0 members (),
205
guests, and
28
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 984 Likes: 1
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
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 202
Member
|
VERTICAL: HORIZONTAL Decide on the day what you need & if what you have is wrong, turn the mechanisms 90 degrees
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 849
Member
|
I think the Chicago Codes wayyyyyyy Better then the NEC. Yoopers
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,213
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: 9,928 Likes: 34
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: 3
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
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
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
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: 3
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 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 ....
|
|
|
Posts: 44
Joined: July 2013
|
|
|
|