Reply With QuoteSee UL Standard 719 for complete details to the action needed for the sheathing of NM cableOriginally Posted by Chris75
NEMA 3.13.1 calls for replacement in their NEMA Standards Publication RV-2 which can be found on the NEMA site
|
|
|
Its not 1", its 1/4"
See UL Standard 719 for complete details to the action needed for the sheathing of NM cable
NEMA 3.13.1 calls for replacement in their NEMA Standards Publication RV-2 which can be found on the NEMA site
Thanks to everyone who has contributed to answering my question. Here's what I think I'll do:
I believe the old cables are well supported by being stapled to the stud close to the box. Therefore, I'll put holes in the new box just large enough for the old cables' sheathing to pass, in a position where just as much sheathing will be inside the new box as was inside the old box (at least 1/4"). The clamp in that position will remain closed.
The new cables will simply be installed via the internal clamps, as usual.
I immediately went to the book to prove you wrong.
After a little searching I found 314.17.
Turns out I was wrong. I stand corrected.
If you think that clamp closes the gap, you are smoking crack. That clamp is about an inch long and the cable is about 3/8 thick. Draw a picture and do the math. The gap in the opening is exactly as big with or without the clamp. Have you ever actually worked in the field?Anything short of these two methods is nothing short of dumb, stupid, crazy or any other adjective one would like to describe the installation.
And, there is NOTHING wrong with slipping sheathing over wires.
Guys like JW are just wound way too tightly and do not allow themselves to think freely.
Here is a compromise. Don't cut the clamp all the way out. Cut it short enough to function but still allow the sheath to be seen. This remanufacturing/altering of listed products of course is highly illegal and dangerous and will likely resuly in a firey death of your entire family.
OP. I run as many wires as I can thru one opening. It makes the make up cleaner/neater.
Last edited by Alectrician; 09-04-2008 at 05:03 PM.
I agree, I used to dislike 220, but then I realized I was just brainwashed by mike holts code forum.
So based on the last two replies I suppose that the letter of the codes can be thrown out the window when it is being done by someone other than a licensed person.
Right is Right and wrong is wrong no matter who is making the installation so if you decide to do as these idiots are telling you then more power to the lot to you.
If you decide that you want to make a professional installation then do it the right way.
The choice is yours and the battle will be between you and your insurance company should they ever need to do a pay off due to a jury rigged installation.
I suspect that, at least with respect to homeowners, "The insurance won't pay" argument does not apply. I would like to see a citation from a real policy.
I have carefully examined my homeowners insurance policy, which is the contract between me and the company, and there is nothing in it about not paying for loss or injury resulting from work not done to code or without a permit, whether done by myself or others.
There may be something in a business policy but nothing in a homeowners policy that I have ever seen.
I am also familiar with provisions of professional policies such as "Errors and Omissions" policies that cover engineers and architects. They explicitly cover the consequences of errors and omissions, with some provisions that depend on the policy.
I'm calling your bet. Show 'em or I collect the pot.
It will not be a matter of the insurance paying off or not as in most states the insurance will pay off.
It is a matter that the insurance company can and has counter sued for the loss due to an illegal installation or one that has not been documented by an inspection.
Come back
That is exactly what your problem is.Right is Right and wrong is wrong
Nothing in life is black and white. Everything is open to interpetation and judgement.
Just because it's the law doesn't make it right. I have proven that to you but of course did not get a response. Radicals can never win a debate because they are stuck on one thing. They do not allow anything in that doesn't fit their criteria.
Aw come on Chris. NOBODY dislikes me. I'm the nicest guy in the worldI agree, I used to dislike 220, but then I realized I was just brainwashed by mike holts code forum.
You may dislike my opinions or disagree with how I present them but there is no way anyone could not love me
The homeowner's insurance company may sue the pro who installed something contrary to code, but they would have to show that it caused the loss.
In that case the installers insurance company should defend him and pay any judgement.
The insurance has also been known to sue the homeowner when noncompliant, non-permitted and non-inspected installations have been made.
Mike, all I can say is I have proven you wrong more than once on this site, so you can feel any way you want towards me, I am a PROFESSIONAL electrician, but I also live in the real world, not la-la land.
Please provide the case citation and verdict. I am very interested in any case where a homeowner's insurance company as sued the homeowner insured by the company. The legal basis should be interesting.
Last edited by Bob NH; 09-05-2008 at 06:38 PM.
ive noticed alot of different thoughts on this issue some of them very adamate. But you do have to admit that by cutting the clamps off you are altering the ul listing of the box and by drilling other holes in the box you are doing the same. Also you are not making a code compliant instullation. Most likely a code official would turn you down if you had the required permit and inspections. How you resolve the issue is always best if you try to be compliant for everybodys sake.
Weather you try to do things right by code or not is a matter of conscience. But a good Electrician will always try to do a code compliant job.Because the code is for a reasonably safe system not a cheap way to do things.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks