Re-poll

[LarryFine]

Give it up, it's done. :grin:

I'm so confused. What's "the" conclusion? Intermediate securing needed or not?

 

[jusme123]

Don cleared that up entirely, he provided the names for the parts that make up the truss and showed that the http://www.icc-es.org/ considers a truss a framing member and that should be a rock solid source of that type of info.

Give it up, it's done. :grin:

anybody have a sharpy I can borrow, mine's out! Now I can agree with you!

....and shall be securely fastened in place --- supported in accordance with 358.30(A) --- (B) or permitted to be unsupported in accordance with 358.30 (C).

 

[roger]

I'm so confused. What's "the" conclusion? Intermediate securing needed or not?

See the poll

Roger

 

[charlie b]

Listen. I can provide documented proof that I am right about this. Just give me 10 minutes, then go check Wikipedia!

 

[LarryFine]

See the poll

Is the majority correct because they're the majority, or are they the majority because they're correct?


As Judge Mills Lane used to say, "I'm not final because I'm right; I'm right because I'm final!"

He would have made a great inspector.

 

[LarryFine]

Listen. I can provide documented proof that I am right about this. Just give me 10 minutes, then go check Wikipedia!

We need Electripedia.

 

[roger]

are they the majority because they're correct?

Yes.

Roger

 

[mxslick]

Are you serious or kidding?:-?

I'm serious as I have seen EMT in installations that looked like snakes and had separated couplings because it was not SECURED at the required intervals. The EC's I have worked for would never even allow an installation that wasn't secured properly.

Like Jim said, common sense has to take hold here and if the CMP is too darn blind or stupid to see the issue, then it's time the CMP had some new members put in place.

It does NOT take that much more time or effort to secure the blasted conduit at the proper intervals. Sheesh.:roll:

 

[roger]

It does NOT take that much more time or effort to secure the blasted conduit at the proper intervals. Sheesh.:roll:

Doesn't matter, it's not required.

Roger

 

[mxslick]

Doesn't matter, it's not required.

Roger

So you would compromise the quality of your work simply because it's not required? :-? This is something that does not substantially increase the cost in material or labor to ensure a SAFE, SECURE and professional looking installation.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I take pride in my work and I frequently go above Code minimums to make sure that what I install not only is durable but looks better than the other guys' so I'm the one who gets the callbacks to do more work. :grin:

 

[mcclary's electrical]

So you would compromise the quality of your work simply because it's not required? :-? This is something that does not substantially increase the cost in material or labor to ensure a SAFE, SECURE and professional looking installation.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I take pride in my work and I frequently go above Code minimums to make sure that what I install not only is durable but looks better than the other guys' so I'm the one who gets the callbacks to do more work. :grin:

MX, I don't think he's debating the way he would do it, but rather how the code is written. You should know that

 

[iwire]

I'm serious

I was not asking if you would secure it, I was asking if you seriously still believed the NEC requires it to be secured?

as I have seen EMT in installations that looked like snakes and had separated couplings because it was not SECURED

Anything can happen and often does.

at the required intervals.

That has been the question all along, what is required, not what is better.

The EC's I have worked for would never even allow an installation that wasn't secured properly.

Again what is 'properly' if the it is installed per the NEC IMO it is done properly even though it could be done better.

Like Jim said, common sense has to take hold here and if the CMP is too darn blind or stupid to see the issue, then it's time the CMP had some new members put in place.

Perfect, again the tradesman that is sure they know so much more than 100 years of code making.:roll:

Here are the folks you feel you know better than

Joseph Dabe, City of St. Paul, MN [L]
Rep. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

George R. Dauberger, Thomas & Betts Corporation, TN [M]
Rep. National Electrical Manufacturers Association

James C. Dollins, Tyco/AFC Cable Systems, MA [M]
Rep. The Aluminum Association

James T. Dwight, Sasol North America, Inc., LA
Rep. American Chemistry Council

M. Shan Griffith, Kellogg, Brown & Root, Inc., TX
Rep. Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers, Inc.

David G. Humphrey, County of Henrico, Virginia, VA [E]
Rep. International Association of Electrical Inspectors

David H. Kendall, Carlon, Lamson & Sessions, OH [M]
Rep. Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc.

Richard E. Loyd, R & N Associates, AZ [M]
Rep. American Iron and Steel Institute

Stephen P. Poholski, Newkirk Electric Associates, Inc., MI
[IM]Rep. National Electrical Contractors Association

George F. Walbrecht, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT]

Leslie R. Zielke, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company,
SC [UT]
Rep. Electric Light & Power Group/EEI

Alternates

Richard J. Berman, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., IL [RT]
(Alt. to G. F. Walbrecht)

Joyce Evans Blom, The Dow Chemical Company, CA
(Alt. to J. T. Dwight)

Duane A. Carlson, PRS Consulting Engineers, WA
(Alt. to M. S. Griffith)

Charles W. Forsberg, Shaker Heights, OH [M]
(Alt. to D. H. Kendall)

James M. Imlah, City of Hillsboro, OR [E]
(Alt. to D. G. Humphrey)

Kevin J. Lippert, Eaton Corporation, PA [M]
(Alt. to G. R. Dauberger)

Gregory L. Maurer, Wheatland Tube Company, AR [M]
(Alt. to R. E. Loyd)

Gary W. Pemble, Montana Electrical JATC, MT [L]
(Alt. to J. Dabe)

C. Ernest Reynolds, Hatfield-Reynolds Electric Company,
AZ [IM]
(Alt. to J. R. Burns)

Richard Temblador, Southwire Company, GA [M]
(Alt. to J. C. Dollins)

The code is written by us, submit a proposal with more substantiation then a personal opinion and it may get accepted.

It does NOT take that much more time or effort to secure the blasted conduit

That was never the subject of the threads was it?

 

[mxslick]

MX, I don't think he's debating the way he would do it, but rather how the code is written. You should know that

It didn't read that way. :grin:

But no matter what he does, I cannot agree with the idea expressed in his statement.

The Code isn't ALWAYS right or safe and this situation is a prime example of how wrong the Code is.

 

[iwire]

The Code isn't ALWAYS right or safe and this situation is a prime example of how wrong the Code is.

Because you have deemed it so.

You don't find that the least bit egotistical?

I mean hell, I have an ego as large as Antarctica :grin: but I still cannot convince myself I know more than 100 plus years of code making overlooked by 1000s of educated people.

 

[roger]

MX, I don't think he's debating the way he would do it, but rather how the code is written. You should know that

McClarry is right, the conversation is about code so you can get down out of your high horse saddle now.

Yes, I would have my people put a piece of tie wire around it at intervalls but I wouldn't be to concerned about the spacing nor would I make a special trip back to a job site if it were not done.

Roger

 

[roger]

The Code isn't ALWAYS right or safe

Yes it is

Roger

 

[iwire]

Yes, I would have my people put a piece of tie wire around it at intervalls but I wouldn't be to concerned about the spacing nor would I make a special trip back to a job site if it were not done.

I ran a crew doing a fire alarm system for a new Lowes, I had the guys use tie wraps to secure the 3/4" EMTs to the trusses.

 

[mxslick]

I was not asking if you would secure it, I was asking if you seriously still believed the NEC requires it to be secured?

The way I interpret it, yes. And as I said in my first post on this thread, nothing anyone has said so far has conclusively proven otherwise. (If that were the case we wouldn't even be having this new thread continuing the debate.)

Anything can happen and often does.

Absolutely. And it is the EC's responsibility to take any reasonable precautions to ensure his/her installation is adequate to the task, safe and if they have any integrity at all, durable. I cannot believe that so many people here who make their living in this trade cannot seem to grasp that philosophy.

That has been the question all along, what is required, not what is better.

Agreed. But there is a serious shortcoming in the "requirement" as spelled out by the Code.

Again what is 'properly' if the it is installed per the NEC IMO it is done properly even though it could be done better.

My problem here is that the NEC is NOT doing it properly, and it NEEDS to be better than what the NEC spells out.

Perfect, again the tradesman that is sure they know so much more than 100 years of code making.:roll:

Darn right. It is the TRADESMAN, the one with the real-world experience, that see first-hand[/B what is actually required as opposed to those who manufacture or design. That is how products have evolved and become better, the companies who listen to the end users and tradesmen, improve their products based on that input. (In my current industry there are some manufacturers who didn't listen to the techs and end users and they are long gone. The companies that did are still around and I am in a niche industry.)

The code is written by us, submit a proposal with more substantiation then a personal opinion and it may get accepted.

I may just do that. Hopefully this time they'll listen. The proposals posted so far seemed pretty solid to me though.

Here are the folks you feel you know better than

Great. :roll: I see a manufacturer, union rep, chemical rep(?), aluminum co rep, UL rep (one who should know better), and a POCO rep amongst others. I don't see ANY one there or in the alternates who would have real-world, hands-on experience which is what would be relevant here. Where are the master electricians, and folks like you, Bob, as you have done many installs and have the practical experience required to see the base issues at hand which so far you don't seem to disagree with. We just can't agree that it is not a compliant install.

That was never the subject of the threads was it?

The required effort to do it RIGHT as opposed to Code-Minimum, yes you are correct.

 

[mxslick]

Because you have deemed it so.

You don't find that the least bit egotistical?

I mean hell, I have an ego as large as Antarctica :grin: but I still cannot convince myself I know more than 100 plus years of code making overlooked by 1000s of educated people.

LOL yes I have spoken. :grin:

I work with some of the biggest egos in the world and it does rub off. :grin:

No, I do not know more than the other folks but I can see the obvious shortcomings in the Code.

McClarry is right, the conversation is about code so you can get down out of your high horse saddle now.

Yes, I would have my people put a piece of tie wire around it at intervalls but I wouldn't be to concerned about the spacing nor would I make a special trip back to a job site if it were not done.

Roger

I don't own a horse. :grin:

Roger, as I said, (see post#73) and I do agree that mcclary is right, the way it read did not read the way you meant it to. It was too abrupt and read as if you personally expressed that position.

Yes it is

Roger

Ok, if the Code is ALWAYS RIGHT and ALWAYS SAFE, then why is constantly being revised? :grin:

If it was perfect it would have been finalized many cycles ago and the only thing we'd ever see is a few amendment pages for new products/methods. :grin:

I ran a crew doing a fire alarm system for a new Lowes, I had the guys use tie wraps to secure the 3/4" EMTs to the trusses.

See? Bob knows how to do it right despite what the Code says!!:grin:

 

[roger]

The proposals posted so far seemed pretty solid to me though.

They are solid and the concensus was that there is no need to change things but, put your own wording together and see how it goes.

Roger