Burrito Q: Fastening of EMT

[M. D.]

I think Charlie nailed it.

Paragraph "A" says they do, paragraph "B" has nothing to contradict that, and the words before paragraph "A" tell us to do "A" and "B."

Keep in mind that "A" and "B" talk about different things. They are not different approaches to the same task. One speaks of securely fastening something. The other does not say it's OK (under certain conditions) not to securely fasten that something.

I just can't make it work out your way, Bob.

 

[mxslick]

hey I was impressed with the young mans play..but not impressed with unsecured conduit..laying in webbing may be supported but not secured..

Bingo!! We have a winner!!

My vote stays NO, NO, NO for this very reason!!

Supported is NOT always secured!!

For example, you can lie down in a hammock and be supported, but roll over and you'll find out the hard way you are NOT secured in that hammock.

So I don't care what anyone else tries to argue, but conduit laying in roof trusses (or within framing members) is SUPPORTED BUT NOT SECURE!! :grin:

From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

Main Entry: 1sup?port
Pronunciation: \sə-ˈpȯrt\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French supporter, from Late Latin supportare, from Latin, to transport, from sub- + portare to carry — more at fare
Date: 14th century

1 : to endure bravely or quietly : bear
2 a (1) : to promote the interests or cause of (2) : to uphold or defend as valid or right : advocate <supports fair play> (3) : to argue or vote for <supported the motion to lower taxes> b (1) : assist, help <bombers supported the ground troops> (2) : to act with (a star actor) (3) : to bid in bridge so as to show support for c : to provide with substantiation : corroborate <support an alibi>
3 a : to pay the costs of : maintain <support a family> b : to provide a basis for the existence or subsistence of <the island could probably support three — A. B. C. Whipple> <support a habit>
4 a : to hold up or serve as a foundation or prop for b : to maintain (a price) at a desired level by purchases or loans; also : to maintain the price of by purchases or loans
5 : to keep from fainting, yielding, or losing courage : comfort
6 : to keep (something) going


and:

Main Entry: 2secure
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): se?cured; se?cur?ing
Date: 1588

transitive verb 1 a : to relieve from exposure to danger : act to make safe against adverse contingencies <secure a supply line from enemy raids> b : to put beyond hazard of losing or of not receiving : guarantee <secure the blessings of liberty — United States Constitution> c : to give pledge of payment to (a creditor) or of (an obligation) <secure a note by a pledge of collateral>
2 a : to take (a person) into custody : hold fast : pinion b : to make fast <secure a door> <secure a bike to a tree>
3 a : to get secure usually lasting possession or control of <secure a job> b : bring about, effect
4 : to release (naval personnel) from work or dutyintransitive verb 1 of naval personnel : to stop work : go off duty
2 of a ship : to tie up : berth
synonyms see ensure

— se?cur?er noun

Oh yeah, here's another KEY definition:

Main Entry: fas?ten
Pronunciation: \ˈfa-sən\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): fas?tened; fas?ten?ing \ˈfas-niŋ, ˈfa-sən-iŋ\
Etymology: Middle English fastnen, from Old English f?stnian to make fast; akin to Old High German festinōn to make fast, Old English f?st fast
Date: before 12th century

transitive verb 1 a : to attach especially by pinning, tying, or nailing b : to make fast and secure c : to fix firmly or securely d : to secure against opening
2 : to fix or set steadily <fastened her attention on the main problem>
3 : to take a firm grip with <the dog fastened its teeth in the shoe>
4 a : to attach (oneself) persistently and usually objectionably b : to place forcefully : impose <fastened the blame on the wrong person>intransitive verb 1 : to become fast or fixed
2 a : to take a firm grip or hold b : to focus attention

— fas?ten?er \ˈfas-nər, ˈfa-sən-ər\ noun
synonyms fasten, fix, attach, affix mean to make something stay firmly in place. fasten implies an action such as tying, buttoning, nailing, locking, or otherwise securing <fasten the reins to a post>. fix usually implies a driving in, implanting, or embedding <fixed the stake in the ground>. attach suggests a connecting or uniting by a bond, link, or tie in order to keep things together <attach the W-2 form here>. affix implies an imposing of one thing on another by gluing, impressing, or nailing <affix your address label here>.


The wording of the Code needs some work if they cannot grasp the difference in these two words.

But it is crystal clear that a conduit laying in truss webs is supported, but NOT secured.

 

[roger]

But it is crystal clear that a conduit laying in truss webs is supported, but NOT secured.

Bingo, another winner, that is all the NEC requires.

Roger

 

[roger]

I think Charlie nailed it.

As well as the rest of the minority.

Roger

 

[iwire]

But it is crystal clear that a conduit laying in truss webs is supported, but NOT secured.

We agree and I do not think a single person in this thread has disagreed with that statement.

In the case of conduit passing horizontally through framing members that is all the NEC requires is support beyond three feet from terminations.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

I find it hard to believe that some of usually bright on code members can't follow the simple wording here.
"I think that the last three words of B - "shall be permitted" - are exactly the words in B that undo part of A."
It is talking about SUPPORTING here not securing
You start by meeting requirements of A on securing
it then gives you the word AND
Now we read B and it tells us requirements of SUPPORTING
Had they ment either it would have said OR
If i go to a restraunt and order a steak AND salad i will be very upset if all i get is the salad.
Nothing could be more clear.
Will agree it was redundant to mention straping within 3 feet but nec repeats itself many times on things that were alread in print.
Has anyone ever seen a permited and inspected job where there was 100 feet of EMT just laying on the truss without tie wires or anything ?????????
Not likely because the red tag would say needs straped within every 10 feet.
SECURING is not SUPPORTING sometimes we can do both at same time but one without the other is not allowed.

 

[iwire]

I find it hard to believe that some of usually bright on code members can't follow the simple wording here.

Apparently a majority of people feel differently then you including one that makes his living teaching the code and writing books on the code.:grin:

 

[roger]

Apparently a majority of people feel differently then you including one that makes his living teaching the code and writing books on the code.:grin:

As well as Mark Earley, Jeff Sargent, Joseph Sheehan, and William Buss.

Roger

 

[wwhitney]

Jim, the question is regarding framing members, roof trusses are framing members.

FWIW, I would not consider tne entire roof truss to be one framing member. Rather, it is an assembly of individual framing members, the truss members.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[iwire]

FWIW, I would not consider tne entire roof truss to be one framing member.

If you look at the ROP I posted it seems the code making panel considers a truss to be a framing member.

I have never seen a metal truss arrive on site in individual pieces, it is as a whole a framing member.

 

[M. D.]

Apparently a majority of people feel differently then you including one that makes his living teaching the code and writing books on the code.:grin:

That guy once had me bonding window frames thanks to the graphics in some of those books:grin::roll:

 

[charlie b]

I am going to try to make this point one more time, then I am going to stop caring. It is not as if I am in line for a free burrito. :roll:

Apparently a majority of people feel differently then you including one that makes his living teaching the code and writing books on the code.

As well as Mark Earley, Jeff Sargent, Joseph Sheehan, and William Buss.

If you look at the ROP I posted it seems the code making panel considers a truss to be a framing member.

I infer you two are referring to the information given in Post 48.

I have to make the following statement, and this is not just a statement of my opinion. This is fact. Charlie?s Rule makes it fact. Look at the words written in the ROP, and you will see nothing, absolutely nothing, that tells us anything about the CMP?s opinion regarding supports, or securing, or distances, or the price of tea in China, for it says nothing whatsoever, other than the following two things: (1) We do not choose to approve this proposal, and (2) We made that choice because not enough substantiation was provided.

We do not know their opinions on the merits of the proposal. We do not know whether they liked the idea, but just couldn?t justify approval because of a procedural issue. It is the same thing as a teacher marking a student with a failing grade, even though he gave the correct answer, for no other reason than that the student forgot to raise his hand before blurting out the answer.

I throw down the gauntlet of Charlie?s Rule, and I challenge anyone to reread post 48, and find anything that states the CMP did not agree in principal with, or did not find any merit in, the proposal. We see in that post Bob?s statement of his interpretation of the CMP?s opinion, but we do not see the CMP?s opinion itself.

You may be right about how the CMP feels. But post 48 does not prove you are right.

 

[hardworkingstiff]

Jim, Jim, Jim

Jim, Jim, Jim

If you are correct, then there would be no reason at all to but B in the code since (according to your logic) we still need to comply with A.

Sorry Sir, I think you are......... not correct.


Edit: If you look at the handbook (yes I know it's not "code", but it is pretty much accepted by AHJ's), it sends you to look at the commentary following 342.30(B)(4). If you are going to approach this subject with an open mind, you must ask why are they sending me to that commentary? I interpret it to mean the same logic applies to EMT, why else would they send you to that commentary?

 

[roger]

Charlie, I was referring to post # 34 and I think Bob was referring to Mike when he posted "Apparently a majority of people feel differently then you including one that makes his living teaching the code and writing books on the code."

Roger

 

[iwire]

If you are correct, then there would be no reason at all to but B in the code since (according to your logic) we still need to comply with A.

That is in a nutshell, at least to me.

B has no point at all if we still have to meet A.

 

[iwire]

I am going to try to make this point one more time, then I am going to stop caring. It is not as if I am in line for a free burrito. :roll: I infer you two are referring to the information given in Post 48.

I have to make the following statement, and this is not just a statement of my opinion. This is fact. Charlie’s Rule makes it fact. Look at the words written in the ROP, and you will see nothing, absolutely nothing, that tells us anything about the CMP’s opinion regarding supports, or securing, or distances, or the price of tea in China, for it says nothing whatsoever, other than the following two things: (1) We do not choose to approve this proposal, and (2) We made that choice because not enough substantiation was provided.

We do not know their opinions on the merits of the proposal. We do not know whether they liked the idea, but just couldn’t justify approval because of a procedural issue. It is the same thing as a teacher marking a student with a failing grade, even though he gave the correct answer, for no other reason than that the student forgot to raise his hand before blurting out the answer.

I throw down the gauntlet of Charlie’s Rule, and I challenge anyone to reread post 48, and find anything that states the CMP did not agree in principal with, or did not find any merit in, the proposal. We see in that post Bob’s statement of his interpretation of the CMP’s opinion, but we do not see the CMP’s opinion itself.

You may be right about how the CMP feels. But post 48 does not prove you are right.

Charlie I see no facts in your post, only your opinion of the facts.

If you spend time reading ROPs you would know that if the proposal was already covered by the code they CMP would say so.

In other words when the proposal suggested a limit to how much movement B allows the CMP would have said 'It's already addressed in A because A requires the conduit to be securely fasted'.

Lastly I am sorry that you no longer care if your are wrong. :grin:.

 

[charlie b]

B has no point at all if we still have to meet A.

Then I guess someone should write a proposed change for the 2014, and get them to remove the word "and" from the phrase "A and B." The words are what the words are, regardless of whatever point they may or may not make.

 

[iwire]

That guy once had me bonding window frames thanks to the graphics in some of those books:grin::roll:

:grin:

I agree and have already conceded no one is 100% all of the time.

 

[iwire]

Then I guess someone should write a proposed change for the 2014, and get them to remove the word "and" from the phrase "A and B." The words are what the words are, regardless of whatever point they may or may not make.

That I agree with, of course the CMP will probably say it is already clear. :grin:

 

[charlie b]

If you spend time reading ROPs you would know that if the proposal was already covered by the code they CMP would say so.

They might. But they don't have to. All we know is what they did say, and what they did say was, "Disapproved, because you didn't say 'Mother may I.' "

Lastly I am sorry that you no longer care if your are wrong.

I am not wrong. Perhaps the words in the code are wrong, if they do not accurately convey what the CMP desires them to say. Have I not said all along that my views are based solely on the words, as written?