ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat Box
Recent Posts
Australia-wall boxes not required
by ozvincente - 04/02/20 10:58 PM
Hi-Vis madness
by grich - 04/02/20 02:22 PM
SBA & Paycheck Protection Program
by Bill Addiss - 04/02/20 10:01 AM
All this testing and tagging stuff?
by dsk - 04/01/20 02:28 PM
Pole climbing in Norway
by Texas_Ranger - 04/01/20 09:26 AM
New in the Gallery:
Facebook follies, bad wiring
FPE in Germany pt.2
Who's Online Now
1 registered members (Scott35), 16 guests, and 8 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Re: Supporting Romex with Romex #109801 12/20/05 05:14 AM
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,876
E
e57 Offline
Member
"Not one violation was found."

Reguardless of the romex straps (Which I have seen done before, and hope not to see again...) There are quite a few visable violation... Just in these few pic's, the whole job is probhably littered with them...

White switch wire in #1... Others that have been mentioned. And if that romex "Strap" (not that I would call it that) has conductors in it, it is a "cable", and a violation. IMO


Mark Heller
"Well - I oughta....." -Jackie Gleason
2017 / 2014 NEC & Related Books and Study Guides
Re: Supporting Romex with Romex #109802 12/20/05 06:04 AM
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 394
B
Big Jim Offline
Member
Just on the basis of the photo, what evidence do you have that says the red/white is a switch leg and not a outlet feed? I think you'd need to wait a bit on that one.

I suspect you could find yourself in a battle over the use of dual copper-reenforced, vinyl-insulated strapping material.

Not the kind of work I'd do but I'm not sure how bad it really is.

Re: Supporting Romex with Romex #109803 12/20/05 10:04 PM
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,876
E
e57 Offline
Member
Quote
Just on the basis of the photo, what evidence do you have that says the red/white is a switch leg and not a outlet feed? I think you'd need to wait a bit on that one.
Cause it has "SSS" written on the wall next to a 3 gang....
Quote

I suspect you could find yourself in a battle over the use of dual copper-reenforced, vinyl-insulated strapping material.
Where does someone get some of that? [Linked Image]


Mark Heller
"Well - I oughta....." -Jackie Gleason
Re: Supporting Romex with Romex #109804 12/22/05 07:40 AM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 3
J
joebob982 Offline
Junior Member
those red and white wires are probably a three way switch leg where the light is either being fed and switched there at the first box, or at another wherever that three wire runs to.

Re: Supporting Romex with Romex #109805 12/22/05 10:53 PM
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,282
electure Offline OP
Member
Maybe this will help you to identify who belongs where [Linked Image]


[Linked Image]

Re: Supporting Romex with Romex #109806 01/02/06 01:08 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 91
G
georgestolz Offline
Member
Picture #1:
  • 200.7 (as mentioned)
  • I'm not a big fan of forcing the trimmer to use one conductor to bond three switches, but legal
  • Really not a fan of forcing them to do the same thing with the ungrounded conductor.
  • Are the other conductors really 6" long?

Picture #2:
  • I'll betcha this is in violation of bending radius (334.24)
  • Is that water running out of the box? [Linked Image]

Picture #3:
  • The #12's are not secured within 12" of the panel.
  • An 1.5" SER connector is not listed for umpteen NM runs.
  • I wouldn't say that the NM cables are bundled.

In conclusion, I'd say this is horrible - my work isn't all that pretty, but I do better than this in a hurry.

Quote
Big Jim wrote:
I suspect you could find yourself in a battle over the use of dual copper-reenforced, vinyl-insulated strapping material.

Do you have a hard time getting your staples approved? They're conductive and more intimate with your romex than the copper conductors in these unattractive "straps."

Quote
Socalshem wrote:
For all 3 photos see 300.11(2)(c) NEC 2002
"Cable wiring methods shall not be used as a means of support for other cables,raceways,or nonelectrical equipment."

If it's not being used as a wiring method, then this doesn't really apply.
Quote
socalchem:
Picture 2...Why not just come out of the bottom of the box and know it is safe from the drywallers?

Safer, maybe, but not safe. Carlon manufactures it's boxes super deep under the presumption that their boxes will be installed in locations not prone to drywall screws. [Linked Image]

[This message has been edited by Just George (edited 01-02-2006).]


-George
Re: Supporting Romex with Romex #109807 01/02/06 01:53 PM
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 558
R
Rewired Offline
Member
I have seen that often up here in new construction, only difference is the cables are against the stud and not " free-aired" like that... gone are the days where people took time to make it look neat in the wall, houses are not built with "quality" in mind, its all " quantity.. just git it built!"

Wow, all the romex entering under a couple of large connectors?? Not good thats a failure up here for sure!
that second pic where the cables loop over the back of the box and in... not really a violation that I can see but that is the hard way of doing it isn't it???? Like there are K/O's in the bottom of the box right? [Linked Image]

Switch loop that I see, I guess it is a pair of travelers... Up here anyway I always thought you HAD to I.D the white as something elseif its an ungrounded conductor, but I was told in school that "Neutral is ALWAYS white, but white is NOT ALWAYS a neutral"!!
As long as its a 3-way traveller OR the FEED to a switch, it may be white and does not have to be identified... ... I was also told that if you connect a white identified as a hot" to a fixture or device thats also not legal! (phasing tape is also not considered permanent in Canada, coloured heat shrink is!


A.D

[This message has been edited by Rewired (edited 01-02-2006).]

Re: Supporting Romex with Romex #109808 01/02/06 05:08 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 91
G
georgestolz Offline
Member
Quote
As long as its a 3-way traveller OR the FEED to a switch, it may be white and does not have to be identified...

200.7(C)(1)&(2) state otherwise. If the conductor is used for other than a grounded conductor, it must be re-identified.

Quote
I was also told that if you connect a white identified as a hot" to a fixture or device thats also not legal!

That part is correct, 200.7(C)(2).

Don't believe everything you hear, unless there's a code to support the "rule." [Linked Image]


-George
Re: Supporting Romex with Romex #109809 01/02/06 07:46 PM
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,154
dougwells Offline
Member
FYI George the above poster was Quoting Canadian Electrical code. [Linked Image]

Re: Supporting Romex with Romex #109810 01/03/06 07:32 PM
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 558
R
Rewired Offline
Member
Hey George sorry about that with the code thing, ( Thx Doug)... Don't forget we are all screwed up up here in Canada!! Wasn't until not too far in the past they started allowing " T-slot " receptacles and 20 A breakers supplying them... 20A circuits to feed lights AND outlets on the same branch circuit is still unheard of and illegal here... when will we ever learn! [Linked Image]

Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Featured:

2020 National Electrical Code
2020 National Electrical
Code (NEC)

* * * * * * *

2017 Master Electrician Exam Preparation Combos
2017 NEC Electrician
Exam Prep Combos:
Master / Journeyman

 

Member Spotlight
Joe Tedesco
Joe Tedesco
Boston, Massachusetts USA
Posts: 2,749
Joined: October 2000
Show All Member Profiles 
Top Posters(30 Days)
Trumpy 17
Admin 8
Popular Topics(Views)
264,537 Are you busy
199,442 Re: Forum
188,428 Need opinion
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3