with the "workaround".

    In my case, I wouldn't do it because I would not be comfy knowing that I don't have something up to code. Doesn't matter if it never blows up and burns down my house, I just would never take that chance with my family or my property.

    In the case of a real electrician, I would think they would be afraid of 2 things:

    1. Fear that the non-compliant work will cause something bad to happen, and
    2. Fear that they could lose their business, their house and anything else I can get my arms around when I sue their ass off

    Besides, don't most electricians charge by the hour? Or at the very least, isn't there some sort of magic manual that tells them how much time to allocate to a job? I would think it would be like a car mechanic, where the little black book shows you charge 4.5 hours to replace a transmission, but you know you can get it done in 2. You either double your paycheck, or you hit the links early.

    As for your contention that blindly following the rules is dangerous, well then I guess you're either a product of the 60s or someone who has no regard for the laws of physics. And if you think you're smarter than the scores of engineers who came up with the code, by all means have at it. I'll be reading about you winning a Darwin award someday.

    </soapbox mode off>

    Rick (not a licensed electrician, but a damned good amateur)

  14. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alectrician View Post
    With conflicting code, how do you determine which is superior? I always wonder about that.
    As stated directly in the code - you need to follow the other sections of the code, except where the code is overidden by section 680.


    Quote Originally Posted by Alectrician View Post
    a) Is the deck a part of the structure?
    Yes, my deck is attached to the house.

    Rick

  15. #45

    Default

    1. I have never been afraid of anything really and the older I get, the more confident I become. I believe in myself and my abilities to make sound decisions.

    2. There is no doubt that I am smarter than some of the code writing brainiacs. What they seem to lack is a simple mecanical background.

    Read some of the conflicting and/or poorly written code and you will understand what I'm talking about.


    In my opinion, if you are really concerned about your property and want a quality installation, find a good contractor. I don't think I've EVER seen a homeowner do good work. They don't have the tools or the complete understanding to pull it off.

    Finding a good contractor will be the challange. There are millions of compliant installations that are sub standard.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •