ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Increasing demand factors in residential
by gfretwell - 03/28/24 12:43 AM
Portable generator question
by Steve Miller - 03/19/24 08:50 PM
Do we need grounding?
by NORCAL - 03/19/24 05:11 PM
240V only in a home and NEC?
by dsk - 03/19/24 06:33 AM
Cordless Tools: The Obvious Question
by renosteinke - 03/14/24 08:05 PM
New in the Gallery:
This is a new one
This is a new one
by timmp, September 24
Few pics I found
Few pics I found
by timmp, August 15
Who's Online Now
1 members (gfretwell), 32 guests, and 14 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 984
Likes: 1
G
Member
wa2ise, you just submitted what's probably the most common thing at the front door of a Chicago home. Nail on a 1900 box with an offset bracket (to clear the door trim), stick on a single gang trim ring and wire up a double switch.

1 switch is for the porch light and the other is for the switched receptacle in the room.

BTW, the switched receptacle is almost always the one below the front windows...makes it easy to turn the tree lights on and off during Christmastime.


Ghost307
Stay up to Code with the Latest NEC:


>> 2023 NEC & Related Reference & Exam Prep
2023 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides

Pass Your Exam the FIRST TIME with the Latest NEC & Exam Prep

>> 2020 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides
 

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 202
3
Member
VERTICAL:
[Linked Image from updates.clipsal.com]

HORIZONTAL
[Linked Image from updates.clipsal.com]

Decide on the day what you need & if what you have is wrong, turn the mechanisms 90 degrees


Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 849
Y
Member
I think the Chicago Codes wayyyyyyy Better then the NEC.
Yoopers

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,213
S
Member
It's little things like this make me wish there was a NATIONAL building code instead of individual states and locales. Incorporate the CA codes for areas with high seismic, incorporate the florida codes for areas with high wind, and just get rid of all the little "me" codes that serve the pet peeves of every little jurisdiction. And if something in those "me" codes is better than national? MAKE it national.

Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,923
Likes: 32
G
Member
Well we do have a "National" electric code. All we need to is get the states to adopt it, unaltered.
Florida was doing that for a while ... now they are writing electrical things into the state "building" code. At least it is state wide with no local exceptions.


Greg Fretwell
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,445
Likes: 2
Cat Servant
Member
Steve ... at the risk of getting this thread to drift way off course .... I disagree as to the merits of a 'national' code. I oppose the idea on two points:
First, it is for the model codes - and the NEC is but another private-party model code - to justify themselves to the AHJ's.
Secondly, we have, from the very start of this country, seen building codes as a local issue. We're not supposed to have very much that's "national" at all!


Let's look at one of "Chicago's Strange Quirks:" their refusal to allow the use of Romex (NM). One might say that they're tilting at windmills, since NM has been around since the Depression - and recent code cycles have allowed it to be used in additional areas. Surely the stuff must have been proven safe by now!

But - Hold on, wait a moment ..... isn't this the same code that has, for the past decade, been foisting AFCI's on us, because of the errant staple? Now, there's a risk you don't have with other wiring methods. Maybe Chicago has been right all along?

As confusing and complicated as the current arrangement may be, I prefer it to the "one world" nonsense some espouse.

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,213
S
Member
There was an example today of MC cabling not being allowed for grounding in Michigan. MC in Michigan is the same as MC in virginia, yet it's a safe ground conductor in Virginia, but not in Michigan? If it's safe, allow it in Michigan. If it's a risk, don't allow it anywhere. Same goes with the AFCIs.

I'm not talking strictly about NEC here, or federally mandating everyone follow NEC specifically, I'm taking about building codes and laws in general. People who support states rights usually bring up specific examples like california medical marijuana, or gay marriage, or virginia $2000 traffic ticket fees, and cite laws they agree with as reasons states should be free to make their own laws. I don't want to get into a debate about any specific issue here (we have enough controversy eletrical codes) but to speak in general. Make it legal everywhere, or outlaw it everywhere; to say something is OK in what state but illegal in another is, in my humble opinion, asinine. Conditions change from area to area, but there's nothing unique to chicago buildings that you don't see in Boston or New York or San Francisco, or from Michigan to Wisconsin. If risk of fire from Romex is too high a threat in high-population density areas with a large number of windy days, outlaw it in all high-density areas with a large number of windy days. If it's not, they let the poor bastards in chigago use it.

There should not be a requirement for a 3rd party "model code" like NEC or IBC at all, there could simply be *the* code, updated by the federeal government and subject to standard legislative and judicial review, with all that comes with it. If they choose to outsource it and simply adopt NEC and IBC (as the DoD has), then at least we're consistant.

Last edited by SteveFehr; 02/15/08 08:39 AM.
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,335
S
Member
What is considered "safe" is nothing more then an intepretation. If it was black and white, then discussions and debates would not exist. Neither would this discussion board.


"Live Awesome!" - Kevin Carosa
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 7,520
P
Member
Wouldn't a completely uniform building code in a country as vast as the U.S.A. impose some quite unreasonable conditions on everybody to cater for things which are only likely to be a problem in specific areas?

Does it make sense to demand that buildings in Oregon be built to the same tornado-resisting standards as in Mississippi? Or for buildings in Florida to be able to cope with the same snow loading as Minnesota?

Even in a place as small as Britain we have differences in the Building Regulations between England and Scotland.

Some of the issues arising around local electrical codes do seem to make little sense though. If NM isn't "safe" in Chicago, why is it safe in Manhattan, or San Francisco?

Just look at our different national codes to see even more variation. In the U.K. TT earthing systems in which the earth is the sole fault-current path are common in rural areas. Yet the American NEC doesn't allow them at all.



Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,445
Likes: 2
Cat Servant
Member
Paul, you're much better informed than most, so you are better able to appreciate some issues.

Whenever you learn something, you are inclined to think 'this is the only way to do it.' Yet, such is seldom true.

For example, who can deny the desire for greater safety? Yet, to address this exact ideal, the USA and GB have taken quite the opposite tack as to receptacles in bathrooms. Your 'ideal' would prefer none at all, while ours would require multiple!
Naturally, each point of view only makes sense when you look at the entire picture ... including just what constitutes a typical 'bath!' Placed in context, both views make a lot of sense.

Otherwise ... just to show how 'similar' areas can differ .... both NYC and Chicago ban NM, but for very different reasons.
Chicago, ostensibly because of fire concerns (plastic burns), and perhaps to please the Unions. Keep in mind that Chicago had electrical codes long before anyone else, and they're not about to kowtow to the 'upstart' NFPA laugh
New York, in contrast, did allow NM ... until it was found that their rats simply love to eat it, leading to many problems. It seems banning NM is easier than banning rats ....

Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5