(206) 949-5683, Top Rated Plumber, Seattle
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 51

Thread: Internal cable clamps and old wiring

  1. #16
    Electrician Chris75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Litchfield, CT
    Posts
    608

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by maintenanceguy View Post
    NEC requires 1" of sheathing to be inside the box. Frankly, any sheathing showing within the box would satisfy me.
    Its not 1", its 1/4"

  2. #17
    Electrical Contractor/Instructor jwelectric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    2,523

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris75 View Post
    Since you mentioned it, show me the text where its a problem.
    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

  3. #18

    Default

    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.

  4. #19
    In the Trades maintenanceguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris75 View Post
    Its not 1", its 1/4"
    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.

  5. #20

    Default

    Anything short of these two methods is nothing short of dumb, stupid, crazy or any other adjective one would like to describe the installation.
    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?

    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.

  6. #21
    Electrician Chris75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Litchfield, CT
    Posts
    608

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alectrician View Post
    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?

    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.

    I agree, I used to dislike 220, but then I realized I was just brainwashed by mike holts code forum.

  7. #22
    Electrical Contractor/Instructor jwelectric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    2,523

    Default

    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.

  8. #23
    In the Trades Bob NH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jwelectric View Post
    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.

  9. #24
    Electrical Contractor/Instructor jwelectric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    2,523

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob NH View Post
    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

  10. #25

    Default

    Right is Right and wrong is wrong
    That is exactly what your problem is.

    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.


    I agree, I used to dislike 220, but then I realized I was just brainwashed by mike holts code forum.
    Aw come on Chris. NOBODY dislikes me. I'm the nicest guy in the world

    You may dislike my opinions or disagree with how I present them but there is no way anyone could not love me

  11. #26
    In the Trades Bob NH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jwelectric View Post
    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
    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.

  12. #27
    Electrical Contractor/Instructor jwelectric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    2,523

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob NH View Post
    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.

  13. #28
    Electrician Chris75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Litchfield, CT
    Posts
    608

    Default

    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.

  14. #29
    In the Trades Bob NH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jwelectric View Post
    The insurance has also been known to sue the homeowner when noncompliant, non-permitted and non-inspected installations have been made.
    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.

  15. #30
    Code Enforcement codeone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    160

    Exclamation

    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.

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
  •