Indeed, let's hope I can construct it in a way that persuades them to make a change. :grin: Looks like it will be a formidable challenge for sure.
Re-poll
- Thread starter hardworkingstiff
- Start date
- Status
Indeed, let's hope I can construct it in a way that persuades them to make a change. :grin: Looks like it will be a formidable challenge for sure.
- Location
- Massachusetts
And I got slammed here for being a hack using zip ties. :grin:
The fact is I care about having the conduits remain straight even though I do not see that as a code issue.
As far as the proposals being 'solid' what I see missing is any evidence that the current rules are leading to injures to people or losses of property.
All I see is submitters that are personally bothered to the core about an unsecured conduit.
- Location
- Massachusetts
Personally I don't think a total change is needed, there is NO REASON to securely fasten conduits running horizontally through framing members through reasonably sized holes.
I think one of the proposals was on the right track limiting the size of the opening in relation to the size of the conduit now all we would need is some real evidence that the current code rule is unsafe, not just bothersome to the anally retentive folks. :grin:
And I got slammed here for being a hack using zip ties. :grin:
The fact is I care about having the conduits remain straight even though I do not see that as a code issue.
As far as the proposals being 'solid' what I see missing is any evidence that the current rules are leading to injures to people or losses of property.
All I see is submitters that are personally bothered to the core about an unsecured conduit.
You sir are the last one I'd ever suspect of even thinking of doing hack work. :grin:
I can agree with the need for evidence being necessary, and the best way to get it IMHO is input from EC's own experiences which the CMP's seem to disregard.
I'm still waiting to see solid facts backing up the need for AFCI's and we all know how those got pushed through. :roll:
And yep, unsecured conduits do bother me a lot. Because the risks of loss of EGC path, conductor damage and a possible electrocution and/or fire are real issues.
why not practice what you preach?
- Location
- Massachusetts
I do not know what you mean.
Here on this NEC web site I preach the NEC regardless if I choose to exceed it or not on the job.
In my opinion to be good at the job we should know exactly what the NEC requires and what the job specs require.
With that info we can then make informed decesions about how we will do the job. If people are paying for Kia they will get a Kia from me, if they are paying for Rolls then that is what they will get.
gadfly56
Senior Member
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Professional Engineer, Fire & Life Safety
Doesn't seem to have been necessary for AFCI's...:roll:
- Location
- Massachusetts
I think there is plenty of evidence a device like an AFCI would be helpful:grin: but I think we are lacking evidence the AFCIs actually do what they are supposed to.
- Location
- Simi Valley, CA
I answered yes this time, because the poll question asks what the code book says. Your question is asking if it can just lay on top of the truss and be code compliant and the answer is of course no. The same as before.
- Location
- Massachusetts
If the conduit is just sitting on the top side of the bottom chord of a truss without any additional securing (other than at the boxes) it is in fact NEC compliant.
Last edited:
hardworkingstiff
Senior Member
- Location
- Wilmington, NC
OP
John, I'm afraid I don't understand your statement, you answered yes this time but it's not code compliant?
Jim W in Tampa
Senior Member
- Location
- Tampa Florida
Problem with what you just typed. You said ADDITIONAL SECURING ,laying there is NO SECURING
- Location
- Massachusetts
I have no clue what you are yelling about.
wwhitney
Senior Member
- Location
- Berkeley, CA
- Occupation
- Retired
That depends entirely on the definition of framing member. While one reference that describes steel trusses as "framing members" was found, my understanding is that is the outlier and most sources would not consider a steel truss to be a (single) framing member. Perhaps a poll on a structural engineering forum is needed to settle that issue.
Cheers, Wayne
mcclary's electrical
Senior Member
- Location
- VA
No vote , Larry?
- Location
- Simi Valley, CA
The poll question said "through framing members" which is what the code book says. The OP asked if laying it in the web of a truss was compliant and I say no. So I answered yes to the poll question and no to the OP question.
I can't believe that the same guys got it wrong twice.
It's like the old joke where two guys are sitting in the bar and the horse race comes on tv. One guy looks over and says I'll bet you $100 that number 7 comes in dead last. OK you're on. Race runs and #7 comes in dead last. Well here's your $100. I can't take your money, to tell you the truth I was at the track today when the race was run. Naw go ahead and take it, I was there too, but I didn't think that stupid horse could lose twice in a row.
Last edited:
hardworkingstiff
Senior Member
- Location
- Wilmington, NC
Then I conclude for you it depends on what a framing member is. Thanks for clearing that up.
Edit: I didn't mean for it to be a trick question. (Waiting for Larry to say something about my Cousin Vinny)
Last edited:
- Location
- Simi Valley, CA
Then I conclude for you it depends on what a framing member is. Thanks for clearing that up.
Edit: I didn't mean for it to be a trick question. (Waiting for Larry to say something about my Cousin Vinny)
. We always have to remember, in the inspection end especially, that words are important, "and/or, shall/may, always/whenever." through is through as in "through a hole" and on top of is on top of and thus not secured.I once got a letter from our code enforcement division that said I had weeds in my back yard and that I was required to mow them down. I told them that I did not have any weeds in my back yard and to leave me alone. They wrote back and told me that they had seen them and that I needed to mow them down right away. I sent them the dictonary definition of a weed which is "an unwanted plant", I told them I wanted them and there fore was in compliance.
Jim W in Tampa
Senior Member
- Location
- Tampa Florida
I once got a letter from our code enforcement division that said I had weeds in my back yard and that I was required to mow them down. I told them that I did not have any weeds in my back yard and to leave me alone. They wrote back and told me that they had seen them and that I needed to mow them down right away. I sent them the dictonary definition of a weed which is "an unwanted plant", I told them I wanted them and there fore was in compliance.
OK but i am confused on your vote change. You said use the word AND
- Status