Burrito Q: Fastening of EMT

Learn the NEC with Mike Holt now!

Burrito Q: Fastening of EMT

  • Total voters
    72
Status
Not open for further replies.
George Stolz said:
I don't think offering a detailed summary of the facts at hand to be improper. As I see it, both sides have valid points, and to ignore those points from either the majority or minority opinion would be doing a disservice to the two guys who had interest in the topic.
Click to expand...


So if you were a chief referee over a group of referees on a football field and a touchdown was questioned by a 1/3 to 2/3 concensus, you would compromise and give four points for the score?


Roger
 
Jim W in Tampa said:
Can anyone show me anyplace in the code where it says we can ignore A if we meet B ????
Click to expand...

Sorry, Jim, but I've got to repeat my post #105 here:

Charlie:

Then why does B repeat the part about about securing the conduit within 3' of the termination points? That's already covered in A.

I think that the last three words of B - "shall be permitted" - are exactly the words in B that undo part of A.

Steve
Click to expand...

I think the phrase "shall be permitted" does exactly that.

BTW, Jim, I don't think anyone ever said an installation like this would look good, or would be accepted by the owner, or by the foreman, or anyone other than the code official. I agree, leaving the conduit unsecured would be crappy work, but I think it is allowed per the NEC.

For an example thats maybe a little more grey, say the trusses are spaced every 6'. Someone might be tempted to secure the conduit at every other truss - 12' on centers. I think that would be code compliant, and fairly well done work. However, it sounds like you wouldn't allow this at all per A.

Steve
 
I voted non-compliant. The NEC does not define secured or supported so we can use the dictionary def. Both words mean essentially to maintain in position. Therefore A and B mean the same thing. Secure or support at 10 ft interval. An unstrapped pipe will NOT stay in place. I would not accept.
 
roger said:
So if you were a chief referee over a group of referees on a football field and a touchdown was questioned by a 1/3 to 2/3 concensus, you would compromise and give four points for the score?


Roger
Click to expand...

No. In your case it's either a touchdown or it's not. The Chief referee is the one that goes into the review booth and makes the decision. If he agrees you get 6 points if he doesn't you don't.
 
I still do not believe that "...supported by openings through framing members..." is the same as "...supported by laying on top of framing members...".
 
cowboyjwc said:
No. In your case it's either a touchdown or it's not. The Chief referee is the one that goes into the review booth and makes the decision. If he agrees you get 6 points if he doesn't you don't.
Click to expand...

I know how it works and when the decision is made its a touchdown or it isn't. In this case the review booth was the poll (like it or not) and the decision should have been conclusive at the time the two parties were made aware of the vote win or loose. It seems as though that didn't happen seeing as it was given a 60/40 rulling.

I guess we could take any poll or election and split it up to a percentage for what have you. This way the tasks, office, winnings, etc... could be split up between all parties in the running to their respective percentage of the vote. :roll:

Roger
 
roger said:
I know how it works and when the decision is made its a touchdown or it isn't. In this case the review booth was the poll (like it or not) and the decision should have been conclusive at the time the two parties were made aware of the vote win or loose. It seems as though that didn't happen seeing as it was given a 60/40 rulling.

I guess we could take any poll or election and split it up to a percentage for what have you. This way the tasks, office, winnings, etc... could be split up between all parties in the running to their respective percentage of the vote. :roll:

Roger
Click to expand...

A true statistician could also say the 60% of you are wrong too.:D
 
I voted compliant, because that is what my interpretation is. However comma, I wouldn't do it that way without some additional tie wire at intervals. I knew the gentleman that submitted the proposal that Iwire referenced several pages back. It has some merit in my mind. I appreciate all your opinions, and learn something here daily. One thing today is that we all don't have the same interpretation of what is written...which is also why we have lawyers and CMP's?

The other point to remember is that the NEC isn't the only thing we need to consider. As Cowboy pointed out many job specs(all that I can remember) require structural engineer's approval to touch, support, hang, anything from the bottom chord.
 
We seem to be at a dead end road over this.
Only thing that will change my vote of NO is someone to tell me where in the code it says AND means EITHER. Had they meant OR they would have said so.
NEC says what it says . A and B not A or B . Clear that up and i will jump ship.
 
Bob , it says what it says . They may not have meant for it to say it ,.. but it says it none the less..
 
iwire said:
So IYO I have to securly fasten conduits running horizontally more than 10' through holes in 2 x 4 studs? (assuming I have secured them at the termination points?
Click to expand...

Now your back to WALLS. In walls it is required but not inforced as hard. It can't move much in a wall. I would tie them down anyways just to keep them from ratling and they do make straps for it.

The OP was about trusses so lets focus on that.

I am assuming you would not do hack work like this even if it was legal.

I was taught commercial by a company that demanded quality. We often went far past required min.

And yes the code says what it says. They might not meant it but we are all stuck with it.
Let's get Mike in on this one. I know the reason behind him creating the forum. He sees the weak areas and helps us. I did buy his course and he is one smart man.
 
roger said:
I know how it works and when the decision is made its a touchdown or it isn't. In this case the review booth was the poll (like it or not) and the decision should have been conclusive at the time the two parties were made aware of the vote win or loose. It seems as though that didn't happen seeing as it was given a 60/40 rulling.

I guess we could take any poll or election and split it up to a percentage for what have you. This way the tasks, office, winnings, etc... could be split up between all parties in the running to their respective percentage of the vote. :roll:

Roger
Click to expand...
When the newscasters cover the game, do they simply declare a team's victory without announcing the score, or showing highlights?

It wasn't my job to ensure payment, they just wanted to know who was right. My first comment was "Well, Timmy won, but..."

Not quite sure what you're driving at, Roger.
 
George Stolz said:
When the newscasters cover the game, do they simply declare a team's victory without announcing the score, or showing highlights?
Click to expand...
And I would expect the two participants here to know the details

George Stolz said:
It wasn't my job to ensure payment, they just wanted to know who was right. My first comment was "Well, Timmy won,
Click to expand...
Which is what I was driving at, per the poll vote Timmy won and there should be no splitting the burrito
George Stolz said:
but..."
Click to expand...
I agree, the results should be shown and explained but the results, winner verses looser, are what they are.

Roger
 
Last edited:
Jim W in Tampa said:
Not how i read it. Says we must do A AND B . Straping and supporting are 2 differant things.
B allows you to use the truss as SUPPORT ,you still need to apply A
Click to expand...

A includes B (IMO). In other words, when you strap, you support.

If you support, you do not necessarily strap.

If you always have to do A, what is the purpose of B?

I was never very good in sentence structure but I think 358.30 could be a bit better worded.
 
Thank you George for a most entertaining and enlightening debate. While both sides have merit, I still see the two (securing and supporting) as mutually exclusive. (i.e. if you are securing, see A and if you are supporting, see B).

Thanks again George.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top